Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1063

Archive 1060

Archive 1061

Archive 1062

Archive 1063

Archive 1064

Archive 1065

→

Archive 1070

Deleted Article: How to link Japanese language article of the same content to the English article

Deleted article

The article I wrote was deleted due to various reasons mentioned. My article in Japanese was approved and is currently on Wikipedia. I basically translated this article into English and uploaded onto my page. My question is: Can the Japanese version be linked to my English article? Will the publication of the Japanese article be an evidence that the English article is true and respecting all the rules of Wikipedia?

(Oneasia2011 (talk) 10:40, 1 June 2020 (UTC)) Oneasia2011 (talk) 10:40, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy link: George Kunihiro: (See here) Nick Moyes (talk) 10:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@Oneasia2011: You've got it wrong. What you need to establish an article on the English Wikipedia is at least three independent reliable sources that provide in-depth coverage of the subject. This will show notability for the subject. Wikipedia (and any site with "Wiki" in the name) is not a reliable source because anyone can edit it.

The usual advice I give is to get at least three professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources that are specifically and primarily about the subject but not affiliated with or connected to it and summarize those. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:51, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Oneasia2011. See my answer to #Question on AfC two sections abovebelow. --ColinFine (talk) 11:06, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Archived, — Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 23:26, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@Oneasia2011: In addition to what other editors have already said: The article Kunihiro George was deleted as a copyright violation. That means it can't be restored – more information about that here. You have a draft article in your sandbox (it looks like it has been restored a couple of times at your request), which you have not worked on since it was last rejected. Have a look at the comments from the editor who reviewed it then, and work on finding and adding secondary sources, and to remove promotional wording. If you have any connection to the person you are writing about, you will also read this information. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 11:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Infobox for universities

In Catalan Wikipedia most of the universities have already been changed to a wikidata infobox. Don't you think it would be easier to have it this way? This way if someone changes something in another language it would be shown directly instead of having to wait till someone changes it for all the languages? Afernandez.52 (talk) 11:05, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Your edits on the composers you've just put infoboxes on have been reverted. Cassianto^Talk 11:26, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

The use of Wikidata makes vandalism a hell of a lot easier, given how few watchers there are there. Given much of the information there is unsupported or uncited and the "data" it unthinkingly dumps into articles goes against many of the guidelines we have; it also includes the bloody stupid pencil icon at each line. - SchroCat (talk) 11:46, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Problem with Wikidata is that anyone can put whatever unsourced content they want on there, and if we're using Wikidata infoboxes, that unsourced content comes onto here too. Especially as most other language Wikipedias have lower sourcing requirements than English Wikipedia. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

My unusual centralized article

Hi, everyone. Sorry to bother you all again. I faced an unusual issue recently, which you can literally see my issue at my userpage. My "cntributions to wikipedia" page's words keeps being centralized. I tried to undo this issue, but i can't. (⊙_⊙)？:-) pLZ HELP ME TO RESOLVE MY PROBLEM... and get my article into the way that it shoud be. tHANKS, FELLOW Wikipedians.:) Hypersonic man 11 (talk) 08:53, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Hypersonic man 11. I haven't looked closely, but as far as I can see you have a

<table style="float: right; background: #FAFAFA; border: solid #003399 3px; padding: 0;" cellspacing="2"><tr><td valign="top">
<div style="background: #003399;text-align: center;

early on your page, and no corresponding </table> to close it. I have no idea what the effect is of mixing Markup tables and HTML tables, (I didn't know you could do it) but I presume that the property which I bolded above lasts to the end of the page. --ColinFine (talk) 09:09, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Hypersonic man 11 Also, on the "Contributions to Wikipedia" section, you're using {{Div col}} without specifying a number of columns. So it's defaulting to one column centralised. If you remove the {{Div col}}, then the "Contributions to Wikipedia" section will switch back to left aligned. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:11, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for all your suggestions and comments. So, can you guys help me out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypersonic man 11 (talk • contribs) 11:43, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done Your userpage has probably the worst layout I've ever seen, and hardly worth spending ages on. But I've fixed the problem you complained about. Revert if you don't like it. Consider that having a Table of Content half way down the page is, itself, rather daft as, indeed, is having three sets of userboxes. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:39, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Commandment transcriptions

Can anybody transcribe the Hebrew vesion of the Commandments? Also,I'm looking foward to actually writing the Hebrew. Regards. Dandro08 (talk) 12:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC) A kind thanks to all who were willing do transcribe the commandments.May God thy Lord be with you all. Dandro08 (talk) 12:42, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't really understand what you are asking, but you did get an answer to the same question (albeit with different spelling) here. Did that not suffice? Nick Moyes (talk) 12:44, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@Dandro08: I should add that Wikipedia collates existing, published sources, rather than doing original research and translations. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:47, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

12:14:49, 1 June 2020 review of submission by VidhyadhariK

I want to know why the article submission was declined, can you please help me so that, I can improve my article and resubmit it again.

• VidhyadhariK (talk · contribs)
  • No draft specified!

 VidhyadhariK (talk) 12:14, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Draft:Chaithra Rai

Hi, VidhyadhariK, and welcome to the Teahouse. Your draft clearly has the explanation as to why the draft wasn’t accepted; it does not show how the subject is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. For that, you will have to find some news reports writing about mainly this person. RedBulbBlueBlood9911|Talk 12:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

References that only describe the plot and characters of roles she has starred do not contribute to her notability as a person. David notMD (talk) 14:07, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

"We Got Next"

I'm requesting assisstance because I have edit several draft of a page and it keeps getting declined. It's a draft about a bachata group's album call "We Got Next" from Xtreme. This album was released in 2003 and there's barely information about it because the album didn't have notoriety at the time. The group never really mentioned a lot about the album because they were later on signed to a record label and then their 2005 album became know as their debut album. I've put in references and extra links to prove that the article is accurate, but it still gets rejected.

How can I make this article accepted to be officially on wikipedia?

This is the link to the draft: Xtreme - We Got Next (Album) DominicanWikiEdit1996 (talk) 08:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

A music article I'm requesting assisstance because I have edit several draft of a page and it keeps getting declined. It's a draft about a bachata group's album call "We Got Next" from Xtreme. This album was released in 2003 and there's barely information about it because the album didn't have notoriety at the time. The group never really mentioned a lot about the album because they were later on signed to a record label and then their 2005 album became know as their debut album. I've put in references and extra links to prove that the article is accurate, but it still gets rejected.

How can I make this article fit the qualifications that are accepted by the reviewers?

