From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Skip to top
Skip to bottom

My edits in Psychedelic drug. Why they have been removed if Psychedelic therapy poses risks and we know the history of it?[edit]

why did my edits in Psychedelic drug page got removed. Psychedelic therapy is not safe. And it poses some risks and we need to talk about that. There were cases where people in Psychedelic therapy have mental health worse and even psychologists are now criticising It. We know where it went in 60s and I don't want society full of esoterics who believe Mind over body. Or people that their mental health got worse after going through it. Risks should never be hidden and underestimated, we should openly talk about them Matejstein12 (talk) 11:35, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The information you added was completely unreferenced. All information in Wikipedia must be reliably sourced. Please see WP:42. Shantavira|feed me 11:38, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just going to add that articles about medical matters tend to be even more highly scrutinized and require even stronger sourcing as explained here that perhaps is required for other types of articles. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:31, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
but Will be there some balanced information about this therapy, because psychedelic drugs are still unpredictable. If I cannot add that, will you? Because people need to have information why yes and Why no. If there is no balanced info, it Feels like they want turn us into mystics so we can be more easily manipulated. So there should definitely be balanced information about psychedelics and therapy part Matejstein12 (talk) 15:47, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We're very much in favour of balanced information. Per WP:42 you simply need to find significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. Shantavira|feed me 17:15, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
but someone really should add risks associated with psychedelic therapy. No one can't be just silent about that like if they didn't exist. If there are professional editors than they should add benefits and risks. Matejstein12 (talk) 16:34, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No one is silent about them I promise. If you actually went to somewhere that provided psychedelic therapy, they would strongly advise it as a last resort and for people who are extremely resistant to other forms of treatment and they definitely warn them of the risks. And if someone wants psychedelics purely for therapeutic aspect of it then they should talk to a doctor about the risks first and not just take drugs on the street. (talk) 13:23, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Matejstein12: Too often new editors think that "balanced information" means "equal weight to all sides". No, it doesn't. That's WP:FALSEBALANCE. We don't "balance" our article on Earth to include the views of flat-earth adherants, for example. Information in the article should be presented according to the weight given by reliable sources. As a consequence, WP:FRINGE views typically don't get presented in articles. If you want to add something to an article, you need to find a reliable source that covers it. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:04, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

but psychedelic therapy has a risks. This is supposed to talk about it, not being silent about it. There must be Open minded information about benefits and risks. So if Someone can do that, Then he or she should. Matejstein12 (talk) 16:32, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Once you have appropriate sources, you may do so. Not before. 331dot (talk) 16:35, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As someone who's had some incredibly powerful psychedelic experiences, both positive and (potentially) negative, I'm sympathetic to OP's concern, even though he's not a Wikilawyer.
I also believe that there are situations where important and valuable information falls through the cracks due to Wikipedia's idiosyncratic sourcing requirements. This could be an example. The statement "taking psychedelics is risky" is not even in the same universe as "the earth is flat", so I reject that analogy and reject the invocation of WP:FALSEBALANCE. Go take 1000ug of LSD and then tell me that concerns about psychological safety are "fringe". Psychedelics do, indeed, have the capacity to be very dangerous, and anyone who's experimented with them at high doses knows this for a fact, whether or not any "RS" says it - which, if they don't, is very negligent and irresponsible of them.
Over the years, I've been a trip sitter many, many times. If someone asked me for advice about tripping, and I painted a picture as rosy as the one the Wikipedia article paints, that would be recklessly irresponsible of me. It would be a shame if someone took psychedelics unwisely because of an overly-cheery Wikipedia article about the topic, and I'd be almost tempted to invoke WP:IAR if there was no mention of the dangers of psychedelics in the "psychedelic drug" article.
Passages like this one in the lede are of particular concern: " Research has been conducted, however, and studies show that psychedelics are physiologically safe and rarely lead to addiction." - physiologically safe, sure, but this makes no mention of the fact that you may be psychologically devastated for weeks, months, or years if you take these things improperly.
However, the "psychedelic therapy" subsection of the psychedelic drug page does include the following passage: "As of 2022, the body of high-quality evidence on psychedelic therapy remains relatively small and more, larger studies are needed to reliably show the effectiveness and safety of psychedelic therapy's various forms and applications."
This is, at least, an acknowledgement that there are unresolved safety concerns that necessitate further scientific study. Also, there is an entire section called "adverse effects" here.
I think a concrete improvement that can be made to the article to address OP's well-founded concerns is to include a mention of the "Adverse effects" section in the lede, rather than only presenting positive information in the lede. These adverse effects would ideally be mentioned directly after the passage that states "psychedelics are physiologically safe. Pecopteris (talk) 19:05, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Pecopteris, feel free to start working on such improvements at the article, or at least to start a talk page discussion about making such improvements (as opposed to carrying on such a discussion here at the Teahouse, where interested parties are less likely to take notice, and to avoid splitting discussion across multiple pages). (talk) 19:20, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good point. I've started a new section at the article's talk page. I invite everyone to move the conversation to that thread. Pecopteris (talk) 19:33, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can someone kindly help review my draft; I was told it has no sources[edit]

Hello House, I'd be most appreciative if someone much more experienced can kindly look through my draft for me. I had apparently posted it prematurely and it was then reviewed and sent back to drafts with the note that it has no sources. This was confusing for me as over 15 sources had been cited in the article. Thanks in advance. FlawlessTouch (talk) 12:47, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I assume this is about Draft:Kolade Shasi. That message looks incorrect. The article does have sources, as specified. I'm not really familiar with the subject or the sources, but I think the best way of getting the draft to be accepted would be to focus on his appearance at the Cannes Film Festival. That should have appeared in multiple international magazines or news outlets, particularly if he's won an award. That should show most people that the subject had achieved international importance in multiple respected sources. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:57, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Aha! Thank you, if he had stated that there weren’t enough reliable sources then that would have helped but he just stated that there were no sources, which is confusing. Your suggestions are helpful. Thanks again. FlawlessTouch (talk) 13:47, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@FlawlessTouch: it is true, as Ritchie333 says, that the article/draft does have sources, however... five of them are not considered reliable, one source (cited three times) doesn't work, at least two are interviews, and some may be based on publicity materials; therefore WP:GNG notability is unlikely to have been fully established. Also, there is quite a lot of biographical detail which is unreferenced, directly contravening the WP:BLP rules. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:43, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Aaah, I see, thanks for the clarification, this is certainly more helpful as the original reviewer just stated that there were no sources and as such, that was confusing. Can you be kind enough to point out which source doesn’t work and maybe why it doesn’t work also. Thank you FlawlessTouch (talk) 13:49, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@FlawlessTouch: the script (MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft) that can be used to draftify articles preselects by default the 'no sources' option, and unless the draftifying editor deselects that option, it gets given as a reason. Probably what happened here. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:54, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Noted. Thanks for the clarification FlawlessTouch (talk) 21:52, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The source (refs #9, 10, 20) returns a 'site cannot be reached' error; I've no idea why. (cited four times) and Linda Ikeji's Blog are not considered reliable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:59, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh! I must have made a mistake with The US Times link… Thanks for letting me know, I’d check it and correct it. Thanks! FlawlessTouch (talk) 21:54, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply] is unreliable anyway - it isn't a real news site, it is a place set up for PR teams to place puff pieces and promotion. MrOllie (talk) 22:26, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edit Warring[edit]

