Wikipedia:Teahouse#What%27s wrong with my page%3F Please help

On the article about the 0-4-0 wheel arrangement, I noticed Iceland wasn’t included. Iceland doesn’t have railways, but there used to be one within the capital city of Reykjavik. The Reykjavik Harbor Railway was a narrow gauge railway that was constructed in 1913. It had two 2ft gauge 0-4-0 tank engines built in the 1890’s by the German company Arnold Jung Lokomotivfabrik. These two engines were known as Minør and Pioner. The two engines were used to haul goods along the harbor, such as coal, minerals, and other material. Both engines are preserved today. Should we incorporate Iceland into that article?

For more info on the Reykjavik Harbor Railway, see Rail transport in Iceland 199.192.122.199 (talk) 04:25, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:It sounds like it's the sort of addition that might be useful for the article, ideally with sourcing explaining what you've written. At the very least, you could add it in a WP:SEEALSO section as an interim measure. CMD (talk) 04:41, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

::Believe me, this is actual info. 199.192.122.199 (talk) 05:24, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

::: It's unlikely any content will be added without a source. See WP:V. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 05:30, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::File: 090625 Minoer.JPG

::::This is what Minør looks like.

:::::File: RHR-Pioner.JPG

::::and this is what Pioner looks like. 199.192.122.199 (talk) 05:47, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Also, Tarlby, I’ve noticed you have commented on my talk page. 199.192.122.199 (talk) 05:51, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::Whaddaya mean ridiculously massive? I didn’t see a problem with them on the rail transport in Iceland article. 199.192.122.199 (talk) 14:09, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::The images in that article very likely use the "##px" parametre, which sets their width (in pixels) and forcibly scales them down accordingly. Without that parametre, the images render at their native resolution - which was large enough that the images did not fit on my 1080 screen. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:29, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I still think we should add them. 199.192.122.199 (talk) 00:52, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

• See Talk:0-4-0#Should we add Iceland? (IMHO Oppose, BTW, as stated there.) Andy Dingley (talk) 14:49, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
• :BRUH WHY? They are 0-4-0’s after all. 199.192.122.199 (talk) 15:29, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

::* So why ? It's up to any new addition to demonstrate why, and what, it adds to an article. Not assume that it does, unless shown otherwise.

::: These are 0-4-0, sure. But so are a huge number of locos (especially for 0-4-0, the Austrian 2-6-4s are a much rarer type). So even though '0-4-0' is obviously significant to the loco article, why are those locos significant in the context of the general 0-4-0 article? I can't see that they are. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:18, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Well, they ARE the only steam engines in Iceland. The other railways in Iceland (or should I say used to be) used either small diesels or no engines at all. Mainline steam would’ve been a thing in Iceland but now we can thank the proposal of roads which went through. Thanks to their stupid decision, Iceland is one of the countries I despise the most, IF NOT THE. 199.192.122.199 (talk) 19:32, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

A back story of a Sith Lord that was born on planet tatooine Panda plays January (talk) 13:39, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:We're sorry, but we're a group of volunteer editors and not a generative AI. If you have any questions about editing Wikipedia, please feel free to ask them here. AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here) 13:43, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:If you have access to a pen and paper you can do it yourself. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 14:56, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

::Or an online writing software. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 16:09, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:That would be Darth Vader. Sorry, George Lucas did it 48 years ago. GarethBaloney 19:44, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

I posted the same article in uzbek language. I want to transslate it to english Asliddin Choriev (talk) 11:45, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

:The first question is the next. Is "Komil Yusupov" "notable" ?

:Each Wikipedia is independent of each others.

:"Wikipedia in English" is reputed to be the strictest concerning the notability. Anatole-berthe (talk) 12:03, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

::yes of course, he is the founder of modern Kurash, also deputy in Uzbekistan. Asliddin Choriev (talk) 12:19, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

:Please see WP:TRANSLATE for guidance. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:52, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

:Hello, @Asliddin Choriev and welcome to the Teahouse.

:Your draft (which is on your user page - it should be moved either to your sandbox or to Draft:Komil Yusupov) has no inline citations, and neither of the two sites you link to is a reliable site, wholly unconnected with Yusupov, that talks in depth specifically about Yusupov. Without such sources, there is no chance that your draft will be accepted into English Wikipedia.

:Please read notability and WP:YFA as well as the page Andy suggested. ColinFine (talk) 18:46, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

::If by "deputy in Uzbekistan" you mean he is an elected member of the Oliy Majlis, then he is 100% notable. All members of national legislatures are considered notable. However, you still need to provide sources. DS (talk) 00:39, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

There's an editor (who I don't want to name or link to, as this isn't a report rather a query) who has been making a very large volume of small edits to a single page - 41 in the past 24 hours. This of course is cluttering up the page history and watchlists. They were asked to consider making one large edit or using their sandbox, but their reply was, verbatim, {{tq|No.}}, which is rather unhelpful. Is this sort of thing normal? Danners430 (talk) 11:50, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

:The editor is User:MRSC and you should notify other editors if you discuss their editing here or on any other such page. Saying you "don't want to name or link to" them is pointless, when it is so easy to trace who you mean.

:In the discussion at User talk:MRSC#Amendments to Upminster Tithe Barn you have accused them of being rude; they have not.

:Follow the process described at WP:DR. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:51, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

::The thing is I specifically don’t want to discuss this particular editor, as I’m not too concerned - I wouldn’t want to go to the extremes of a DR etc. as I’d happily let the matter lie. I simply wanted to find out what the norm is, mostly to improve my own editing. Danners430 (talk) 12:56, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

:::{{Tq|1="41 in the past 24 hours"}} is specific to the editor in question; not a general point. You also continued to goad them on their talk page, after they gave you an unequivocal answer to your initial question. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:10, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

:It's within the range of normal editing.