This is the link to the draft: Xtreme - We Got Next (Album) DominicanWikiEdit1996 (talk) 08:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

DominicanWikiEdit1996, welcome to the Teahouse! You say "there's barely information about it because the album didn't have notoriety at the time" which makes it pretty clear that you can't make an acceptable WP-article about this album, see WP:NALBUM. Not enough coverage = no WP-article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

DominicanWikiEdit1996 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If this album does not have significant coverage in independent reliable sources, it would not merit an article at this time. The sources you have offered are not independent reliable sources with significant coverage. No amount of editing can confer notability(what you call "notoriety") on an article subject, it depends on the sources. 331dot (talk) 08:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

This draft was declined five times (!) and then DominicanWikiEdit1996 moved it to main space anyway. Rather than redraftify, suggest someone start an AfD. David notMD (talk) 10:48, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@David notMD:  Done - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/We Got Next. GoingBatty (talk) 15:07, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Proper tagging

There is a tag to be used for promotional articles, but is there a tag to be used specifically for articles that seem to have been edited exclusively to give a negative opinion of the subject? RedBulbBlueBlood9911|Talk 12:09, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@RedBulbBlueBlood9911: You're probably thinking of {{POV}}. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:09, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

But doesn’t this template apply also to non-advert style articles which have any neutrality issues, @Tenryuu:? In the case of the article I wish to tag, it has not one, but four controversy sections, while the only possibly neutral section is the lead which also uses disparaging terms. I thought that there would be a template specifying that there is too much emphasis on negative things or something like that. RedBulbBlueBlood9911|Talk 14:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@RedBulbBlueBlood9911: I'm going through Category:Article message templates and the ones that seem most relevant are {{False version}}, {{POV}}, {{NPOV language}}, and {{Unbalanced}}. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:37, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@Tenryuu:, Template:Criticism section seems to be the most appropriate template, though it is technically meant to be used with single controversy sections. RedBulbBlueBlood9911|Talk 14:43, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@RedBulbBlueBlood9911: Checking Category:Neutrality templates. You could use {{controversial}}, which goes on the article's talk page. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:08, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand about the notability policy. I would like to write an article about a person. What is criteria that i should check before writting the article about that person?

 Solai Alagappan (talk) 13:47, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@Solai Alagappan: The general notability guidelines can be found here. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 13:53, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@Solai Alagappan: The notability criteria for people can be found at Wikipedia:Notability (people). I suggest you follow the guidance at Help:Your first article to create a draft, which will be reviewed before it becomes an article. GoingBatty (talk) 15:40, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

can you cite books as sources?

Hello! I am somewhat new to Wikipedia and was curious if you could use books as sources. I have seen books used as sources, but those books are available to read on the internet, and as the book I am looking at citing from doesn't even have a google books page I wanted to make sure whether I could still use it as a source. Can I do that? If you're curious the book is 'Whalebacks: Wrecked, Scrapped, Lost & Forgotten' By Neel Zoss. Bowtiesarecool06 (talk) 14:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@Bowtiesarecool06: welcome to the Teahouse. Yes, books can be used as sources, and whether they are indexed by Google Books or not is irrelevant. Printed books can be more or less reliable sources, but that is not judged by whether they are available online or not. There is even a specific template, {{Template:Cite book}} that you can use to insert such references. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 14:22, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

It does have a gbook page, but no preview: [1]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:52, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Help???

 BorisKhlivski (talk) 16:30, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Need something to contribute to en wp. Please. BorisKhlivski (talk) 16:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, BorisKhlivski, and welcome to the Teahouse. I might not be understanding your question correctly—are you asking about what exactly you can contribute, is there a particular topic or article? Could you be more specific with your question?

In any case, I would recommend reading Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia for a quick how-to guide, and then get started editing whatever interests you. Be bold! ComplexRational (talk) 16:37, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm mentally I'll could I get a tutor??? BorisKhlivski (talk) 16:43, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Please add categories

How to add categories to this article [[2]]? DonGuess (talk) 16:56, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Drafts don't go into article categories, see WP:DRAFTNOCAT. Your draft is almost empty. You need references to demonstrate that the subject satisfies Wikipedia's definition of notability. Please also read the advice at WP:Your first article. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Ancient history articles

When editing ancient history articles, are translations of ancient authors (Livy et al) free to insert, or do they come under some editing restriction? Thanks in advance. HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 10:53, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

HalfdanRagnarsson, to some extent. A WP-article should never be mostly based on sources like Livy directly, though something like "According to 1st century BCE historian Livy..." can have a place. Try to reference modern historians using Livy where possible, to get a sense of relevance. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:42, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: this will be about my reversion here.[3] Could you take a look at these and comment so that Halfdan has a 2nd opinion? Thanks. Doug Weller talk 14:02, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Obviously it would be WP-better with secondary sources, but it seems no worse than the rest of the "The battle" section. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:21, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Can we anyone have two Wiki accounts?

Can a user have two different user names (with the same email-id) on Wikipedia? If yes, are their any advantages? If no, will any disciplinary action be taken? Can one delete the new account? I have read the username policy, but it didn't help me with my issue. Brillianc1 (talk) 11:53, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@Brillianc1: The part you needed to have read was WP:MULTIACCOUNT, which makes it clear it is allowed, but only for certain limited circumstances. If you have a valid reason to have two, you should declare the connection between both of the accounts, and only use the 2nd account for editing under those special circumstances. Failing to do that could have repercussions of it were clear an editor was somehow 'gaming the system' by editing from both accounts at once, whilst appearing to be two different users. Does that help? Nick Moyes (talk) 12:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

So can anyone delete my account for me? Actually unknowingly I made two accounts thinking that it may have some advantages. Brillianc1 (talk) 17:14, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@Brillianc1: Accounts cannot be deleted. The best thing to do now is stop using the second account and add a note to your user page that you previously edited under the other account. RudolfRed (talk) 17:42, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Automatic DS alerts

Hi, I recently alerted two editors of discretionary sanctions relating to WP:ARBIPA and noticed that Twinkle doesn't seem to include this functionality.

Is there any other semi-automated method which I can use to post these alerts, or must I do so manually? M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 00:42, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

M Imtiaz, the answer is likely no, based on the length of time for which your question has remained unanswered and the fact that no such tool is mentioned at WP:ACDS or {{DS/alert}}. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:57, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

How to Create a Notability Criteria sub-category

I recently had a couple articles for professional field lacrosse players declined because they were not deemed notable enough. There is no specific criteria for field lacrosse, and therefore was being judged under a more broad set of guidelines. Where and how do I go about creating this criteria for field lacrosse athletes. Jschwam (talk) 17:50, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@Jschwam: Welcome to Wikipedia. For this, I suggest starting a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports). Note that the FAQ says that even if the sport specific notabily is met, it still must also meet the general notabilty guideline. RudolfRed (talk) 18:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Chris Cassidy

Hello I am related to Chris Cassidy who is on a current expedition in Space right now. I noticed that his page on him doesn't have his family or children listed. He is married to Peggy Cassidy and they have five children between two of them both from previous marriages. Grace, Chloe, Colin, Mekhi and Martel. He would like to have is family on his page. 2603:300F:4C8:C000:607F:342E:8398:44CC (talk) 17:58, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello IP editor! The Wikipedia article on him is not really his page. It's an article that ideally should summarise encyclopedic information about his life and career, information that can be verified from other published secondary, independent, reliable sources. If there is a reliable source for the information, we could probably add his wife's name and how many children he has. But it's unlikely that it will mention the children's name; those names don't really add anything to understanding him and his work, but could pose a privacy risk for the minors (or non-public individuals, even adults). See WP:BLPNAME. The discussion about how to improve the article should take place at Talk:Christopher Cassidy; that's where the editors familiar with and interested in the subject are likely to see it and engage with you. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 18:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Whitewash