Please assist. I am stuck in an edit war with the intent of the other party clearly showing malicious content with the aim of casting a bad light on a profile. Unfounded accusations are made in an attempt to cast shadows on a person. Can a profile be locked on request of the person in question so edits cannot be allowed? Regards Wisdommonitor (talk) 10:36, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have been repeatedly removing sourced content. Instead of edit warring you should discuss this on the talk page of the article. If you continue to edit war your account may be blocked. Shantavira|feed me 10:43, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OP is a brazen COI account. They were warned about their edit-warring and COI status in 2021, but have returned to engage in the same behavior. Thenightaway (talk) 11:31, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is about Tale Heydarov, and edit disputes do date back to 2021. The involved editors have not attempted to solve this on the Talk page. David notMD (talk) 11:46, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your account has been involved in original placement of unfounded content in 2021 and there seems to be malicious intent involved to place this individual in bad light. I will take this up in the talk page of Tale Heydarov Wisdommonitor (talk) 07:49, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Links Not Approving[edit]

Hi, I've started an article about a song but when I added the links like YouTube links or external links the thing is it's not publishing which I have created as a draft on my sandbox. XERI MUSIC (talk) 17:34, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Courtesy link: User:XERI_MUSIC/sandbox TheLonelyPather (talk) 17:56, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@XERI MUSIC Hello and welcome to the teahouse. To clarify, do you mean to add external links as references to your draft article? Please be mindful that
  • Your draft was declined because it shows no references. Read WP:CITE for this.
  • I do not encourage you to use YouTube videos as references. See WP:YOUTUBE for why.
  • I also do not encourage you to put external links in the body of the article.
  • If I am mistaken and you wish to add external links, do this:
This is the link to [ English Wikipedia].
This will produce
This is the link to to English Wikipedia.
Kindly let us know if you have any questions. A final word: please check the notability of your subject. Articles on Wikipedia must pass a certain threshold of notability (see WP:NOTABILITY for this).
Cheers, -- TheLonelyPather (talk) 18:01, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi XERI MUSIC. Please don't embed external links into the bodies of articles as TheLonelyPather seems to have suggested above in bullet point #4; this is not considered acceptable as explained here. If the link is intended to serve as a citation, please format it as an inline citation as explained here; if it's intended to serve as an external link, please add it to the "External links" section if it's appropriate to do so. Please also be very careful when adding YouTube links to any Wikipedia pages as explained here and here: lots of content found on YouTube is unacceptable for Wikipedia because of copyright reasons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:29, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi @XERI MUSIC. It's possible that the YouTube links you're trying to add have been run through a URL shortener. This is relatively common, but here on Wikipedia, most such sites are blacklisted - see this if you want to learn more. (talk) 18:05, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@XERI MUSIC: When you want to link to youtube, please use the full URL, rather than the shortcut, i.e. [1] rather than
@ I checked the OP's spam blacklist log(note: not accessible to IP's), your hunch was correct. Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:06, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I have removed a Youtube-video link referenced from the page Draft:Exeger Operations AB. When is it ok to include a Youtube-video? Derekhal22 (talk) 19:40, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Derekhal22, welcome to the Teahouse. Have a read of WP:RSPYT which explains. Qcne (talk) 19:47, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for directing me to this guideline (which I agree with). My submitted YT-video that was questioned was this: ("Henrik Lindström and Giovanni Fili - Flexible solar cells for portable devices"). Beneath the video pane it is clearly stated that the video channel is owned by European Patent Office. As far as I can see, this video and this channel is a legimitate exception to the deprecation of YT videos. Or am I wrong? Derekhal22 (talk) 21:45, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Derekhal22 Per European Patent Office I think so, but context matters. To some extent, this seems a WP:ABOUTSELF source, an inventor talking about his own invention. I think you can use it, but some care may be needed. Template:Cite AV media may be of use. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:56, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Derekhal22 You use to prove facts ie "He appeared on this" or "He did that" etc.
I mainly use Youtube when updating articles about musicians, which I don't update very often.
One musician article I updated was nominated for deletion by someone who is clearly not British, or has no idea about some specific music genres in the UK.
My Youtube additions probably took up at least 75% of the references, and mainly consisted of a few TV documentaries he had appeared in, and countless national radio shows he had performed live on.
Someone decided I had linked to to many Wikipedia articles for the radio stations, radio shows, the other guests on those shows, and the radio presenters who presented them (there's a specific term for that I can't remember) even though I hadn't, as I only used one Blue link for each one, except when someone else was covering because the main presenter was off sick or on holiday, so they removed some of the Blue links, however everything else remained unchanged, and the article was removed from the nominated articles for deletion.

However I've just noticed that just a couple of months later, someone who clearly likes nominating articles for deletion, has added a template saying "This biography of a living person needs additional citations for verification, as its only attribution is to self-published sources; articles should not be based solely on such sources. This article may be written from a fan's point of view, rather than a neutral point of view." Even though there's countless references, none of them are self-published, and there are no fan type claims like "He is the greatest musician of all time." Danstarr69 (talk) 10:11, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Apparently I don't own The European Patent Office (EPO), and the video in a neutral way explains what a specific company with some patents registered at them works with, including the theory behind the field of expertise of that company. In general I understand the issue, but just not this specific video bias. Derekhal22 (talk) 20:14, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thoughts on this post perhaps please, thank you.[edit] Dscarbon333 (talk) 21:05, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have improved the referencing since it was last declined on August. I know nothing about the topic, so cannot comment on notability. David notMD (talk) 22:13, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you my friend :). Dscarbon333 (talk) 09:57, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Dscarbon333 The grammar and wording of parts, e.g. beginning that arguably sort of defined the aesthetic of said line of phones. The design of the phone is also arguably.... is terrible, as another editor already commented. Please make the wording more encyclopaedic. Who made that argument: you? If so that's not allowed and if someone else, you need to cite them. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:53, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

undelete a page[edit]