:To describe two extremes: an editor could (a) make one large edit that changed dozens of individual things (punctuation, structure, individual words, cited facts and their references, addition of new material, etc.) in one massive edit, or (b) make a separate edit for every single comma addition/removal, etc., etc.

:(a) has the drawback that if someone disagrees with some but not all of the changes, they must either re-edit each disagreed point (tedious) or Revert the whole edit, including the points they do not object to, leading to interminable discussions of what to change and what not (even more tedious).

:(b) causes the clutter you mention, BUT means that each individual change, however large or small, can be reverted or otherwise addressed without affecting any other, making further discussions and consensus more easy. Bear in mind that page histories and watchlists are merely tools to aid editing and the monitoring of it, not things more important than the editing itself.

:Between those extremes, many editors choose to 'lump together' clusters of edits in various ways: one might make one pass through the Article making just punctuation amendments, followed by another copy editing vocabulary and grammar, then a third changing the article's layout, for example. Or one might make all the intended changes to one section, or subsection, at a time.

:Sometimes I might be consulting an article for its content, and (being a retired copy editor) might correct things as I read through it, without any overarching plan. Some articles, particularly those deriving from a different language and imperfectly rendered into English, have dozens of minor faults.

:Unless you have separate reasons to think that the editor is deliberately trying to inflate their edit count for nefarious reasons, or conceal non-policy edits within their activity, I see nothing in what you have said to suggest any problem – simply, we all have our individual editing approaches and styles. Hope this helps. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.6.41.216 (talk) 12:52, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

::Yeah that’s fair - and like I said, I don’t believe (or want to believe) this editor is doing anything wrong, I just wanted to educate myself above everything else :) Danners430 (talk) 12:58, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

:::IMO, this is being too dismissive of the issue. For a variety of reasons, it can be irritating to look through an article history and see a screenful of short article edits from a single user. It's common (for me, at least) to review changes that have been recently made to an article. Certainly I can select to review the "diff" over that range of edits, but that's a distraction. There may also not be much in the way of a pertinent explanation about the changes. Additionally, there are performance implications and limits involving number of revisions, e.g. wikiblame limits the number of revisions in a "sequential" search. To a certain extent, the issue (from the perspective of viewing article history) could be mitigated by a feature in the display of article history that collapses a series of edits by a single user (perhaps within a given timeframe) to a single display within the article history. And yes, it does inflate edit count, and for better or worse, the system has incentives for doing this. To some, it makes it appear that we are rewarding what may reasonably be considered to be counter-productive behavior. Fabrickator (talk) 16:33, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

::::All of what you say is also true, though you have introduced some additional hypotheticals beyond what the OP or myself mentioned. As with much in Wikipedia and in life, it seems to me counterproductive to rely on generalisations, which will inevitably generate both 'false positives' and 'false negatives'; rather, each case should be judged on its specifics. If there are no contraventions of policies or guidelines, and nothing suggestive of gaming the system, I would let well alone. And I doubt that potential malefactors are combing edit histories looking for practices to 'validate' their own excesses. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.6.41.216 (talk) 01:08, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

did a quick recap on my edit summaries, there are quite big numbers for converting double spaces to single space between words of a sentence. i did not bookmarked previous edit (by some editor) on which i am following blindly. after reading MOS:DOUBLESPACE i am not sure! please clarify. jiki (talk) 13:54, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

:{{u|Kiji-Jiki}}, converting double spaces to single space between words of a sentence achieves nothing, is a waste of time, and bulks up page histories for no good reason. It is certainly not compulsory. Maproom (talk) 14:53, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

:You can do so while making other edits if you want to; but you should not do so as the sole purpose of an edit. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:58, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

:Nothing in MOS:DOUBLESPACE suggests that one should remove double spaces, or even avoid using them. On the contrary, it says "{{tq|Some editors place two spaces after a period/full stop}}", without any deprecation of the practice. CodeTalker (talk) 18:19, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

::OP's question was about double spaces "between words in a sentence". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:28, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

:It clogs up edit histories if you do it on its own, but if you fix the double spacing alongside doing other things then it's perfectly fine under copyediting. GarethBaloney 19:50, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

::i will wait until sunday midnight for any further comments. as of now i have stopped exclusive edits. jiki (talk) 06:22, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

I noticed an addition to the page List of musicals: M to Z for the "musical" One Day. Since when does WP allow articles for subjects that have yet to happen? This musical is "slated" to premiere March 2026. I was always under the impression that once it happened, then it could be included; with sufficient RS for notability. Am I wrong? (I have been before) Maineartists (talk) 16:53, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

:See WP:CRYSTAL. Lots of future events meet WP:N. Even Ultimate fate of the universe. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:30, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

::Gee. Thanks. (I think) It would seem you are answering "in general" and not to this specific article. CRYSTAL: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place, as even otherwise-notable events can be cancelled or postponed at the last minute by a major incident." Could you give some examples at WP of these so-called "future events" that meet WP:N? That would better help to see if this particular article falls under that guideline. Maineartists (talk) 19:30, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

:::"See WP:CRYSTAL" was specific to the article in question.

:::Examples: https://w.wiki/EXfZ etc. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:31, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

::::{{u|Maineartists}}, I have a different perspective. A list should have clearly defined selection criteria. This particular list says {{tpq|musicals that premiered}} using the past tense. In my opinion, a musical that has not yet premiered does not meet the selection criteria. See Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Selection criteria for additional information. Cullen328 (talk) 02:39, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::Cullen328 Yes. Thank you. I have since removed the article from the list for this very reason. Your perspective is very helpful. Maineartists (talk) 12:43, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::The question was {{Tq|1="Since when does WP allow articles..."}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:48, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::No. My reason for coming to the Teahouse was to seek advice about this particular article. Not to generalize an entire topic across WP and thus not address the main issue brought forth. Your focus did nothing to assist in my specific issue. Maineartists (talk) 12:43, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::"No"? I was quoting from the question you asked—which, I see, you have now struck.