 Courtesy link: Luisa Neubauer

I read the media coverage, books etc. considering a lifing person and habe written great parts of an article but there are people deleting and whitewasking the article, what can i do? i really get tired as they dont try to be neutral but whitewash the article by metioning a dubious grandmother etc etc. I am trying to comply but the line is simply total whitewashing. DTilmann (talk) 17:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello DTilmann, is this about Luisa Neubauer? I see that someone left you a warning about that article. Did you trying discussing with that editor? Some editors are discussing at the talk page of that article, but you don't seem to have commented there. There are Dispute resolution procedures you can follow about content, you can post to the neutral point of view noticeboard to seek help against whitewashing, you can post at the administrator's noticeboard if you need help with poor editor behaviour/conduct. But all of those avenues, simply must be preceded by a good faith attempt to resolve the matter among the editors in dispute, on the relevant article and user talk pages. You need to start by joining the discussion; reply to the warning that was left on your user talk page; and join the discussion on the article's talk page. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 18:44, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello

Next discussion : #Hello, i need help.

Hello Dear Editors i have a question, how uploaded my award posters, design by my company,for our movie awards? Best regard Farid Hamedi Rohina (talk) 16:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@Farid Hamedi Rohina: Provided that you get their copyright released to Wikipedia so that anyone can use and manipulate them, you could upload them via Commons. More information is at WP:UPIMAGE. However, an issue is that you appear to be writing about yourself in your user page like an article, which is strongly discouraged. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:24, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Update: User page has been deleted per speedy deletion criterion U5. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:45, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject Proposals

Hello, I’m starting to reconsider proposing WikiProject Ontario Politics, but I’m not sure how I can get rid of the proposal. It would be great if someone could tell me how to do so. Thank you in advance. Ma nam is geoffrey (talk) (talk) 18:29, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello Ma nam is geoffrey! I have not edited those pages, so I am not speaking from absolute knowledge or experience, but Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals gives a way to close a proposal. Personally, I would simply strike out your proposal and append "I withdraw" and your signature at the end, cross out your username from the support list, and leave it for the experienced editors to handle the proper closing and archiving. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 18:52, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Ma nam is geoffrey (talk) (talk) 18:53, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Draft usurped in mainspace

Hi, have received this message today "The draft Draft:Dhoni Kabadi Kuzhu I have created on 21 July 2018‎ is still staying as a draft and you have marked it as a promising draft. But a new page about the same film Dhoni Kabadi Kuzhu that was created on 30 April 2020‎ is online now. Is this the right policy? " I replied that it is not a copy of his article as I did a check but it does seem bad form. Can you please advise me if there is anything that should be done about this? regards Atlantic306 (talk) 19:42, 1 June 2020 (UTC) Atlantic306 (talk) 19:42, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Atlantic306, if it were a copy, histmerge could be done; since it's not, I think the best can be done to credit the draft's author is to log a merge, by adding the merge template to article's talk page, and redirecting the draft to the article as a merger. Editors are supposed to search for drafts before creating an article, and it seems odd that any search wouldn't have found the draft since the title is the same, the page log of the article also has the draftification listed, but there is no policy/rule against creating articles this way. If there were, it would be so much easier handling UPE clones of draftified articles (not that this is one of those). Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 20:01, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks, will do, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 20:07, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

how do i change a page name?

Welcome, and do help yourself to a drink from this lovely Cretan tea pot.

Mytilineos "Holdings" doesnt exist. it has to be changed to Mytilineos "S.A". How do i change the page title? Stefan Zaglis (talk) 19:38, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@Stefan Zaglis: welcome to the Teahouse. Pages are renamed by a page move (see Wikipedia:Moving a page), which leaves behind a redirect from the old name to the new one. It might be a good idea to update the history of the company before simply moving the page. The change does seems logical, yet I notice in the company website they still offer a corporate video (see here) which used the Mytilineos Holdings logo. So maybe you should first discuss the suggested move at Talk:Mytilineos Holdings. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:56, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Also name changes do not automatically warrant title changes; if the organisation is more commonly known by the old name than by new, it may be advisable to retain the old title for the time being, only mentioning that the company has a new name in the article itself. WP:NAMECHANGES should apply. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 20:09, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello I am so favorite

Good Thanks Sweet Thanks

 105.112.97.214 (talk) 20:53, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, IP editor. Did you have a question about editing Wikipedia? That is what the Teahouse is for. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:42, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Child Page

How do I add a child page to someones wikipedia Koolkidz999 (talk) 21:51, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, User:Koolkidz999. I'm not sure why you want to create a subpage when you haven't yet created your own user page. But, if you wanted to create a second sandbox page, you'd simply type /sandbox2 after the url address for your userpage, like this: User:Koolkidz999/sandbox2. Then you'd have to add content and click 'Create' to publish the page. Existing (Mainspace) encyclopaedia articles do not have child pages, and you ought not to be attempting to create subpages for other users. If you need further clarification, please explain exactly what it is that you want to do, and where. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:00, 1 June 2020 (UTC)  

Afterthought: Because notability is not inherited, the child of a person who has a Wikipedia article about them must themselves meet our Notability criteria. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:09, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Where to ask about my draft “Arzamas”

Hello, which talk page is the right one to ask for feedback about Draft:Arzamas (website) on? DonGuess (talk) 20:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

DonGuess, it would be impossible to give a definitive advice on the draft's notability without an ability to read Russian. So, I am thinking WT:RUSSIA is likely the best place to ask whether the draft is likely to be accepted (one or two regulars of the Teahouse also understand Russian; so you might get an answer here too when luck favours). General content advice is given here, or at the AFC Help Desk or even by individual experienced editors who can find the time. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 21:56, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Right here is not a bad place to ask. i can't evaluate the sources that are in Russian. But the two in English look pretty good. They include detailed independent coverage. If some of the non-English sources are of comparable quality, or one or two comparable English-language sources could be added, notability looks good, IMO. The article text needs to be fleshed out. There are lots of facts in the already cited sources to use, and there may be more in other sources. Please do continue with this.