A page I contribute to was deleted, apparently by a self-appointed grim reaper. Maybe this person is doing god's work most of the time, but in this case it's an error. I don't have access to the Special:Undelete/ mechanism. Ddyer (talk) 21:10, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Ddyer, welcome to the Teahouse. Only admins can delete or undelete a page. As Liz said on your talk page, you should start by bringing this up with the deleting admin. If you tell us the name of the page, we can find their name for you, and explain your other options (they will depend on why the page was deleted). (talk) 21:16, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The page in question is (Which is my site). I appreciate that
you don't want the wiki to become a dumping ground for promotions, but it ought
to be a place for reliable facts. Ddyer (talk) 21:56, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ddyer, Wikipedia hosts articles on notable subjects. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ determined that your website did not meet the then-current notability standards. The deleting administrator was Northamerica1000, who is only occasionally active nowadays.
If significant coverage of your site has appeared in multiple reliable, independent, secondary sources since May 2020, an article may now be viable. I recommend reviewing WP:42 to get a better idea of what, exactly, is required. Also, you should review and comply with WP:COI and/or WP:PAID (depending on whether you make money from your site). (talk) 22:34, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To clarify, you must comply with WP:COI whether you make money from your site or not. Shantavira|feed me 08:13, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject ...[edit]

The page in question: cites every fact possible. Yes, one of those sources ( is close to the subject as this is the website of the church he founded. But there are numerous other sources cited as well: The Washington Post newspaper Kansas City Star newspaper

The only other references come when the page talks about stances that Robert H. Meneilly took (often controversial ones for someone in his position such as environmental protection, civil rights, separation of church and state, etc) and so I thought the BEST way to source those comments was to link to audio recordings where the user could actually such stances in Meneilly's own words ... far more authoritative to the subject at hand than some journalistic report of what he was supposed to have said.

Which references do I need to improve to remove this "article may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject" tag? TDinKS (talk) 22:28, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's great that you're asking this question rather than just getting angry at the person who added the tag, as many editors might have been tempted to do. That speaks well of your judgement.
I would suggest two things: 1) Start a conversation about this at the "talk" page of the article. 2) Ping the user who added the tag to get their input. Other than that, I don't have a strong opinion here, since I'm not familiar with the subject. If need be, I'll take a closer look at the article later to see if I agree with the tag. In the mean time, try steps 1 and 2 and see where it goes. Take care. Pecopteris (talk) 22:37, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you!
I will follow your advice and hope that it leaves to a quality resolution. TDinKS (talk) 18:14, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
TDinKS Legacy is apparently unreliable. I can't remember why or who claimed it's unreliable. However I used it a few months ago as an additional source for something I can't remember, and it seemed accurate to me, as it said the same things as the reliable sources I used. Danstarr69 (talk) 11:06, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That seams reasonable as the Legacy information is *probably* written by the deceased's family members. I'll remove that reference from the page. TDinKS (talk) 13:12, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Need Help[edit]

I am abit confused, I feel this Draft Draft:Dekunle Okunrinboye been Decline has enough sources to meet notability. Can it be reviewed by another editor? I can provide sources if need be and also open for advice as well. Fmnoble (talk) 23:39, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Fmnoble: Welcome to the Teahouse! If you're confused about why the draft was declined, you could invite the reviewer to discuss their decision on the draft talk page. After you update the draft, you can resubmit it to be reviewed again. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 14:58, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
GoingBatty Thank you, I just did as you advice. Now hoping for his response.Fmnoble (talk) 18:11, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Improve draft[edit]

Id like to have advices about my draft Draft:Mattias Inwood i believe he's notable but would like to know if everything is okay Veganpurplefox (talk) 04:40, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

anything that need fixing/improved/added/removed? Veganpurplefox (talk) 04:42, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What comments on his work have there been from reliable sources? 2A00:23C7:F834:9C01:DFE:46D8:3AC1:A180 (talk) 04:50, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will look into that. Also there's something wrong with this link:
that I noticed it doesn't work for him. Do I still add it or should I not add it to the draft? Veganpurplefox (talk) 12:25, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Would Stuff co nz be okay? There are things i could add from this site but not sure of its reliability. I also can take a few infos from NZ Herald, but not from the Deadlines articles as everything was added there as was just infos as who represent him and series he was in. Veganpurplefox (talk) 12:55, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


QUESTION: How can I remove an article from a maintenance category that is generated from a template? Thanks in advance! Professor Penguino (talk) 05:29, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just remove the template? It would be easier to answer if we knew the name of the article. Shantavira|feed me 08:39, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's the maintenance category at "American Revolutionary War articles needing infoboxes." The last article in the category has an infobox now (which I added) and I want to make sure the category is up-to-date. Professor Penguino (talk) 00:52, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Once you fix all issues related to it, you may just remove the template. Though I would be careful about removing certain ones like neutrality and BLP violations unless you are sure about it. ✶Mitch199811 11:23, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How to make a article semi-protected?[edit]

Narendra Modi Stadium is sheduled to host the final of 2023 Cricket World Cup. I witnessed that some IP user trying to add unsourced lines between sourced info. Their is denger that the article can be vandalised and tell me in future, where I can request to protect any article? Tesla car owner (talk) 09:04, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You may request protection at WP:RFPP. Articles are not protected preemptively, there must be a demonstratable problem with vandalism or disruption like edit warring. 331dot (talk) 09:07, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Possible Bot Needed to Replace BFI Pages which were Deleted Today (or in the last few days)[edit]

I don't know where to post this, but...

Today I've noticed that all the British Film Institute Film-TV-People pages on the site BFI Films TV People have been deleted, and there doesn't seem to have been any news posted by the BFI about it.

I knew this day was coming, but I would have thought that they would have fixed the occasional loading errors on BFI Collections first before they started deleting pages from the main site.

BFI Collections is the replacement for the BFI Films TV People pages, according to Natasha Fairbairn aka the woman in charge of the collections at the BFI, however every now again you get an error when trying to search, which can last from as little as a minute, to as long as an hour or more, before it's working again.

Maybe they have fixed the BFI Collections errors, and I haven't noticed because I've barely used it in the last month, as I've mainly been updating newer stuff directly from the productions themselves, rather than old TV shows from 30, 40, 50+ years ago. Danstarr69 (talk) 09:43, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse. This is a place for asking questions about editing Wikipedia. I don't see how we can advise you about the BFI website. You will need to contact them directly. Shantavira|feed me 10:24, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think perhaps @Danstarr69 is explaining that any external links from articles to BFI pages will now be broken? Qcne (talk) 10:30, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Qcne Correct. Shantavira, I'm saying they will be dead (unless it's a production partly funded/produced by the BFI, as some of those I've noticed redirect to a new page) so will need to be replaced with Wayback Machine/ links, or replaced with a link to the page on BFI Collections.
However, because of type of website that BFI Collections is, you probably won't be able to make a bot for that, especially as the people/production/company numbers for the BFI Films-TV-People links (13 digits) and the BFI Collection links (9 digits) don't match. Danstarr69 (talk) 10:51, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And this insource search has 3,750 current hits, so manually fixing things will be a chore. Worse, the link to mentioned above now lands on a page for something called Laratravel. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:14, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Michael D. Turnbull *Laravel Danstarr69 (talk) 11:20, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Shantavira here's an example.
Here's the BFI Films-TV-People link for Peaky Blinders (TV series) [2] which is now dead.
Here's what the BFI Films-TV-People link for Peaky Blinders used to look like [3]
Here's the BFI Collections link for Peaky Blinders [4] Danstarr69 (talk) 11:46, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Danstarr69, you can make a bot request at Wikipedia:Bot requests. I'm not sure if this something that could be done with WP:AWB, but you could look into that too. (talk) 18:40, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Snow White and the 7 dwarfs remake[edit]