:::::::My response was, I reiterate, specific to that article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:07, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

{{od}}{{u|Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett}}, you did not address the aspect of the original question that pertained to inclusion in the list article List of musicals: M to Z, which was the first article mentioned in the question. Cullen328 (talk) 16:51, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello. I am having problems finding significant coverage, reliable sources and independent sources for Spaceballs. I keep doing citation overkill and/or bombardment when adding references. I added references to the group from databases like Demozoo, Pouett and Amiga Music Preservation, and social media sites like Reddit, YouTube, LinkedIn, Facebook and Twitter; I have removed all those references. Some now-removed Demozoo references for the list of Spaceballs members have been replaced with new references, such as for Useless/Egil Thomas Hansen, Travolta/Rune Svendsen, Magnar/Lizard, and Facet/Martijn van Meel. Unfortunately, I could not find references solely for the other members and the group's demos in the "Selected productions" heading that are not databases. There are mentions of the group in books like Kunst, Code und Maschine: Die Ästhetik der Computer-Demoszene (2014), Freax: The Brief History of the Computer Demoscene (2016), The Future Was Here: The Commodore Amiga (2018), and Demoscene: The Amiga Years (2021), and I have used them as references for the article. Should I only stick to those as they are non-internet sources, and remove references to Spaceballs' website and news articles (Wired) and fansites (like Obligement.free) mentioning them, or should I leave it altogether? Bladerunner09 (talk) 18:58, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

:Non-internet sources are much harder to verify, although they can still be used. The amount of references in general is pretty excessive, and that big list of current or former members could become a timeline. List of Whitesnake members#Timeline is one such example of a (music) group with many members.

:I do have to say that most of the ex-Spaceballs members are really not worth mentioning given how obscure the group already is. GarethBaloney 19:56, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

David Newell in his Mr. McFeeley postman uniform with the word "Speedy Deletion" captioned as if he were speaking them as a play on Speedy Delivery. It'll add a bit of humor to Wikipedia but not in an overtly distracting kind of way. 72.72.200.176 (talk) 20:21, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

:Did you have a question? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:37, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

:Interesting idea, but I doubt it's a good idea to let users know that their article might be speedy deleted with a humorous image. GoldRomean (talk) 22:14, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

::I'd also say that such an image would probably be copyvio. DS (talk) 00:35, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello. I wanted to edit an article on wikipedia however that one in particular requires me to be logged in. So instead of creating a new account, I searched through my various emails and found a wikipedia account registered under it, however from what it looks like, it appears to have been made all the way back in 2014. In said email, titled "Wikipedia - email verification", I see what my username was, and since I already knew what the email associated with it was, I decided to go to the password reset page and input the credentials, however the recovery email is not arriving and I have a fear it will never arrive due to the account being potentially deactivated/deleted since I probably haven't logged onto it ever since I made it, over 11 years at this point. I know for a fact the account is at least still in the wikipedia account database as when I tried inputting the username in the user page URL, it did in fact take me to the user page, so there still could be hope for my old account. I know that the email can take up to 24 hours to be sent but since it's been so long, I feel like it might not arrive. In my case it would probably be the best idea to speak directly to the wikipedia management team or at least a part of it responsible for user accounts but I couldn't find any contacts about that, so this is my last resort. Any help would be appreciated. 46.205.204.206 (talk) 20:22, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

:Accounts and passwords never expire and are never deactivated. Try to check any spam folders. Try to only enter the username at Special:PasswordReset. If you have changed the email address stored in the Wikipedia account after the 2014 mail then you will get a mail to the new address. If you don't know the password and cannot receive a password reset then you have to create a new account. If the old account has edits then you can write on the user page of the new account that the old account was you. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:48, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

:Also, in your email title "email verification", did it say that it was a successful email verification? I'm pretty sure you need a verified email in order to reset your Wikipedia password. Justjourney (talk | contribs) 00:08, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

::After looking at mw:Help:Reset password, apparently you don't need to confirm your email address to reset passwords. Justjourney (talk | contribs) 00:41, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:::And then I read Help:Email confirmation, which contradicts this, saying "{{tq|before they can use email features such as emailing users, receiving email notifications, and the ability to reset your password}}". Justjourney (talk | contribs) 00:50, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

For the did you know section on the main page, I was going to write a quote about the article Nutmegger, but Wikipedia says its against its guidelines. Would the quote

"...that a Nutmegger is from Connecticut?"

Be inappropriate for today's did you know section? -2603:6011:7401:351C:5C79:CF89:FA3B:DC00 (talk) 00:41, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:Did You Know has its own very specific workflows and guidelines. It's best to read about these at WP:DYK and ask your question on that talk page. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 00:48, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:No opinion on the question, but it was my understanding that articles are only included in the 'Did you know . . .' section if they are either newly created or have just been significantly improved. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.6.41.216 (talk) 00:50, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

::Yep, you’re right. To be more specific, DYK articles have to meet a specific criteria (mentioned above), then you have to nominate it and it goes through this whole process. GoldRomean (talk) 01:54, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

I live in LaGrange, Georgia and there's a local author named Blake Varnadoe who's been featured in our local newspaper and TV segments on WTVM and WLTZ. I spoke to him and told him I used to be an occasional Wikipedia editor who had no clue what I was doing. All I did was fix typos. I had lost my account where I did all of the edits, but that's irrelevant. He said FOX 5 and WTVM articles were in the process, but he stated "I really want a Wikipedia article." So my question is, are 2 TV segments based on him and a local newspaper article enough coverage for me to write an article about him? Greattastingfruit (talk) 03:49, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:@Greattastingfruit I'm afraid not. Please see WP:42 for guidance. Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:08, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

When referring to a living individual from the U.K. (assuming they are from England) should I write for example XYZ is "a British" actor (for example, but it can be a person of any career) or should I say is "an English" actor? which term is more correct, and more oftenly used? 76.68.113.121 (talk) 04:25, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:British is more common, and more correct, since England is only part of the UK. Out of curiosity, what article are you referring to? TheDowningStreetCat (talk) 04:31, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

::For the most part, you should follow what sources say. In practice it often depends on what they are notable for: an athlete known for playing for the England Football Team is English, whereas one known for representing Britain in the Olympics is British. Members of Parliament are normally British unless they are members of the Scottish Parliament or Senedd Cymru in which case they are Scottish or Welsh. If they are an actor or musician from England, then I belive in most cases they would be English. But again, if several reliable sources say one thing or the other, that is where you should take your lead.