One formatting tip. Don 't use |first= and |last= in cites when the name of the actual person who wrote the source is not known, these are only for a person's name. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:59, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your help! Hmm, I don’t think I used anything like “firs/last”, but I’ll check. Also a general question about sources: would it be right to presume that russian-language sources are partly accessible for those who don’t know the language since you can translate it with, for example, google translator? Regards.--DonGuess (talk) 22:11, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@DonGuess: Could you please expand the Awards section with some translations, so the English-only readers can understand? The "References" should come before the "External links" section per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout. If the draft is approved, then the link to English Wikipedia article and Russian Wikipedia article would be linked at this Wikidata item, so you wouldn't need the link in the "External links" section. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 23:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Back Market/2

In the answer to the Draft:Back Market/2 submission, I received advice to ask for help here. Can you give some tips or ideas?. Thanks in advance. BoldLuis (talk) 02:59, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, BoldLuis, and welcome to the Teahouse. I was expecting to write another variation on a comment I have often written before, on how some of the sources were interviews or otherwise not independent, and others were not in much depth. But on looking at several of the sources, I think perhaps Robert McClenon who does generally high-quality AfC reviews and quite a few of them, has made one of his rare mistakes. Looking and the Forbes, Fast Company, and The Inventory sources in particular, I( think there may be enough to write a valid Wikipedia article here. The WSJ item is behind a paywall, so I can't see enough of it to know if it is more than a passing mention, and the builtinnyc and EU-Startups items read as if they were based on the same Press Release, although they may have some independent reporting too. VentureBeat. is unfortunately known to recycle PR in some of its pieces, so I tend to discount it a bit. Robert McClenon is IMO correct that the tone of the piece needs to be made a bit more neutral. Also the article could be fleshed out a bit more from what is already in the cited sources. But I think this might merit a decline instead of a reject. One more source comparable to the first three and I would be inclined to accept, myself. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:44, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

DESiegel: I am going to try to find another one. I rewrote the original draft (not written by me) deleting the text I thought was in excess. Thank you a lot!!.BoldLuis (talk) 03:57, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

User:DESiegel, User:BoldLuis - I will explain. I wasn't providing a thorough review, because I was annoyed. It is true that perhaps I was allowing my annoyance to influence my review more than I should have, but I think that my annoyance was entirely justified. The way that the two drafts on Back Market, Draft:Back Market and Draft:Back Market/2, were presented, asking the reviewer to use templates to indicate what portions of the draft were promotional, was asking the reviewer to rewrite the article so that the reviewer would be doing the work for the submitter. I don't know whether the templates were the idea of User:BoldLuis or of User:AlexMegon. I don't consider them to be an appropriate way to shift responsibility from the submitter to the reviewer. It was a game, a way of gaming the system, and I did not intend to play that game; I did not intend to be asked to do the work of writing the article. Reviewers are people too, and do not like to be played with. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:05, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

That is fair enough, Robert McClenon. I overlooked that aspect, simply checking the sources. While a reviewer may choose to give some examples of overly promotional text, asking for substitutes is to make the reviewer an author, which is not a reasonable request. I do think that there is enough here that Back Market is quite probably notable, but a drafter (BoldLuis here I suppose) must still write the draft.I would advise striking the request to use templates to highlight the promotional aspects. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 05:21, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I will add that this particular device, with the template, is new, but various ways of asking the reviewer to propose the language are a common gambit by declared paid editors. They argue that they need this assistance because they are not permitted to edit directly but only to submit for review, and that we are not being fair to them by not giving them this assistance. I will reply that the First Amendment imposes no obligation on us to be fair to them. On the contrary, the First Amendment grants the WMF and the community the right to make community rules about the use of our servers as a quasi-public resource. In this specific case, my opinion is that we should stub the draft on Back Market and accept it, stripped of the promotional material. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:41, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Syncing Muninnbot's Message With Reality: Archiving Not in "a few days" but within "48 hours."

Resolved

 – Time frame for questions before being archived has been relatively more specified on User:Muninnbot/Teahouse archival notification. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:54, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

As part of the Teahouse thread archive process, Muninnbot sends me messages under a heading Your thread has been archived. Messages state: "Hi BrettA343! You created a thread called < NAME OF THREAD > at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days". I'm referring to the messages that are being left on Teahouse User's talk pages and the message is a template located at User:Muninnbot/Teahouse archival notification. I suggest one of two approaches:

1. Change the archive process to be initiated after a few days, say 3 or 4 (and change the message to specify how many days).

2. Change Muninnbot's message to say "for 48 hours" or "for at least 48 hours" or "within 3 days" (or whatever).

There's a wrinkle here that those making the change will likely know about that I'm not clear on, and that's the precise wording that should exist. I've given three options for Point 2, and those more knowledgeable than I, will know what's best for wording. "A few days" is too ambiguous to really be useful in some situations - do they mean 3, 5, 7 or what? nbsp;BrettA343 (talk) 16:09, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Hellom BrettA343.

• First of all, this kind of suggestion about how the operation of the Teahouse might be improved should really be made on the talk page of the Teahouse (Wikipedia talk:Teahouse), Raqther than on the main question page, which is for questions about how to edit Wikipedia.
• Secondly, The message is not intended to be exact. Since Muninnbot only runs once per day, and the archive bot also runs only once per day, there can be considerable variation in how long after the last edit to a section it is archived, and how long after that a message is sent.
• Thirdly, the archive timing can be and sometimes is changed depending on the recent traffic levels here. The object is not to allow the page to get so large that it is awkward for users, especially new users, to use or too slow to load. We don't want to change the notice template every ti8me such an adjustment is made. Still the wording could perhaps be improved a bit.

In short, i don't favor trying to achieve the degree of precision you suggest. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:48, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I did, however, make this change. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:55, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

No worries @DESiegel:, I was just doing what GoingBatty recommended with his suggestion for me re: "a proposal for different wording at User talk:Muninnbot/Teahouse archival notification or a new section here at the Teahouse that isn't buried inside this other discussion." (still at the top of the Teahouse). It seems there are no hard and fast rules where suggestions should be made (I had 3 suggestions for my last point, too), and I won't push this one. Cheers, BrettA343 (talk) 17:11, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@BrettA343: Apologies for pointing you in the wrong direction. I agree with DESiegel about using the talk page for suggestions about the Teahouse. GoingBatty (talk) 18:09, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@DESiegel: I just now caught the change you did make - that's perfect from my POV (I just didn't know what, exactly to write) - thanks! And no problem @GoingBatty:, apologies not necessary... Cheers! BrettA343 (talk) 02:44, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Question on AfC

Resolved

 – Standards on one language Wikipedia do not translate directly to another. English Wikipedia, in particular, has stricter standards. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:02, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello,

In my sandbox I have drafted an article on an EDM artist called CURBI. I am far from publishing the article ( it has no citations or detail yet) and I would say that the subject meets WP:N but I was wondering in general about notability.

The subject has an article on the German Wikipedia but is no more notable in Germany than anywhere else, which leads me to the question that:

In future, if an article has been created on another language Wikipedia, but is not of special notability in that/those country/countries, does that qualify as notable for creation on the English Wikipedia?

Sorry if this is confusing...