In Snow White (2024 film) article, Rachel Zegler is still in the list of cast, but she was reportedly dropped from the movie. I added sources in the talk page, and i can't do anything because the page is protected. (talk) 10:29, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is already being discussed at the article talk page. That is the place to continue this discussion. Shantavira|feed me 11:17, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Help with 2023 ArbCom election guidelines[edit]

Hi hosts, I was wondering, since the 2023 ArbCom elections are coming up, what are the minimum requirements for voting in the election? The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1(The Garage) 12:51, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@The Corvette ZR1: per Wikipedia:5-minute guide to ArbCom elections#Voting process:
An editor meeting the following criteria is eligible to vote:
  • has registered an account before 00:00, 1 October
  • has made at least 150 mainspace edits before 00:00, 1 November
  • has made at least 10 live edits (in any namespace) within one year of 00:00, 1 November
  • is not blocked from the English Wikipedia at the time of their vote
Hope this helps! Tails Wx 13:02, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Tails Wx Thanks! Also, what is the difference between "Mainspace edits" and "Live edits"? The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1(The Garage) 13:29, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Mainspace" edits are when you edit an article in an article-space (including disambiguation and redirect pages.) Live edits are when your edits are published on any namespace. In this case, if you have published an edit within one year of 00:00 1 November, and have at least made 150 mainspace edits before 00:00 1 November, then you're good to go. Tails Wx 13:50, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Michael Gambon[edit]

Can the years active ending date get changed from 2023 to 2019?

Thanks. 2601:18C:9082:A6F0:A159:3D1E:875A:F4A3 (talk) 13:14, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How do you know it was 2019 when he stopped being artistically active? Neither of the above sources seem to confirm that. If anything, the years are 2012 or 2014 depending on how one interprets it.  Podstawko  ●talk  13:17, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reuters and WSB-TV both say Gambon retired from the stage in 2015 after suffering long-term memory problems but continued to act onscreen until 2019.

2601:18C:9082:A6F0:A159:3D1E:875A:F4A3 (talk) 13:26, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This has been addressed at Talk:Michael Gambon, which is the correct venue. (talk) 14:09, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Skins (and table header rows)[edit]

I’ve been using Wikipedia for years, but only realised this month that there is a choice of skins – I mean, until I noticed someone talking about them, how would I have know they existed?!

Since then, I tried a couple of alternative skins, and could see no difference whatever in what I was seeing. Are they all very similar to each other?

Also, the most desirable feature (or me) that I saw mentioned as being in the latest skins is the fact that the header row of a table will "freeze" at the top of the screen so it’s always visible. So useful for long tables! BUT, it doesn’t work in Firefox for Windows, my preferred desktop browser; and it doesn’t seen to work in Chrome for Android, my preferred mobile browser. (I saw the Firefox issue mentioned, but not the Chrome-for-Android one; I also realise that it’s probably the fault of the browser.) Which browsers support this, which will it work in? (I’ll install an alternative browser just to use Wikipedia if it makes the tables easier to navigate!) Spel-Punc-Gram (talk) 13:15, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Spel-Punc-Gram The vector 2010 and (current default) vector 2022 skins are different enough that there was a furore when the latter was introduced. To freeze table header rows, you need to set this up in your preferences at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets: there's a comment there about which browsers it works with. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:42, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm learning a lot in the Teahouse: I didn't know that Wikipedia had user settings 😎.
Maybe I'm being obtuse, but I couldn't see the difference when I chose the vector 2010 one. Can you describe one of the major differences, and I'll try again? Spel-Punc-Gram (talk) 01:19, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Spel-Punc-Gram Please see Vector 2022. One major difference is that the WP:LEAD section of articles in vector 2010 appears immediately above an inline table-of-contents, whereas in vector 2022 the TOC moves to its own separate column to the left of the article. There are numerous other differences, including the positioning (and functionality) of the search box. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:17, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Error for publishing after translation[edit]

Hi. I translated a page and want to publish my draft but i have an error. " Automatic edit filters have identified problematic content in your translation. Filter hit: All namespace abuse " I've checked and corrected what I thought was a problem (too many spaces) but I still have the same error, I admit I don't know what's blocking it. How do I know which part is the problem? Thank you Ghost In The Shell (talk) 14:35, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Ghost in The Shell, and welcome to the Teahouse. That appears to Edit filter 906 "All namespace abuse", but I can't find it in the filter log, and the content of that filter is hidden, so I don't know what it is about your draft. It won't be anything to do with spaces (namespace is a technical term).
What is the article you're translating from, and how are you doing the translation? ColinFine (talk) 16:21, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I suggest you copy the content into a text editor, and then paste chunks from there into the edit box and publish it, say, one paragraph at a time. That should enable you to identify the offending passage. Shantavira|feed me 16:28, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Ghost In The Shell, before you go further, I assume you realise that the article Anissa Kate was deleted following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anissa Kate and has now been deleted three times, as seen here where it is suggested that you contact the deleting admin. Arjayay (talk) 17:05, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I saw this talk.
I'm very surprised that this conversation about the legitimacy of awards in porn has led to the deletion of this page (SouthernNights didn't even bother to reply to my contest).
There are a lot of wiki pages about actresses that can be deleted for the same reasons, but which are still there.
I was just quoting some of them.
There's a double standard here that I'd like to understand.
Thanks Ghost In The Shell (talk) 20:57, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ghost In The Shell: See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. When you see other articles that need work, you may improve them, add maintenance templates, start a conversation on the talk page, nominate them for deletion, or just ignore them. GoingBatty (talk) 01:16, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is this reference legal?[edit]

There is a reference marked as a [user-generated source] that I don't know how to deal with. I was originally going to post on the article talk page, but I thought asking for help here may be a better idea. I got no reply on Kiwi IRC.