::(@{{u|TheDowningStreetCat|Larry}} I wouldn't say that one is inherently more correct than the other. Sure England is part of GB but following that logic we'd just describe everyone as being From Earth). -- D'n'B-📞 -- 04:57, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:::An essay well worth reading is Wikipedia:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom. The best advice I can give is don't fight about it. Be flexible, open-minded and willing to compromise. Cullen328 (talk) 05:05, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Thank you Cullen I just spent 10 minutes trying to find that essay, couldnt remember what it was called and eventually gave up - so I'm glad someone linked to it. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 05:08, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

::::True, some people a more notably English than they are British. If IP user is referring to a pre-existing article, MOS:RETAIN would also reply, unless the current wording is obviously incorrect. Would still like to know what article we're talking about here, unless this is a hypothetical. I can't immediately find anything on the user's contribution page that matches (there's Elijah Wood, but he's American) TheDowningStreetCat (talk) 07:01, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::I'm talking about the Article on actress Raffey Cassidy, should she be referred to as a "British actress" or an "English actress"? 76.68.113.121 (talk) 07:38, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::In that article, the sources that specifcally bring up her nationality say British:

::::::

::::::*{{cite news|author=BJ Panda Bear|title=Why young actress Raffey Cassidy is the next British breakout star|url=https://www.interviewmagazine.com/film/young-actress-raffey-cassidy-next-big-british-breakout|work=Interview Magazine|date=9 November 2017}}

::::::*{{cite news |first=James |last=Lachno |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/film-news/10140705/Raffey-Cassidy-11-year-old-British-actress-could-be-next-Carey-Mulligan.html |title=Raffey Cassidy: 11-year-old British actress could be next Carey Mulligan |date=28 June 2013 |work=The Daily Telegraph |url-access=subscription}}

::::::

::::::And I'm not seeing any sources that say English - so taking the lead from them and also in the spirit of WP:RETAIN we can continue saying British. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 08:20, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello Team,

i want to send off wiki SPI evidence. Please share email address. Thanks in advance. 2409:40F0:8:4D14:E5DA:B7A5:B51A:7BB7 (talk) 04:55, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:You will need to create a Wikipedia account and enable the email function. It's free and easy. User:Arbitration Committee explains how to email that committee. An alternative to ArbCom is to send an email to an individual administrator heavily active at WP:SPI. Cullen328 (talk) 05:12, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

::Hi @Cullen328, I have done, the process mentioned by you. I didn’t got any reply or update from them. 2409:40F0:129:D682:BCD1:15DA:BB30:1E92 (talk) 19:04, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

::Which process, IP editor? If you registered an account, please edit from that account. If you emailed ArbCom, expect that it will take a while for them to respond. Committees work slowly. If you emailed an administrator, each is a volunteer working only when they choose. Be patient. It has only been 14 hours since my first answer. Cullen328 (talk) 19:55, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:::@Cullen328, im an blocked user. So which i can only edit my talk page and mail an user or administrator :) 2409:40F0:129:D682:BCD1:15DA:BB30:1E92 (talk) 20:12, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

::::IP editor, stop evading your block by editing logged out. You are only making matters worse. Appeal your block on your user talk page and do not edit anywhere else. Cullen328 (talk) 03:49, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::@Cullen328 The IP is currently under a range block that prevents account creation and editing Hyderabad cricket team. That's probably what they were referring to when they said "im an blocked user." — DVRTed (Talk) 04:01, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi! I edit on an Apple IPhone. I just got an Apple Laptop and my Phone and Computer have my Apple ID (Which I am obviously not giving anyone). Is it permitted for me to be signed in to my Wikipedia account on both my Phone and Computer? Thank you Servite et contribuere (talk) 05:20, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:Yes absolutely you can use as many devices as your heart desires. I'm sure you will find some experienced editors who take pride in having edited from the greatest range of, or most niche internet enabled devices they could find. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 05:23, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks. Servite et contribuere (talk) 05:28, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

::{{u|Servite et contribuere}}, I too edit mostly from my phone, and occasionally on my laptop. One benefit of trying different devices is that you get a better sense of the dramatically different appearance of the same article on a tiny screen as opposed to a large screen. Cullen328 (talk) 07:26, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Rajiv Gandhi Manav Seva Award#cite note-13

i have attached my drafted articel above , would love some assisstance. Rohitmahali01 (talk) 06:45, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

: Standalone articles on awards can be tough, as there are sooooo many of them and there are typically far more articles on the bestowing of an award than on the award itself, it's history, origin and cultural significance. The initial origin of many "minor" award articles is as a section in the namesake rather than a stand alone article. Hope this helps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceyockey (talk • contribs) 08:10, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:The feedback you are requesting can be obtained by re-submitting your draft for review. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:43, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

platform Frank mutish (talk) 07:35, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:Which platform ? Anatole-berthe (talk) 08:47, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:@Frank mutish I suggest you read platform and then rephrase your question more clearly. Shantavira|^{feed me} 16:40, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello everyone,

I submitted a draft article about Goldblum & Partners, a Zurich-based Swiss law and fiduciary firm founded in 2007. The draft was recently declined with the reason that the references do not show notability.