Thanks, Giraffer (talk) 08:47, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Giraffer, and welcome to the Teahouse. The answer is, No, the existence of an article in another Wikipedia does not confer notability in any way: many other-language Wikipedias have less stringent requirements than en-wiki, and even en-wiki has thousands of articles which, if somebody created them today, would get declined or rejected. You need to treat every article as a new project, and establish notability. In my opinion, that is the first thing you should do, before you even create a draft, because if you cannot establish that the subject is notable, then any other work you do on it will be wasted. --ColinFine (talk) 09:02, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok, thanks

Giraffer (talk) 11:26, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Username policy:ISU vs PROMONAME

Resolved

 – Differences between "implied shared use" and "promotional names" explained. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:04, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Recently, I came upon the username policies. I saw wp:isu and wpwp:promoname. the examples that they have provided meets both criterion. Can someone please give me some examples of usernames that would meet only ISU or only PROMONAME? Thank you! The creeper2007^Talk! 21:11, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi The creeper2007 A username like BobAndJohn would be one that implies shared use (implies 2 people are using it), but isn't a company name, so not promotional. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:22, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much for helping me understand this! I would also like to know if I someone's username meet both criterion, what should I report them for?The creeper2007^Talk! 21:26, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, The creeper2007. For either or both of those issues, you can report the situation at Usernames for Admin Attention. However that is for violations you think are serious enough that a block without warning is needed. Otherwise, you can simply let the user know, often with {{Uw-username}}, which suggests that the user change his or her usernam,e to one more acceptable. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:39, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

The creeper2007, I assume you are asking for WP:UAA? Sharing issues are declined at UAA. They need to be discussed with the user, and if that fails, individual admins or the admin noticeboard should be alerted. Promotional usernames can be reported if they have made edits within the past two weeks, and their edits are also clearly promoting the same thing that the username promotes. It's best to take it up with the user when in doubt, or when the user is clearly here for the right reasons but only happened to choose a wrong username. Reporting to UAA is for serious violations, especially from users who are WP:NOTHERE to build the encyclopedia. Does this help? I find WP:IU clearer than WP:U when it comes to handling problematic usernames in practice. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 21:46, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for your help! :) The creeper2007^Talk! 22:00, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Category approval time

Resolved

 – Observed resolution time for category creation is on average a week. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:07, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

How long does it take on average of a category to be created after being suggested? (Oinkers42) (talk) 21:38, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, (Oinkers42). To find out this kind of answer for yourself, you simply need to go back and look at recent archive for the relevant request page, such as Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects and categories/2020-04. Then do a Ctrl-F search for 'Category request' and open a few up and compare the request date to the date it was either accepted or rejected. From my quick sample, I reckon a week is about average, but it can be just a day or so. Hope this helps, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:56, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank You.(Oinkers42) (talk) 00:59, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Logging in problem

Hi, I am trying to log in to my account but I forgot my password. I entered my email and username correctly, but it didn't send me anything. I tried this yesterday and today and nothing was sent even though I am sure that both my email and username were entered correctly. What should I do about this? 5.30.178.218 (talk) 08:18, 1 June 2020 (UTC) 5.30.178.218 (talk) 08:18, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Are you certain that you associated the email address with your account? 331dot (talk) 08:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, I don't know but I know that I put my username and email in the appropriate boxes and I had done this before on the same email so I do not know why it is not working. 5.30.178.218 (talk) 09:39, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

If you are saying that you have successfully reset your password with the same email before, then the only other thing I can think of based on what you have said is that there is a technical problem with the system. 331dot (talk) 09:53, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry if this is stating the obvious, but have you checked your email spam folder (if any)? -- Mike Marchmont (talk) 09:59, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I have checked my spam folder; it did not get sent there. 5.30.178.218 (talk) 05:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Repeated deletion of NPOV tag by another user without achieving consensus

In Treaty of Trianon i put NPOV Lead tag with detailed description on Talk:Treaty_of_Trianon#Fist sentence. Somebody is repeatedly removing this tag after each his reply without achieving consensus. What to do? Mark5245 (talk) 05:15, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@Mark5245: Welcome to the Teahouse. It appears the two of you are still discussing it on the talk page. If you feel like you need external input, you may wish to ask for a third opinion; barring that, you should take the dispute to the dispute resolution noticeboard if it still cannot be resolved. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:23, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Draft For Review

How do I submit my draft for review, and how long will the process take? Thank you for your time. Le Panini (talk) 06:15, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@Le Panini: You can submit your draft by adding {{subst:submit}} to the top of your draft. There is a review backlog, and times are estimated to be a couple weeks. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:23, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Jill Tracy NPOV

Jill Tracy seems to have many "superlatives" and I think it needs a maintenance hatnote, but I don't know how to do that. T3g5JZ50GLq (talk) 05:59, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@T3g5JZ50GLq: I added tone and POV tags with WP:TWINKLE. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 06:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Editing my own information

Hi Jessica

In response to your "email"...I wanted to let you know that the subject of these edits is myself...I am in fact correcting wholly or partially inaccurate information about myself. As I have never done this before, there is a strong chance I have entered info improperly(!) but please know that the edits are precise. I am happy to give you my email address for further questions at any time. Please lmk. Thank you, Best, David Muirfield1966 (talk) 07:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@Muirfield1966: What Jessicapierce did was to post a message to your talk page at User talk:Muirfield1966. We generally don't use email here unless there are limited specific reasons (like privacy or security). Discussions are conducted on talk pages, either users' (as I mentioned above) or those of an article if that is the subject (e.g., Talk:David Hunt (actor) is the talk page for discussions about improving the article David Hunt (actor)). Such discussions are public, and available for all members of the community to review and contribute to.

Please see WP:AUTO regarding writing/editing about yourself – this is something that is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia because people have an obvious WP:COI in this regard. If there are changes that need to be made to the article, you should suggest them on the article's talk page, and provide reliable source(s) for the information (a requirement for most anything on Wikipedia) so an impartial editor can verify the information and make the changes. There may be a more specific policy with regard to correcting erroneous info in a WP:BLP like yours' – I'll do a quick search for that and add to this comment if I find it. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 07:43, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• Update: The more specific section regarding problems with a page about yourself is just further down the page I already cited, at WP:AUTOPROB. Basically, if you edited the article directly and your changes were reverted, you then follow the "D" (discuss) part of the WP:BRD cycle, and discuss it with the other users on the talk page of the article (Talk:David Hunt (actor)). It's best to ping the user that reverted you by starting your talk page message with, in the most recent case, {{Re|Bonadea}} (this renders as @Bonadea:). I hope this helps. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 07:58, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@AlanM1: Not guilty as charged ;-) I didn't revert Muirfield1966, but I did edit the article just now to remove an unsourced birthdate and a couple of references that were not about the subject. I see that Muirfield1966 has now posted to Jessicapierce's talk page as well. --bonadea contributions talk 08:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

removal of profile

removal

I want to disassociate my name from Wikipedia due to Wikipedia being compromised and overrun by people who advocate and mirror subjects and issues that are propaganda and panic spreading. I have removed my email address and want to remove my name and profile completely. Saparonia (talk) 08:35, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Saparonia I'm sorry that you feel that way. Most people here are good editors who just want to improve Wikipedia. Accounts cannot be deleted for both technical and legal reasons, but you can just abandon your account. Courtesy vanishing may also be an option available to you. 331dot (talk) 08:42, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

[empty post] Saparonia (talk) 09:15, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Pointless edist ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vulkan_(API)&action=history I'm pretty shure that recent changes by Artem S. Tashkinov where pointless can someone more knowledgable confirm ? Spiralfeel (talk) 11:35, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Artem has been editing Vulkan (API) since October 2018. The best place to discuss edits is on the Talk page of the article. You can also ask Artem direcctly. David notMD (talk) 11:49, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

deleting a page - hi, I need support to delete a page that relates to a brand that is inaccurate and should be removed. how do I go about to do this?