In the Janus (spacecraft) article, we are currently linking to proprietary information from a forum post, originating from the Lockheed Martin Intranet (intended to be kept confidential, according to [5]). Here's the link -- read warning below before clicking: [6]

Not only does this seem questionable from a WP:V standpoint, and because the link automatically downloads a file of unknown origin to the user's computer without warning, it is not clear to me if this is even legal? Lockheed Martin is a defense contractor, after all, and this is Wikipedia, not WikiLeaks... Renerpho (talk) 15:04, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Renerpho, it's just a .docx file, which I guess can be dangerous if you're running a Microsoft OS? If Lockheed Martin want to send a cease and desist letter to anyone it will be the owners of, where the "proprietary information" has been uploaded.
Having said that, it is just a thing from a forum, and clearly not published, so it's not a reliable source despite a convincing appearance (and may very well be legitimate). The only information in the article sourced solely to the forum posting is the internal codenames of the planned probes, which is trivia. The rest is duplicated by this US government source.
Some enthusiasts may be interested in the spacecraft internal codenames and other technical details available in the forum posting, but it's my feeling that it doesn't really assist in encyclopaedic understanding of the topic, so I'd feel comfortable removing the codenames and the user-generated source. Folly Mox (talk) 21:22, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sounds reasonable. I'll go on and remove it. Renerpho (talk) 22:55, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How do I stop User removing large amount of information without discussion[edit]

I have a problem with a user who keeps removing statistic tables from Records and statistics of the Rugby World Cup article and which I believe is vandalism. I have tried to engage with him on the talk page.

User:PeeJay has removed two tables outlining the Head to Head statistics at Rugby World Cup. On his original removal of the tables, he gave the reason as "please argue for the inclusion of this statcruft on the article talk page". When I reverted his vandalism, he removed the tables again stating "I have policy-based grounds to remove this, what is your argument? that people worked hard on it? I'd argue they shouldn't have wasted their time". After reverting his vandalism again, he removed the tables for a third time stating "see WP:NOTSTATS". I have read WP:NOTSTATS, which states

Excessive listings of unexplained statistics. Statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing; accordingly, statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability, and articles with statistics should include explanatory text providing context. Where statistics are so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article, the statistics can be split into a separate article and summarized in the main article. (e.g., statistics from the main article 2012 United States presidential election have been moved to a related article Nationwide opinion polling for the 2012 United States presidential election). Wikipedia:Notability § Stand-alone lists offers more guidance on what kind of lists are acceptable, and Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists § Selection criteria offers guidance on what entries should be included.

While I accept the statistics were lengthy, they were contained within a collapsable table where a person could open and close the tables (as they appear below). Secondly, these are the head to head statistics of all the games of the rugby world cup and are a valuable Commodity for an Encyclopedia which Wikipedia strives to be. Thirdly, the policy that User:PeeJay cited also gives the option of spliting the statistics into a separate article and summarizing them in the main article. User:PeeJay does not do this. He deletes all this information permanently and does so without seeking discussion with other editors on the talk page. He puts his own wants over the many editors that have worked on these tables over the many years. I think these tables should be placed back into the article or as the policy, that User:PeeJay cited, states that split the statistics into a separate article and summarize them in the main article but not to delete them. How do I go about getting this to happen? (talk) 16:05, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have removed a huge amount of material just above, that was pointlessly copied from the Talk page. It was affecting the loading of this page, and anybody who might want to look at it can find it on the Talk page --ColinFine (talk) 21:14, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While I don't necessarily have any advice, please refrain from using the term "vandalism" for good faith edits.Vandalism has a very specific definition on enwiki and should never be used to describe edits in good faith, which I believe the mentioned edits were. Sincerely, Novo Tape (She/Her)My Talk Page 16:10, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do not think they are good faith edits, since the policy he cites states different to his actions, hence the reason I wrote I believed his edits were vandalism. But in any way, we will leave it there. Shall we. (talk) 16:32, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is hilarious. You didn't even wait for me to respond on the talk page before coming here. I was the one who told you to initiate a discussion on the talk page in the first place, remember? You don't get to claim you tried to engage me in discussion when you definitely didn't do so unprompted. – PeeJay 20:45, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Furthermore, this is exactly the same message that you posted on the article talk page! What exactly is it that you're trying to accomplish? – PeeJay 20:46, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have looked at these tables and I fail to see how any of this is appropriate for an encyclopaedia. PeeJay should be congratulated for making this deletion. Maungapohatu (talk) 21:50, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is there any way I can go back to the old interface of a couple months ago?[edit]

This new one is good but recent changes such as moving the whatlinkshere tool and certain custom ones make it impossible to use Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 16:23, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Immanuelle You can go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering, go to "skin" and tick Vector (2010). That will switch it back to the old skin. NW1223<Howl at meMy hunts> 16:27, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reducing size of infobox image[edit]

Can someone reduce the size of image at Shivnath Singh Kushwaha. Since it is only face, its looking weird. Admantine123 (talk) 16:37, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done, Admantine123. The image_upright parameter I added can be tweaked as you see fit. It's a multiplier to the standard image size, so you might consider values between about .5 and .9 or so. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:43, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks Admantine123 (talk) 16:45, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Editing conflict[edit]

I just commenced a new draft stub of an article entitled Vishnu Yamala (Sanskrit literature) on my user page and I have an editing conflict. Someone is deliberately messing up my inclusions and editing on this draft article page. How can I stop this from happening and resolve the issue? B9Joker108 (talk) 16:45, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No-one's deliberately disrupting your edits. If you look at the page history, a bot made one edit to add that the page is a draft. Chances are, no-ones going to edit it again until you've submitted it.
To resolve the issue, it's best to open the draft in a separate tab and copy-and-past your edits. For more info, see this guide Sincerely, Novo Tape (She/Her)My Talk Page 16:50, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
B9Joker108 The "Securing a manuscript" section should be deleted. Wikipedia articles are not instructions or 'how-to'. Likewise, the Disclaimer section. Do not submit unless you can provide references. David notMD (talk) 01:32, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is really just a call to action for me. It won't make it into the final edit. Why are you being nosy and having a look at my draft document? *giggle* B9Joker108 (talk) 05:05, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Removing maintenance tag[edit]

I have a conflict of interest on this page and can't remove a maintenance tag, although the offending issues - some promotional sounding sentences and some links to the organization have been removed. Could an editor remove the tag please? Revive & Restore. Thanks Angus Parker (talk) 17:06, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Angusparker as the original adder of the tag I think it still applies. For example, the #Programs section seems excessively long. Sungodtemple (talkcontribs) 17:40, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm removing a little more fluff right now @Angusparker, and then I'll remove the tag when I'm done if appropriate. Alyo (chat·edits) 17:40, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To the administrators of the English Wikipedia:[edit]

Block this IP address immedietly:

He targets the Simple English Wikipedia, but his trend is putting pictures of his penis on articles.