However, I have included multiple sources that I believe are:

• reliable (Swissinfo, IFLR1000, Bloomberg LEI)
• secondary and independent
• in-depth (directory listings and professional legal articles like Mondaq)

Here is the draft: User:Goldblum.ch/sandbox

Could someone please review and let me know:

1. Whether the current sources satisfy the general notability guideline (WP:GNG)?
2. If not, what kind of sources exactly would help establish notability for a law firm?
3. Are there issues with article structure or formatting I should address before resubmission?

Thanks in advance for your time and guidance! Goldblum.ch (talk) 10:24, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:The feedback you are requesting can be obtained by re-submitting your draft for review.

:Which three of your sources meet all of the requirements outlined at WP:42? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:36, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:@Goldblum.ch Your sources seem to be largely made up of listings and are not cited correctly but instead are directly linked in the text (see this guide to referencing). As far as I can tell, the IFLR1000 listing doesn't even have a profile and, if it did, would no doubt have been supplied by your firm, so not independent. One listing, at Crunchbase is a deprecated source for Wikipedia, so is worse than useless. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:56, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:{{re|MarcusAltenburg}}: you have made the common mistake of writing a draft which is you telling the world about your firm, ie. basically a corporate presentation. This is considered purely promotional here; see WP:YESPROMO. Instead, we almost exclusively want to see what independent and reliable third parties, esp. secondary sources, have said about your firm and what in their view makes it worthy of note. Your job is merely to summarise their coverage. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:08, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you again for the guidance.
I understand now that my draft comes across as promotional — that was not my intention, but rather the result of not having written a Wikipedia article before. I’m trying to learn the difference between neutral summary and corporate tone.
I’ve been looking at examples like the German-language article Schellenberg Wittmer to better understand how a Swiss law firm can be presented using appropriate sources.
If you could point me to specific types of sources or coverage that are acceptable, I would be very grateful. I’m happy to revise the draft accordingly.MarcusAltenburg (talk) 14:49, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:::MarcusAltenburg I have removed the multiple misuses of blockquote from your reply. Please do not use an article in another language Wikipedia as an example, as the policies and guidelines are not the same, so you could easily be misled. - Arjayay (talk) 15:11, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Thank you!

::::I never did that previously, so this is my really first experience) MarcusAltenburg (talk) 15:26, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Hello, @MarcusAltenburg, and welcome to the Teahouse, and to Wikipedia. {{User:ColinFine/PractiseFirst}} ColinFine (talk) 16:45, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

I uploaded an image from a non-peer-reviewed scientific article (see :File:Differential interference contrast micrographs of Glissandra oviformis.jpg). Then the article was published, and the image was bigger in the final article. So I uploaded the new one (see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Differential_interference_contrast_micrographs_of_Glissandra_oviformis.jpg). The old one has to be deleted. How can I make such a request? Jako96 (talk) 12:52, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:I deleted it for you. Next time, I suppose you could use {{speedy}}? Or post a request on wikipedia:Files for discussion? DS (talk) 15:50, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks! Jako96 (talk) 15:54, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Is there a page indicating how to add Internet Archive links in Sources sections where books are in cite book form? Mcljlm (talk) 15:18, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:See {{para|archive-url}} under Template:Cite book#URL. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:33, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedia Team,

I hope this message finds you well.

I am kindly reaching out to request your assistance in getting my article published and approved in accordance with Wikipedia’s standards. Despite several attempts, the article has been rejected multiple times. I would greatly appreciate your guidance on what exactly needs to be improved, and what you consider reliable sources and appropriate documentation—particularly in the context of content related to the United Arab Emirates.

Below is the link to my draft article for your review:

🔗 Draft:Naser Abdulazeez bin Ahmed

Thank you in advance for your time and support. I look forward to your feedback.

Warm regards, Innovation Path (talk) 17:12, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:Hello. Please don't use an AI/LLM to communicate with us. We want to hear from you directly, not an AI.

:Do you have a connection with this man?

:You have essentially posted his resume, and not a summary of what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about him, showing how he is a notable person. 331dot (talk) 17:33, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:None of your sources meet the requirements outlined at WP:42. You need three sources that meet all of those requirements. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:34, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:I see on your talk page that you claimed in a discussion that you were hired- you must formally disclose this per WP:PAID; see your user talk page for instructions. Please do this soon. 331dot (talk) 17:37, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:You will also need to go to Commons and edit the copyright information to indicate yourself as the author of the image, which is what its edit history indicates. 331dot (talk) 18:20, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi Teahouse,

I would like to change my username to something more comprehensible than this alphanumeric string. Please help. Thank you very much.40S9350144 (talk) 18:25, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:Read the instructions at Wikipedia:Changing username. DS (talk) 18:33, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks DS. I see that your username is not actually DS though. Is it possible to abbreviate it when a comment is signed? 40S9350144 (talk) 18:37, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:::See WP:CUSTOMSIG. 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (need something?) 18:48, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Thank you! 40S9350144 (talk) 18:53, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Just so I understand this correctly, "Simple account rename" would change mean my username only on Wikipedia whereas the "Global user account rename request" changes my username on all of Wikimedia's projects? Thanks! 40S9350144 (talk) 19:06, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::I think so (I've only ever done the simple rename). Also note that the global request requires your email. 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (need something?) 20:58, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Is there any risk in giving out an email address? Thanks! 40S9350144 (talk) 07:18, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::@40S9350144 both would change your username on all WP:SUL wikis, this included. – robertsky (talk) 05:24, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Thanks! If that is the case how are those two options different from one another? 40S9350144 (talk) 07:08, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Also, is it possible for me to go for a global rename if I had already undergone a simple rename? Tysm. 40S9350144 (talk) 07:17, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm seeking advice on my rejected Wikipedia draft: Draft:Joel Whitney, I agree that the article need to be improved, but I also felt it should not be declined, as the article has good sources and also won notable awards for his writing work. I’d also appreciate guidance on whether the subject meets notability criteria based on the current sources or if I should seek additional ones.