 Jacobxpx (talk) 11:29, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

delete a page - how do I delete a page that is inaccurate and should not be on wikipedia

 Jacobxpx (talk) 11:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

delete a page: how do I delete this page

 Jacobxpx (talk) 11:32, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Which page? REDMAN 2019 (talk) 11:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy: Article in question is Triibe. Jacobxpx wants it gone because it no longer exists. And to J - you cannot delete it, but you can nominate it for deletion. David notMD (talk) 13:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Posting on the LGBT noticeboard

These is a discussion Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Caitlyn Jenner as asexual posted on the BLP noticeboard, and I think it should be of interest to the LGBT noticeboard, is it proper to notify the LGBT noticeboard that there is a discussion taking place over on the BLP noticeboard? Thanks. Åüñîçńøł (talk) 12:21, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@Åüñîçńøł: Per WP:CANVASS, limited, open and neutral notifications on another noticeboard are generally okay (e.g. "This discussion might be also within the scope of this noticeboard" but not "come to this discussion to support this or that"). Regards SoWhy 13:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Replacing a photo.

I agree with this note in Talk:Learning to read. The photo is not appropriate.

Conflict with intent of article?[edit]. I think adding this topmost picture is at cross-purposes with the article. Even the caption "Teacher with pupils in a school of the resistance movement PAIGC in the liberated areas of Guinea-Bissau, 1974" does not mention 'reading'. It's a propaganda picture from 45 years ago, and does not put the subject here first. There must be a better picture. Gee, the picture at section Learning_to_read#Novice_reader actually is about reading! Shenme (talk) 06:00, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I would like to replace the photo with one from Wiki Common, that has no politics involved: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=20&offset=20&profile=default&search=reading&advancedSearch-current=%7B%7D&ns0=1&ns6=1&ns12=1&ns14=1&ns100=1&ns106=1#/media/File:Az_girl_reading_a_book._e-citizen.jpg

Can I do this myself if I post my intent on the talk page? Thanks. John (talk) 14:42, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, John, and welcome to the Teahouse. Certainly, you can be bold and do it yourself. There is rarely any requirement to discuss changes on the talk page: if you think a change you want to make might be controversial, then it speeds things up to discuss it on the talk page first (rather than the full "Bold, Revert, Discuss" cycle); but if you don't think it is likely to be controversial, just do it. --ColinFine ([[User

talk:ColinFine|talk]]) 15:01, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I do prefer the bold and respectful approach, so I will do it. John (talk) 15:09, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, i need help.

Previous discussion : #Hello

Blocked

 – User page and draft deleted and user indefinitely blocked for promotional content. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:18, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

My page was created without any problems. 2 days were not deleted. But because of my mistake in adding Twitter, the whole page was deleted by the admin.

First of all, this is not fairو Secondly, I want my page information,The official who deleted my page , does not accept her work and says that she did not delete it Is there anyone here to help me? Farid Hamedi Rohina (talk) 05:55, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Farid Hamedi Rohina, an "article" consisting of the URL of your self-created IMDb page is not an article on Wikipedia. This online encyclopedia project is not a place for self-promotion.--Quisqualis (talk) 06:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Farid Hamedi Rohina: Ponyo already told you on your talk page that Wikipedia is not a platform for you to promote yourself. You may ask her for a WP:REFUND, but given the content that was deleted it is unlikely to happen. If you are looking for a place to promote yourself, we have a list of alternative websites that may suit your purposes better over at WP:OUT. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:10, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

i have 2 not ... I'm paralyzed Can anyone fix my page problem? Farid Hamedi Rohina (talk) 09:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Please make follow up comments within this section. Please heed the comments above. 331dot (talk) 09:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Your article about yourself has been moved to Draft:Farid Hamedi Rohina and nominated for Speedy deletion. Reasons given at the draft. You can contest the SD, but as what you wrote is your own wording with no references, very unlikely that the proposed SD will be stopped. You can copy the information to your computer if you act quickly. David notMD (talk) 10:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

User removed speedy deletion tag but this was reinstated. The draft has now been deleted, and the user has been indeffed for self-promotion. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:22, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Markus Baer submission

I believe when I submitted the article on Professor Markus Baer for consideration, that I accidentally submitted it twice. I wasn't sure if I had created it in the proper place, thus two submissions. Are there any steps I must take to remedy this? Thank you. Cecelia Myers (talk) 15:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)Cecelia Myers

@Cecelia Myers: The version at Draft:Markus Baer is awaiting review, and the version in your sandbox has been declined as a duplicate submission, so everything seems to be OK. You can blank your sandbox if you want to use it for something else. If you want to edit the submission further, do it at Draft:Markus Baer. Deor (talk) 16:00, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Newbie wanting to make an edit

Hi, I wanted to make an edit on a wiki page that referred to Bicester as being in Buckinghamshire when it is actually Oxfordshire. Said I needed to put in my citation. I haven't edited before. What exactly do I need to do? 2604:3D09:137B:A00:D1A5:9DA4:C6FA:1DB6 (talk) 16:14, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi IP editor, you're going to want to consult WP:EASYREFBEGIN. It will teach you how to add citations. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:28, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, SarahMilli: (I'm assuming this is you not logged in). Im sorry that Materialscientist has four times reverted your correction to this piece of vandalism. Bicester is indeed in Oxfordshire and always has been, as many of the references in the article will show. The first one is unfortunately cited to a general reference without a link, so Materialscientist presumably didn't check that, and thought that you were making a change without a citation. In fact, both of you should have gone to the Talk page to discuss it, rather than edit warring; but you are new, and Materialscientist certainly isn't.

I shall go and fix the vandalism now. --ColinFine (talk) 16:38, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Too late: David Biddulph had already done so. --ColinFine (talk) 16:40, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

And pinging SARAHMilli again, with the case of her username corrected. --ColinFine (talk) 16:43, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

A CULT is using Wikipedia to control the narrative on their group and PROMOTE UTTER FALSEHOODS! This is completely UNACCEPTABLE!

Resolved

 – User in question has been blocked indefinitely.

David notMD (talk) 16:45, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

They're called "Falun Gong." The article says it's got "multiple issues," but in its current state it would be better if it it didn't exist. The cult is micromanaging the page, undoing negative edits. Even worse, EVERY SINGLE CITATION is biased toward their movement.