He did this on:

@Fr33kman's user page

My user page

The Pol Pot article

This is a petition to globally block this IP address. He also does sockpuppeting quite a bit, and I suspect him of using a VPN. KeroppiKid (talk) 18:06, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Apparently @WikiBayer wishes to get in on this too, by reverting the dick pic back onto my talk page and submitting a global lock for me for "cross-wiki abuse". KeroppiKid (talk) 18:11, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note that the administrators over here an English Wikipedia are not the same people who are administrators at the Simple English Wikipedia. Have you brought this up at a public forum at Simple English Wikipedia? Pecopteris (talk) 18:17, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That IP was blocked for some vandalism on this project. Please contact administrators at sister projects as needed. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:20, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
seriously though. posting dick pics on the profile of a administrator on a wiki/former sysop? thats gotta be worth something KeroppiKid (talk) 18:23, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They're blocked here and at Simple English. I'm not sure what else you would like to see happen. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:32, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
oh alright
lock this question then KeroppiKid (talk) 18:34, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@KeroppiKid, in the future, please report such vandalism on English Wikipedia to WP:AIV (and on Simple Wikipedia, to their own version of AIV). (talk) 18:43, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

citing syndication of a book excerpt[edit]

Time Magazine syndicated a book excerpt, but I don't know which page numbers. How should I cite it? Thanks. rootsmusic (talk) 18:28, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, @Rootsmusic. The excerpt can be found in the preview of the book on google books here: [1]. It doesn't show the page number, but I'll see what I can find online. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 20:50, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Disregard that, the excerpt seems to be from various pages throughout the book. In that case, it would be best just to cite the Time article. However, if you're only using a specific section of the article, I may be able to find the page number. My library has an ebook version of the book I was able to borrow. In the future, if you need access to various resources, Wikipedia:Resource Requests is very helpful. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 20:55, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Rootsmusic: Please see WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT. Unless you are able to get access to a copy of the Bowden/Teague book and read the passage there, you must cite the Time Web page as your source for any information or quotations you use in a WP article. I don't see any problem with using that source. Deor (talk) 12:36, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia disinfo[edit]

I was reading a certain article on Wiki, and I found that for some reason, the author had included opinions rather than facts. This was a subject that was meant to be factual but instead became muddied by political opinion.

As I progressed through reading different articles I began to see a pattern - that Wikipedia was becoming affected by political narratives.

One could probably understand why I found this ALARMING. I tried to contact someone about my concerns - I was very polite about it... But for some strange reason, I ended up being BANNED from even using Wikipedia with my account. I found that even stranger, because I am very courteous and follow proper etiquette in communication, always.

So my question is - are Wikipedia articles continuing to be allowed to be affected by political opinion or narratives? Does anyone attempt to prevent such things?

It's one thing to read about facts... It's quite another to find opinions being proffered as facts, or used to color articles in a slanted way. I used to have great respect for Wikipedia - but after my experience, I completely stopped using it.

The reason I am writing today is because I saw the donation page today, and was reminded that once upon a time I was a donor. Small contributions, but l thought it important and Wikipedia to be worth donating. I no longer feel this way because of my somewhat recent experiences - which happened around 2020/21. During all the political chaos of that time. When I saw politics creeping in to what WAS a beautiful thing, well... Broke my heart. Was just wondering if anything has changed since then. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Ro Roalive (talk) 18:56, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, this is a big problem on Wikipedia. The reasons for it are many, and complex. I think the core problem is the way sources are cited on articles about politics. Articles about politics from "reliable sources" are treated as having an objectivity analogous to scientific papers, which is not the right way to write about politics, and leads to a lot of confusion. Another problem is that there is not much diversity of political viewpoint on Wikipedia, so people assume that their opinions are "facts", because everyone around them mirrors their general worldview. Another problem is that there is far too low of a threshold for making political statements in Wikivoice.
It's good that you've noticed this problem, but unfortunately, general complaints won't change anything. The problem will take a massive amount of work to fix, and there's currently very little will to fix it. Do you have a specific list of articles that you think are affected by political narratives? Pecopteris (talk) 19:05, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, a couple of points here:
  • You couldn't have known this beforehand, but block evasion is considered a serious issue on Wikipedia
  • Neutrality is one of our fundamental principles and needs to be upheld in articles.
  • In theory, all editors qua editors should be fixing point-of-view issues on sight and/or notifying other users of the issue.
If you provide an example of such an article, I can try to help. Sincerely, Novo Tape (She/Her)My Talk Page 19:08, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Roalive, you are not allowed to create a new account in order to evade a block on a previous account (unless it has expired?). You should stop editing from this account and appeal the block from your original account. (talk) 19:09, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Roalive, what is your original account name? I'd like to see the edits you made that led to your ban. Perhaps it's not appropriate for Roalive to reply to this comment - does anyone else know what their original account name is? Pecopteris (talk) 19:40, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikipedia had articles related to politics before 2020. You may or may not find this article interesting:[7] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:29, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

this exact IP you want to know what they just did?[edit]

they dick-pic'd the entire simple talk page- KeroppiKid (talk) 19:03, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@KeroppiKid, as you were just told above, this is not the place to report disruptive editing. (talk) 19:06, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
sorry i keep forgetting33 KeroppiKid (talk) 19:07, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unable to post an article because of inexperience[edit]

Hello! I was able to make a draft for Mohamed Al-Mashay (head of gecol Libya) and wanted to see if there was anyone who could help me finish the article to have it published in my goal of getting people from the Libyan government representation on Wikipedia.. Mohamedabaids (talk) 22:12, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Mohamed Al-Mashay Tollens (talk) 22:13, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
request ^ Mohamedabaids (talk) 00:22, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@mohamedabaids: not what the helpme template is for. i've deactivated it.
and we will not write articles for you. ltbdl (talk) 00:28, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mohamedabaids: You added the {{helpme}} template on your own talk page, and I provided some thoughts there. GoingBatty (talk) 01:07, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

adding more than just author or publisher to a source[edit]

I am trying to add a source to an article but it only will let me add the publisher or author or date (not all three). But I see other sources list all of them. How do I add all? The source is in the Certified Public Accountant article in the first sentence of CPAs in Various Countries (Franklin University)? Thank you. TaxGalPDX (talk) 22:22, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry nevermind I just figured it out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TaxGalPDX (talkcontribs) 22:24, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What criteria for speedy deletion applies here?[edit]

The page Tourism of Albania was created as a direct copy of the indefinitely extended-confirmed protected page Tourism in Albania, what speedy deletion criteria applies in this situation? – 2804:F14:80BD:BF01:D85F:3C72:7CA4:BA29 (talk) 22:31, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, direct copy with additions: <diff between pages>. – 2804:F14:80BD:BF01:D85F:3C72:7CA4:BA29 (talk) 22:35, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've redirected the page, as it's a plausible misspelling of the current title - the CSD you're thinking of is WP:A10. An edit request can be made at Talk:Tourism in Albania if they'd like to make additions there (this was mentioned in the edit summary of the redirect). Tollens (talk) 22:39, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Tollens: Ah, thank you. I CTRL+F'd many terms trying to find a criteria that applied, but didn't search for the word duplicate... derp.
On the suggestion of making an edit request I'd just like note that they did make an edit request, and then decided to not wait for a response and recreate the article.
Also the extended-confirmed protection was added due to sock puppetry, but had the note that the page is covered by WP:ARBMAC - I honestly tend to just completely avoid anything ArbCom covered, so I don't know if they need to be told about contentious topic or anything like that, and don't really plan on learning, but figured I'd let you know.
2804:F14:80BD:BF01:D85F:3C72:7CA4:BA29 (talk) 22:49, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question for citations with books[edit]


Just had a quick question and hopefully I can word it so you can articulate it.