Thank you for your help! Greenswitchorg (talk) 19:17, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:Hello, @Greenswitchorg, and welcome to the Teahouse. It does not look to me as if your draft has good sources - or, if it does, they are lost among the not-so-good-sources.

:The ones I have looked at are either not independent of Whitney (either interviews, or very short bios from his publishers, and so almost certainly from him) or do not say much about him, as opposed to his books.

:A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what several people who are wholly unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish about the subject (and not just about the subject's creations) in reliable publications), and not much else: see WP:42.

:Non-independent sources may sometimes be used to add uncontroversial factual information, but the core of the article should be based almost exclusively on independent sources about the subject.

:But take heart: your draft has not been rejected (which would mean the end of the road) but declined. ColinFine (talk) 19:56, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you for your suggestions @ColinFine, I will try to work on it, if possible you also help to improve it. Thanks again Greenswitchorg (talk) 00:17, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:William D. Araiza

Bill is my cousin. I have some things I want to add based on personal experience, so if anyone sees uncited information add by me on this article, it is not vandalism. Cheeky91021 (talk) 21:58, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:@Cheeky91021 While it isn't vandalism, it is against Wikipedia policies, please see WP:VERIFY. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 22:03, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:The problem is - although I'm sure you're telling the truth, what happens when someone else comes along and says "no, I'm Bill's cousin, and what I want to say is the total opposite" ? DS (talk) 22:03, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this article to the greater WP community. Not only does it have several problems regarding a BLP article; it may not even meet notability for inclusion. Most of the sources are either primary or mentions. Trying to figure out their notability over any other law professor who writes about law and teaches at a Law School. Maineartists (talk) 23:53, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

OpenCore Legacy Patcher SatellaN64 (talk) 23:27, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:Hi, your article will get reviewed when a patroller gets to it. Unfortunately, we usually can't help people cut the line by asking at the Teahouse. Cheers, GoldRomean (talk) 02:53, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:@SatellaN64 Note that your use of boldface type does not conform to our manual of style, since items like MacBook5,1 are not redirects to the article. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:47, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello friends! I received a rejection for a suggested page (Draft:Nora Freeman Engstrom). The feedback was that this read more like a CV than an encyclopedic article. It is very good feedback, and I can appreciate exactly what the editor was getting at. (I'm new around here.) So I am going to start over and am researching more about encyclopedic style. To that end, I'm wondering if anyone has examples of pages that really embody this style and tone? I work better looking at examples of exemplary content. Thanks so much in advance! A2Jforever (talk) 00:27, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:{{re|A2Jforever}} The list of Good articles is one place to start. Good articles (and Featured articles, which are the cream of the crop) have met specific criteria and exemplify our policies and guidelines and Manual of style. Reviewers don't expect new articles to be anywhere near Good or Featured quality, but I like to think of a promising draft or new article as one that could eventually be brought up to these standards. The lists of Good and Featured articles are sorted by topic, with biographies included within the relevant topic. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 01:23, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

How to make a new article? Hello wikiusers! (talk) 01:11, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:I suggest reading WP:Your first article and then using the blue button at WP:AFC. Cheers, GoldRomean (talk) 02:44, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Sometimes, Wikipedia won't let me add a new topic or reply, forcing me to go into editor and type a reply myself. I sometimes can (like right now) and sometimes can't (a couple minutes earlier). It's kind of annoying and I'm worried if it actually pings users. I have tried closing and opening, reloading the page, and purging it. Also

--pro-anti-air (talk) 03:07, 22 June 2025 (UTC) Also why does my signature look like that?

:Not sure what you're referring to with the rest, but your sig looks like that in this case because it's on a new line with a leading space. -- Avocado (talk) 12:21, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello, my draft for my husband's Wikipedia page was turned down. I need help getting it approved. He has worked hard on becoming one of the world's best masters' strongmen and should be recognized. Thank you Kathyslove (talk) 03:27, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:Hello, {{u|Kathyslove}}. Your draft is unreferenced, which violates Verifiability, a core content policy. You need to formally declare your Conflict of interest. Spend some time reading and studying Your first article, so that you have a better understanding of what is required. Cullen328 (talk) 04:30, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:{{courtesy link|Draft:Danny Dale Stinson Jr}}

:Hello {{u|Kathyslove}},

:Thanks for stopping by the Teahouse. You might want to have a read of WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY (okay strictly speaking writng a biography of your husband is not an autobiography, but it's close enough). Anyway for a topic to be considered appropriate for a Wikipedia article, we're looking for significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic - so your first step is to be looking for newspaper or magazine articles that cover Mr Stinson Jr. (not including WP:ROUTINE coverage [https://www.openpowerlifting.org/u/dannystinsonjr like this]), and then, forgetting everything you know personally about your husband, writing an article using only information stated in those sources.

:That is a lot more likely to be approved. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 04:26, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:Hello, @Kathyslove, and welcome to the Teahouse.