All I'm asking is for someone to get this page to look like Encyclopædia Britannica's, which actually gives an unbiased overview of this group. Additionally, if it's possible, the people responsible for this need to be banned, though I doubt that's going to stop them. For this propaganda to be the first result when searching "Falun Gong" boggles my mind.

Here are the links to the Wikipedia page and much better Encyclopædia Britannica page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falun_Gong

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Falun-Gong FukangShat (talk) 13:58, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, FukangShat. If you want, you can join the discussions at Talk:Falun Gong, or start new ones. Try to avoid WRITING IN ALL CAPS but try to be specific. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:41, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

How to be a part of Wikipedia?

 Abu hayat (talk) 16:43, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Abu Hayat Mahmud: welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia. If you mean, how can you become an editor, and help us to improve this wonderful resource, then please look at Help:Tutorial.

If you mean, how can there be an article about you, that is more difficult. You are strongly advised not to attempt to write about yourself in Wikipedia: if you meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability then eventually somebody will write about you; if you don't then no article about you will ever be accepted, so please don't waste any effort trying. --ColinFine (talk) 16:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

How i put my profile and picture and my working video?

FYI

 – Merged with above section. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

 Abu hayat (talk) 16:48, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello again, Abu Hayat Mahmud. As I said above, writing about yourself on Wikipedia is a very bad idea. You may put a limited amount of information about yourself on your user page, but that is primarily for talking about yourself as a Wikipedia editor. Any attempt to use it for advertising or telling the world about yourself will not only fail, because User pages are never indexed by search engines, but will also get deleted, and possibly get your account blocked.

There are no profiles on Wikipedia: not one. It is an encyclopaedia (which contains neutral articles about notable subjects based on independent reliably published sources) not a social media site, and promotion of any kind is forbidden.

As I said, if you wish to join the community of editors and help us improve this wonderful resource, you are very welcome. If all you are here for is to tell the world about yourself, then please find another place to do it. --ColinFine (talk) 17:07, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

iPhone 11 Environmental Data

Moved from WT:Teahouse

—Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, here I am again :) Sooo, I started adding environmental data to iPhones (I signaled all COIs, don‘t create backlinks to our website, et cetera, et cetera. Now I have somebody vandalizing my content (anymous IP user) because he has the oppinion that environmental data such as repairibility (in context of the device) and carbon footprint of a device is not supposed to go into an article. I added following content to the article of the iPhone 11 Pro, please guide me if that‘s a) a COI case b) data that should not be written in the article

For me it‘s appropriate device related data. Excerpt of my edit

Draft content

Environmental Data Carbon Footprint Carbon Footprint of an iPhone 11 Pro in KG CO2 The iPhone 11 Pro continues the trend of increasing carbon footprints of Apple‘s flagship devices: with 80KG CO2e the emissions 10KG more than the preceeding iPhone XS and 25KG more than the iPhone 3G in 2008. 83% of the emissions are caused by the production of the device and primary resources while remaining emissions are caused by transportation and first use. It‘s important to note that with every device Apple increased also the prices of spareparts effective rendering a replacement for example of the display very expensive. Repairability With the iPhone 11 Pro and Pro Max continues the strategy of discoureging customers to seek 3rd party repairs while rendering repairs with Apple more costly: repair with non authentic parts such as batteries or displays can trigger warning messages on the phone instigating the customer to visit a certified technician to replace the respective parts with genuine ones. While the website clearly states that the phone will function properly despite the warning, this information is not passed in the context of the warning. Even if batteries are properly functioning and at full capacity the customers are prompted by a message on the phone to replace the battery. At the same time battery replacement with original spareparts saw a hike in pricing: after initially discounting battery replacements following the Battery Gate Scandal, with the release of the iPhone 11 Pro battery replacement prices for all OLED iPhone models hiked to 69.00US$. Support with Updates Apple has a long history of providing software updates for on average 6 years per device, it‘s assumed that also the iPhone 11 Pro will receive support on that terms. References

thanks Fthobe (talk) 15:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Fthobe. Please do not refer to somebody's edits as "vandalism" because they disagree with you. Vandalism is editing with the purpose of damaging Wikipedia. (Also, don't post screeds of material for an article here: it serves no purpose, and may annoy other editors). Disagreement is a necessary part of how we achieve consensus in creating Wikipedia: please see BRD for how to proceed. --ColinFine (talk) 15:48, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Hey ColinFine, this user has repeatedly (not only mine) reverted any critics against Apple products, no matter if radiation related, emission related or right to repair related. The first two times he reverted my changes I took it as matter of varying oppinions. After I checked the history of the article I noted that he had previously tried to revert other edits and was always overuled. He seems to be positively biased against Apple products. Fthobe (talk) 17:00, 2 June 2020 (UTC)�

Fthobe. I get that you are frustrated. Wikipedia works by consensus, and the approved procedure is at dispute resolution - which does not include posting your arguments at the Teahouse. If you think that another editor's behaviour is unacceptable, then ANI is the place to report it (but read the top-matter of that page carefully). --ColinFine (talk) 17:18, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

What to do about user canvassing on an external site?

Resolved

 – External action that might negatively impact Wikipedia activity best discussed over emails with administrators to avoid WP:OUTING. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:27, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I recently discovered that an editor party to an ongoing dispute on Talk:Space Launch System#SLS Launch Cost had apparently linked to the dispute on an online forum. I'm fairly certain this behavior is in contravention of Wikipedia:Canvassing, but I'm uncertain what my next action should be. What should I do about this? – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 06:58, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

That editor’s actions would be canvassing if some people from the forum did register and voice their opinions. I have seen the discussion and the editor has not explicitly asked people to side with him. However, he/she has asked for help (presumably regarding the disputed information), so I think the best course of action would be to wait and see if any newbies come by and enter the discussion. RedBulbBlueBlood9911|Talk 07:58, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@RedBulbBlueBlood9911: Appreciate the advice! – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 04:15, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@Jadebenn: Be very careful trying to connect Wikipedia editors to things you think they're doing outside of Wikipedia, even if your intentions are only the best and you think they might be doing something inappropriate that might impact Wikipedia in some way. WP:OUTING, even when done unintentionally and indirectly, is something you should try to avoid at all times. If you have serious concerns that an editor's activities outside of Wikipedia might somehow negatively affect some ongoing Wikipedia discussion, etc., then your best option is to find an WP:ADMINISTRATOR and ask them if it's OK for you to discuss your concerns with them via email. There are a number of administrators who are Teahouse hosts so perhaps one of them will be willing to help you if you ask for it here, but you can almost certainly find one at WP:AN. Even if the other person is using an alias for their outside Wikipedia activities, there might be something that they've posted on some other occasion that makes it possible figure out who they are out in the real world. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:40, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Got it. I'll keep that in mind in the future. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 04:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

what next after I publish a draft for review?