I wanted to know if citations are required for articles [Like this one] because the articles are about books (which are self-published), and to me, I think there should be reliable sources for that kind of information.

Thanks, TheAlienMan2002 (talk) 22:48, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@TheAlienMan2002: Welcome to the Teahouse! Citations are required for every Wikipedia article. Citations are what demonstrate whether books (or any other topic) meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, called "notability". The specific criteria for books can be found at WP:NBOOKS. Independent published reliable sources such as book reviews would be great citations. Thanks for asking, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 01:05, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thought so, thank you. TheAlienMan2002 (talk) 12:42, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Among other reasons, you’d need sources to satisfy WP:LISTN. Strictly, they don’t need to be in the article, but it’s on the person who wants the article to stay to prove notability, not the hypothetical drafter or deletion nominator. Mach61 (talk) 01:08, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Issue with cast[edit]

Hello, there is an issue with adding Edward Hayter in the cast of Will (TV series) ,his name always get removed by the same user even if his page exist and is notable. How can the issue stop by being removed and add him to the cast? The user now trying to delete his page while 3 users worked on his page to prove his notability and are reviewers. Veganpurplefox (talk) 23:05, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Veganpurplefox Did you already have a discussion with the user? TheAlienMan2002 (talk) 23:46, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I tried to but they just keep going and going and never ends Veganpurplefox (talk) 23:47, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I stopped responding because its out of hands now Veganpurplefox (talk) 23:48, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, In my view, I would suggest going to WP:ANI TheAlienMan2002 (talk) 23:51, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok ill go there, thanks Veganpurplefox (talk) 23:54, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah no problem, if that doesn't work, I would suggest waiting for someone else to answer this question. TheAlienMan2002 (talk) 00:11, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK thanks again, I also sent on the talk pages of the users who proved his notability about whats happening but have no idea when they will see Veganpurplefox (talk) 00:15, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
you suggest going THERE? ltbdl (talk) 00:24, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, Veganpurplefox, that wasn't great advice. I suggest reverting yourself at ANI before anyone responds. ANI is a place of last resort, and it's about reporting user conduct issues, not about settling content disputes. See instead the options recommended at WP:DR. Cheers, Generalrelative (talk) 00:40, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
it's got a bunch of responses already...
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User MrOllie ltbdl (talk) 03:11, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was told to come back here to see that more comments had been added so where do you refer me to? How can this issue stop? Veganpurplefox (talk) 09:43, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
maybe it's not an issue. ltbdl (talk) 11:38, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is an issue, they accuse me of owning more that 1 account and im tired of being accused of things i havent done so can someone please compare our IP addresses so they will now believe me. Im just done being patient cause when i thought this was resolved as well as a supposed COI, it still on me and no one even if i put it on my userpage believe me. And i need help so this will all stop. Veganpurplefox (talk) 14:10, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:Veganpurplefox, the best and most difficult step to take right now is to trust the process. MrOllie has stated an intent to open an AfD on the Edward Hayter article once he has time to review the sources. Maybe the sourcing will satisfy his sensibilities. If not, and the article goes to AfD, the community will have at least seven days to make a collective determination as to whether or not the article is appropriate for encyclopaedic inclusion. If the article is kept after AfD, it will be appropriate to relink to the Will (TV series) article. If not, then maybe a bit later in Hayter's career you'll be able to have the article undeleted and expand it with new reliable information that establishes notability.
In any case, the thing to do now is take a step back, breathe, and work on something else for awhile. Folly Mox (talk) 13:27, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with Folly Mox. I was going to leave a message on your talk page saying more or less the same thing until I read this comment. Take a deep breathe. Step back. Allow the process to work itself out. Ultimately, it's not worth losing any peace over. --ARoseWolf 13:32, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Anyway ill focus on watching Will. But that user could have check out the sources in Hayter's page inseted of believing hes not notable. And i need proof that im not the same user of Vesyray. Can someone direct me to the next step on how it is possible that someone compares our ip adress so they now will believe me i dont own more than 1 account. I just need the proff Veganpurplefox (talk) 14:15, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:Veganpurplefox, I'm afraid that is not possible. Wikipedia's technical logs only store information like IP addresses of named users for ninety days. Vesyray has not edited in around two hundred days as of this timestamp, so the information is gone. I'll note that only one user has stated they suspect you to have operated the Vesyray account, and no investigation has been filed. Folly Mox (talk) 06:02, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikipedia's technical logs only store information like IP addresses of named users for ninety days. ltbdl (talk) 10:49, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

wikipedia hover pop up showing old vandalised version of article[edit]

I was on an article and hovered on Jen Richard's wikipedia page link and the little text preview shows the text "Jen Richards is an American writer, actor, producer, and activist. It’s a man baby!!" which is from an edit by on 05:15, 28 September 2023. The wikipedia history for Jen Richard's page shows that Jake01756 reverted that edit on 05:16, 28 September 2023, as it's clearly a transphobic troll (difference between revisions) . When you are on Jen Richard's page, the correct text ("Jen Richards is an American writer, actress, producer, and activist.") shows up, but when you hover over a link to her page on a different wikipedia page, for example on the Her Story wikipedia page, the edit by is the one that shows on the little popup. Does anyone know how to fix this? Tangerine778 (talk) 02:11, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Tangerine778: It's a server cache thing. Per mw:Page Previews#FAQ's ("The Page Previews continues to show an old version of a page. What can I do?") question, the way to solve that is to do a <manual purge> of the page in question. Someone must have done it (or the cache caught up), since as I was about to do it the preview already changed. – 2804:F14:80BD:BF01:D85F:3C72:7CA4:BA29 (talk) 02:19, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
oh ok, thanks so much for the help! Tangerine778 (talk) 02:29, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why do some new articles remain invisible to external search?[edit]

New articles get indexed by Google fairly quickly, but sometimes they remain unsearchable from outside Wikipedia without any visible problem for weeks. A case in point - Dmytro Kushneruk. How does this happen and should anything be done about this? Thx Trzb (talk) 08:21, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Trzb: New articles are prevented by default from being indexed by search engines for 90 days after being created in order to ensure that the article is suitable for publication before most readers are able to find it. If a new article is patrolled, it is immediately allowed to be indexed regardless of its age. See WP:INDEXING for more detailed information. Tollens (talk) 08:27, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Got it. Thank you Trzb (talk) 08:28, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


How do I get my references right? Rhodji (talk) 10:04, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You can learn more about referencing by reading Referencing for Beginners. 331dot (talk) 10:10, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you're using the Visual Editor (which may be easier for new users), check out WP:INTREFVE. Qcne (talk) 11:04, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unnecessary images in articles[edit]

Hi there,

In what situations is an image useful to include in an article, and on what grounds is there justification for removing images from articles?