:{{User:ColinFine/PractiseFirst}} And that is even without a conflict of interest. ColinFine (talk) 18:02, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

I add book cover images all the time, but this is the first time that I have added one where the size of it seems to be completely wrong. Can one of you please help to fix it? This is the article. Iljhgtn (talk) 04:11, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:Hi {{U|Iljhgtn}}, I attempted to fix the size of image and thought I had it right, but it wasn't until after my edit that I noticed another editor had already made an edit to fix the image. Sorry about this, you can revert my edit if you were trying to have a bigger image than now. Cmr08 (talk) 05:48, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

::No, just wanted a regular size image. Thank you for looking at this. Iljhgtn (talk) 05:49, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Stub drafts will be approved or not? ইমরান ভূইয়া (talk)

:If the only issue with them is that they are stubs, then yes. AfC approval is done on adhering to Wikipedia's policies, most notably notability - but not exclusively. There isn't a minimum length requirement for articles so long as the content is more in-depth than a dictionary definition. (PS, please sign your posts with four tildes, like ~~~~ to produce the datestamp and make replying easier). -- D'n'B-📞 -- 06:56, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

I believe there was an essay on WP:Whitewashing, but now I cannot find it. I was going to start the equal, but opposite, essay. I wanted that as reference. Does anyone know what I am referring to? Iljhgtn (talk) 08:15, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:The act of removing harmful content from an article was what the essay was overly concerned with, and I thought it was called, "wp:whitewashing", but I cannot find anything like that. Iljhgtn (talk) 08:16, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

::For some reason WP:WHITEWASHING used to redirect to WP:SOAPBOX but I cannot fathom why. On the topic of removing "harmful" content from articles, presumably the place to start would be WP:CENSORSHIP. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 09:13, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:::It's WP:PROUD. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:40, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:::And WP:AUTO, WP:ACTIVIST, WP:ADVOCACY. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:43, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello to anyone who contributes, my username is CreativeLibrary460 and I'm new to Wikipedia. However, can you explain on the Wikipedia Library in simple terms and how do I access the Wikipedia online library? Are there limitations on the library's collection on Wikipedia? I want to be able to access the digital resources of the library, and if the online library doesn't have the resource I'm looking for, can I check the books, magazines, and newspapers out from a local physical library? As far I can tell, this Wikipedia Library allows active editors to access a wide range of collections of paywalled reliable sources for free. Additionally, is this possible to cite the source offline, from the physical library that contains printed material, such as books, instead of eBooks or only online things? Thank you for answering this question, if you have an offer. >^CreativeLibrary460 /^{access the library revision}\ 09:58, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:Welcome to the Teahouse, {{u|CreativeLibrary460}}. You're certainly welcome to use offline sources, as explained at WP:SOURCEACCESS. Sources available via public libraries and online sources that aren't behind paywalls might be your best options for now, as access to the Wikipedia Library is restricted to editors whose accounts are at least six months old and have 500 global edits (see WP:LIBRARY). You might also find the Resource Exchange useful. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:52, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

::@Cordless Larry What is the reason for Wikipedia Library being restricted to editors whose accounts are at least six months old and have 500 global edits? >^CreativeLibrary460 /^{access the library revision}\ 13:42, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:::If access to the library were unrestricted, unscrupulous people could use that to get round the paywalls that many publishers use to gain a monetary return on their publications. The staff at the library have to negotiate a reasonable balance between giving access to committed Wikipedia editors and the interests of the external suppliers. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:46, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

::::@Michael D. Turnbull @Cordless Larry If I'm welcome to use offline sources, as explained here with WP:SOURCEACCESS, does this mean that I really have to rely on print books at the library as sources for citation? Does this include other print material, especially available on the library, including the newspapers and periodicals? >^CreativeLibrary460 /^{access the library revision}\ 16:15, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::You can use other print sources and online sources that you can access. See WP:RS for an overview of what sources are considered reliable. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:59, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::@Cordless Larry @Michael D. Turnbull @Pigsonthewing Thank you for answering this. And for the reply too. >^CreativeLibrary460 /^{access the library revision}\ 17:21, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:If you need to access as a specific publication, for Wikipedia purposes, but it's paywalled, ask at WP:RX. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:08, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

::Ok, thanks for the Resource Exchange. >^CreativeLibrary460 /^{access the library revision}\ 16:09, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

What is the difference between article and a draft? And how could draft be turned into articles? How long they will both last? PageLengths6012 (talk) 12:39, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:@PageLengths6012 Welcome to the Teahouse. As we use these terms in the English Wikipedia, articles are the over 7 million entries in mainspace. Many have been created by a process described at articles for creation by which editors first develop the text as drafts in what is called draft space. This part of the website is not indexed by search engines. Many new editors find it helpful to submit their drafts for review by experienced editors: see Help:Your first article for full details. Articles in mainspace remain there indefinitely unless proposed for deletion, whereas drafts are usually temporary as they are moved to mainspace, or rejected as unsuitable. A draft that is untouched for six months will be automatically deleted by a bot but can usually be restored if someone wants to return to it. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:36, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

::That's fine. At least I would be making drafts. Thanks for the difference. PageLengths6012 (talk) 19:37, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I am attempting to add the real names of the witches to the following part of the plot summary of ENA: Dream BBQ.

{{Quote|After finding a way to block the vision of the man, ENA crosses the bridge and finds one of the witches, who asks her for help in finding her relatives, who are three other witches that can be found in the middle of Uncanny Streets.{{Cite web |last=Borges |first=Franklin Bellone |date=2025-03-31 |title=How to find the witch and bring her back in ENA Dream BBQ |url=https://www.destructoid.com/how-to-find-the-witch-and-bring-her-back-in-ena-dream-bbq/ |access-date=2025-05-11 |website=Destructoid |language=en-US}}}}

This particular paragraph cites a source, and that source doesn't mention the real names of the witches anywhere, but can I still add them since it's a plot summary, which is supposed to mostly cite the game itself? 1isall (talk/contribs) 14:21, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:I'm really not that familiar with expanding plot summaries, so I could really use some help here. 1isall (talk/contribs) 20:01, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

{{Reflist-talk}}

I have purchased a used book from the above series entitled Highways & Byways in Derbyshire by J B Firth and illustrated by Nelly Erichsen. I accessed Wikipedia to see how many books are in this series. The list given by Wikipedia gives 36 titles, but does not include Highways & Byways in Derbyshire which was first printed in 1905, my copy is a reprint from 1920. Is this omission an oversight? 2A00:23C7:ED3D:B701:D9C3:F132:59C4:33B0 (talk) 15:52, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:Probably. Please be bold, and add it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:06, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

I would like to add award nominations to a celebrity's list of accolades, but because it was long ago, the only source I can find are youtube videos of the full award ceremonies posted on official channel of the award-giving body. Can I use them as references? If yes, do I need to specify the timestamps etc? Blurbysky (talk) 19:34, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:It is odd that you would be able to find videos of the award ceremonies but not the actual listing by the organization itself. What exactly is / are the award(s); and for which celebrity? Yes, YouTube clips announcing the nomination from past award ceremonies suffice; but I would timestamp just so that editors do not need to watch the entire clip to find one nomination. Overall, however, you'll want to provide a "better source"{{Bsn}} rather than just a YouTube clip since these are better served to reference what a celebrity might say during their acceptance speech. Maineartists (talk) 19:49, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Этот оксюморон Прудона явно соответствует Истории теоретической Общей Физики ...

Кроме обычных ошибок Человека, исправляемых им самим, если получится,

существуют и так называемые ОБЩЕПРИНЯТЫЕ ОШИБКИ, которые всем Человечеством считаются истинами продолжительное время; но время проходит, и находится один Человек или некоторое множество людей, у которых возникает понимание того, что это - ЗАБЛУЖДЕНИЕ, - которое необходимо лишить статуса ОБЩЕПРИНЯТОЙ ОШИБКИ потому, что это - обычная ошибка людей, не отвечающая

научной истине ЗАКОНОВ ПРИРОДЫ.

[https://fb.ru/article/503957/2023-kak-lyudi-predstavlyali-zemlyu-v-drevnosti-mifyi-i-realnost История Физики] начиналась с множества утверждений - гипотез, на чём Земля держится ... . _ _ _ _ _ _ А в 1905 и 1916 годы Альберт Эйнштейн - и до сих пор - убедил ... главных физиков-теоретиков Земли в том, что ... смотри СТО и ОТО , т.е. Специальную Теорию Относительности и Общую Теорию Относительности.

Сомневающихся в правоте этого приговора много ... ,

но... знакомые мне - не профессионалу - не пожелали говорить со мною на эту тему.

Однако, есть ФАКТ, известный с 1851 г. :

фундаментальная физическая константа - СКОРОСТЬ СВЕТА в ВАКУУМЕ !.

Но Альберт Эйнштейн' ... почему-то забыл про это ,,, и сумел убедить

главных физиков-теоретиков Земли в том, что и в вакууме Вселенной скорость ЭМВ "туда" и "обратно" различны, как и в атмосфере Земли, где эта скорость зависит от абсолютного показателя преломления среды, делающего cкорость ЭМВ меньше, чем фундаментальная константа вакуума'.

И все профессионалы физики, как и все журналисты, - молчат угрюмо на :

[https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Chj-2N9qoQYFv1_oitq9GuL8FDIyjOth/edit Российская Академия Наук не реагирует ...]

А ... волонтёры с правами выкидывают этот мой текст из Википедии. VIR-1937 (talk) 19:37, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Google translate gives:-

=="Delusions-Steps of Science." == This toxic humoron' Proudhon' clearly corresponds to the History of Theoretical General Physics... In addition to the usual mistakes of man, corrected by himself, if possible, there are so-called GENERALLY ACCEPTED errors, which by all Mankindare considered truthsfor a long time; but "time passes", and there is oneMan or some multitude of people, who have the understanding that this is a DELUSION, which must be deprived of the status of a GENERALLY accepted error, because it is a common mistake of people, which does not correspond to the scientific truth of the LAWS of nature. [https://fb.ru/article/503957/2023-kak-lyudi-predstavlyali-zemlyu-v-drevnosti-mifyi-i-realnostHistory of Physics] began with a multitude of assertions-hypotheses, which "the Earth is holding on'....______Av1905 and 1916Albert Einstein-idosikhpor-convinced... main theoretical physicists of the Earthin that... see SRT and 'GR, i.e. 'SpecialTheoryOfRelativity and 'GeneralTheoryOfRelativity. There are many doubts about the correctness of this "verdict"..., but... Acquaintances to me, layman, did not want to talk to the somnaya. However, there is a FACT known since 1851: the fundamental physical constant is the 'SPEED OF LIGHT in a VACUUM!. But "Albert Einstein"... for some reason I forgot this,,,managed to convince the main theoretical physicists of the Earth that "in the vacuum of the Universe"the speed of EMV"there' and "back"are different, like in the atmosphere of the "Earth", where this speed depends onabsolute refractive index of the medium, which makes the speed of EMV less than the "fundamental vacuum constant". And all the professionals of physics, like all the journalists, are silent, gloomy: [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Chj-2N9qoQYFv1_oitq9GuL8FDIyjOth/editthe Russian AcademyScienceDoes not react...] Ah... volunteersright throw out this mytextfrom Wikipedia''. VIR-1937(talk)19:37,22June2025(UTC)

:- Arjayay (talk) 19:42, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

::VIR-1937 - This is the English Wikipedia, please communicate in English. Do you have a question about editing Wikipedia? - 19:44, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi! Is Wikipedia a place to publish novels and other works created? Can it be in a userspace or elsewhere? FastNovel21 (talk) 19:43, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:no, Wikipedia is not a good place for this Osa Akwamarynowa (talk) 19:45, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

::Why not? FastNovel21 (talk) 19:50, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Wikipedia only reports what has already been published in WP:Reliable sources, we do not allow WP:Original research, and we are not a webhost. There are plenty of other sites for such material. - Arjayay (talk) 19:53, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

::::{{ping|FastNovel21}} The policy is Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a blog, Web hosting service, social networking service, or memorial site. See Wikipedia:Alternative outlets for other options. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:56, 22 June 2025 (UTC)