I am currently editing the Helensburgh article and have found a couple images to not be particularly purposeful. Bill Wilson AKA "CIA" (talk) 10:09, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree. I suggest you read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images and remove the uninformative images with your rationale in the edit summary. If anyone objects, discuss it on the article talk page per WP:BRD. Shantavira|feed me 10:21, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The picture of cherry blossom could be anywhere, there's nothing in it that informs the reader about Helensburgh. Maproom (talk) 17:49, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Talk pages[edit]

I am a new user in Wikipedia. How do I add citations and how do I use talk pages? I feel overwhelmed.Thanks a lot if you could help :) Researchrush (talk) 13:33, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Researchrush, I would advise you to read WP:CITE and H:TALK. Hope that helps. Toadette (let's chat together) 13:38, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi @Researchrush, welcome to the Teahouse!
I'd recommend the Visual Editor for new users- it is a lot easier than using markup language to edit Wikipedia. There's a really good tutorial for referencing with it at WP:INTREFVE. Qcne (talk) 14:51, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Help with My userpage[edit]

How do i get rid of the annoying space between my userboxes. Teddythedev (talk) 15:39, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Teddythedev fixed Sungodtemple (talkcontribs) 15:44, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why was my content removed?[edit]

Hello house, I while ago I added an external link to several pages related to obsessive–compulsive disorder. The link I added is of an evidence-based and clinical content source which is relevant to the treatment and management of obsessive–compulsive disorder, and refers to contemporary scientific literature in the field (see here: I was surprised to find out that the link was removed by an editor and marked as spam. I contacted the editor by email asking to learn why was it removed but received no response. After a while I raised the question on the editor's talk page but they deleted my question without replying. I'd appreciate any ideas about how to try and understand why was this source removed or how to manage to have the relevant editor replying my question. Cheers! Ran Littman (talk) 15:49, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ran littman: you are trying to link to articles you have written. that is indeed spam. ltbdl (talk) 15:52, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, Ran, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'll give you a slightly more nuanced answer than Ltbdl. Referencing your own work is regarded as editing with a conflict of interest, and frowned on: you are strongly preferred to submit edit requests, so that uninvolved editors can judge whether the reference is appropriate.
Secondly, adding a link to several pages is always suspicious behaviour, and if it is to your own work, it is regarded as spam (even if the links are not to a commercial site). ColinFine (talk) 17:19, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Appears that all of the references you added (to your own research) were each a report on a clinical trial. Individual clinical trials do not meet the medical/health ref standards described at WP:MEDRS. Hence all reverted. David notMD (talk) 18:18, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ColinFine David notMD: Right. Thank you for those clarifications. Ran Littman (talk) 21:18, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

concern about pages[edit]

If i were to create a page for a personal project (i.e. Ted), Where should i put it? Teddythedev (talk) 15:51, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Teddythedev: You wouldn't. See WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a web host. RudolfRed (talk) 16:15, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Adding "next_year" to album infobox[edit]

Hi there, I'm trying to add a "next_year" entry to the infobox on History of Iran Narrated by Setar, but each time I do, I get an error message saying "String Module Error: Match not found". I can't figure out why this is happening. Could you please help? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 21:03, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Revirvikodlaku. It may be a bug; but reading Template:Infobox album#Chronology, it seems to me that that parameter is only supposed to be used in a discography, to link the albums, and it doesn't make any sense for a single album in an article. ColinFine (talk) 22:24, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi @ColinFine, thanks for your response. Based on my reading of Template:Infobox album#Chronology as well as my experience with dozens of studio album pages, it is my understanding that the parameters are used with every album infobox, assuming there is a preceding and succeeding release. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 23:00, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've actually figured out what was causing the error: the album in question doesn't have a release year, which prevents me from adding a release year for the subsequent album in the infobox. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 23:04, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links requiring copying into the search bar instead of clicking[edit]

Hello! I was recently working a bit on the Flag of San Marino Wikipedia and noticed the 1st external link, titled "Law on the flag and coat of arms of San Marino" and linked to this only downloads a file if the link is copied into the space bar, and if it is simply clicked, it closes immediately upon opening with no download. Is there a protocol for this? I have checked WP:EL with no avail. Thank you! Rafaelmanman (talk) 21:26, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Rafaelmanman. This sounds like a browser issue. It works fine for me (using Firefox). ColinFine (talk) 22:26, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Interesting, I see that now. Thanks for the quick response. Rafaelmanman (talk) 22:47, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Citation errors: ref duplicates[edit]

I am getting citation errors for a source that appears in a Bibliography section of the John Brown (abolitionist) article and is also used as a source. For the source, I am putting the source in the "Sources" section (following References). I am getting messages at the citation level.

I tried adding ref={{sfnref|Hinton|1894}} to the source, but am still getting error messages:

  • {{cite book}}: CS1 maint: ref duplicates default (link) in the Sources section
  • sfn error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFHinton1894 (help) for each citation in the References section.

Can you help me figure out what to do? Thanks so much!–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:33, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:CaroleHenson, User:DuncanHill removed one instance of the duplicated source, which resolved the second issue. I removed the |ref= parameter duplicating the default value, which resolved the first issue. Was there a reason the source needed to be listed in both "Bibliography" and "Sources" subheadings? If you need it to be in both sections, one should hold the parameter |ref=none, so the {{sfnp}} links know where to jump. Folly Mox (talk) 01:48, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks so much for your feedback, Folly Mox. I have not known of |ref=none - great tip!
Regarding the Bibliography, which has duplicate sources that are used in the Reference and Sources in the article, my take is the duplication is not needed. I have thought of making a separate Bibliography page for John Brown. Another option is to removed the Bibliography and put sources not used in the article's citations in Further reading... and just have sources used once in the article.
I'll open that up for discussion on the talk page.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:48, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you list all the tags like boldface?[edit]

Put a list for tags like Boldface Subsections? HomeyComix (talk) 23:37, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@HomeyComix: Check out Help:Wikitext, I think it has what you're looking for RudolfRed (talk) 23:40, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Which out of the two are more reliable?[edit] or ? Thatsoddd (talk) 01:09, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Thatsoddd: Questions about reliable sources should be posted at WP:RSN RudolfRed (talk) 01:25, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]