I have just added a page for review. I plan to keep adding information to the community section. How do I access the page and add information while it is up for review? The article name or draft article name is the William Grant Still Arts Center. Ande Richards (talk) 08:48, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Ande Richards Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You have not yet submitted your draft for review; you need to click the "Submit your draft for review!" button in the notice at the top of your draft. You can continue to edit it just as you have before you submit it, and even afterwards. 331dot (talk) 09:00, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Ande Richards. Draft:William Grant Still Arts Center will eventually be reviewed by an AfC reviewer once you submit it for review; so, please be a bit patient because it can sometimes take awhile for that to happen. You can continue working the draft while you're waiting for it to be reviewed. I suggest you take a look at the following pages because they should help understand the kinds of things that Wikipedia expects from articles like he one you seem to be trying create: Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything and Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features)#Buildings and objects, Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause. You might want to also take a look at Help:Your first article, Help:Referencing for beginners and Wikipedia:Manual of Style for some general information on how to properly format, etc. an article since there's lots of things in the draft that can be approved that will help make it more readable in Wikipedia way.

Please try and understand that it's really quite hard to write a proper Wikipedia article, especially for new editors not very familiar with Wikipedia's various policies and guidelines and the concept of Wikipedia:Notability. Lots of first-time submissions get declined because the reviewer doesn't believe the draft is up-to-Wikipedia's standards. If that happens to your draft, try not to get discouraged because you can always re-submit it for review again. If the reviewer does decline the draft, they should leave a comment explaining why. The important things is going to be to find the type of significant coverage in reliable sources that clearly establish the subject's Wikipedia notability, since that's the main reason why drafts tend to be declined. It makes no difference how well written the draft is or how properly formatted it is if the subject is not one considered to be Wikipedia notable. It's very natural to think that more is going to be better and many people try to add more citations and more content on the belief that it will help get the draft accepted. Sometimes that approach can work, but it's the quality of the content and the citations cited that matter and actually in many cases removing extraneous content and focusing on what the significant coverage in reliable sources is saying often improves the chances of a draft being accepted.

Finally, if by chance you have some connection to the subject matter that goes beyond something casual, please carefully take a look at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Depending upon the nature of any connection you may have to the subject, it might not be ideal for you to be the one to try and create an article about the center. You might also want to take a look at Wikipedia:Ownership of content if you're assuming that creating an article will give you some sort of control over it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:21, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

The most serious flaw in Draft:William Grant Still Arts Center is that it cites no sources. It lists plenty, but there is no way of telling which source supports which statement made in the draft. If it reaches review, it will be declined for that reason. Ande Richards should read Help:Referencing for beginners.   Maproom (talk) 09:43, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@Ande Richards: I suggest you also read Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. If you have any relationship with the Center (especially if, but not only if, you're being paid to create a draft), you must disclose your conflict on your Wikipedia user page. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 18:57, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Too inexperienced to title

I just created a user name and I know almost nothing about how to get started but before I begin learning I would like to know how to use Wikipedia on my iPhone. Do I access it through safari or chrome or download an app? Formerly I searched on safari for Wikipedia, saved it to “reading list” and that is how I access it now. I look at it everyday to see the day’s featured topic, the top three events in the news and who has died. That’s all I need right now to satisfy my curiosity. I always find some link in those three sections to click on and follow. And then I follow a link from that link and on and on I go. However, on my iPhone, the format of Wikipedia occasionally changes much to my dismay. I once set the format to display only the three sections I listed above but when the format unexpectedly changes I get such sections as “trending”, “did you know” etc. I do not have any interest in those social media type topics and am annoyed at having to scroll way down to get to what I’m interested in. I can’t seem to find how to reset the format back to displaying just the three sections I want. And the reason this question is so long winded is because I am trying to explain myself clearly since I cannot find the info I need by searching Wikipedia due to the problem of Wikipedia thinking I am asking how to edit pages. Thanks to anyone who takes the time to read this. Pointyface (talk) 16:55, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, experienced editor Cullen328 has some great advice here User:Cullen328/Smartphone editing, hope that helps. Theroadislong (talk) 17:01, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Pointyface The answers we give you probably depend on whether you plan just to read (consume) Wikipedia content, or actively add to it (edit). Because you've taken the trouble to register and to come here with your very sensible question, I assume you want to know how to edit and help improve this encyclopaedia. I do a huge amount of editing from my tiny iPhone5S. I use no app of any kind - just the iOS Safari browser. For simply looking at content, I'm OK using it in the proper 'mobile view'. But whenever I want to edit (which is 99.99% of the time) I switch to 'desktop view' via the tiny link found at the very bottom of every page. I find I can see a lot more of the page, and interact with it better that way, despite my small screen size. I make smaller edits on my phone; anything over half a dozen sentences in one go, and I prefer something with a proper keyboard. But if it was the only device I had access to, I'd be quite OK creating an article from scratch on it (but would want to save my edits pretty regularly!)

You definitely don't need to install an special Wikipedia app for editing. I just use the iPhone default Safari browser, though on my Windows PC (like right now) I normally use Chrome.

Again, you don't need any special app for just reading Wikipedia either, though I believe there are some out there. See List of Wikipedia mobile applications for more details on that.

If you treat Wikipedia like learning to drive, you won't rush in at high speed and try to do things you don't understand. We have lots of 'rules of the road' here, so the best way is to start by looking at articles about topics that interest you, and consider fixing small things like grammar or spelling before moving on to adding extra content and supporting factual statements with citations (references). (We don't accept contents which someone is likely to dispute unless there is a good link to a 'reliable source' to go with it. A very good way to learn the basic is by taking our interactive tour called The Wikipedia Adventure, though I have to warn that that does not always run well on mobiles. So Help:Introduction to Wikipedia is a normal non-interactive page to set you off on your own editing adventure. I hope some of this helps. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 19:01, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Can't find information

FYI

 – Heading added by Tenryuu. 18:39, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Eskiarab

Hello.What I do If I cannot find any information about my article on the internet. How can I improve my article's references section? BioCaliforniauz (talk) 18:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello BioCaliforniauz! If you have access to for example books about the place that are not online, you can use those. However, per WP:GEOLAND, the refs you have may be considered sufficient for the article to be accepted. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:09, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

A Football Player Profile

Please , how do i create a footballer profile on wikipedia without it being flag Gentlebukan (talk) 18:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Gentlebukan and welcome to the Teahouse.

Creating new articles from a blank start is one of the harder tasks on Wikipedia, perhaps the hardest an inexperienced user is likely to face. In future I urge you to use the Article Wizard to create a draft under the Articles for Creation project. There, an experienced editor will review your draft once you think it is ready. Only when a reviewer approves will the draft be moved to the main article space. This avoids the situation where a deletion is requested soon after the initial version of an article is posted. Note that Wikipedia does not have "profiles" it has neutral articles about notable topics.

Also, please read Wikipedia's Golden Rule and Your First Article, if you have not already done so. The advice there can be very helpful, in my view.

Here are some steps which often lead to success in creating an article:

• First, review our guideline on notability, our policy on Verifiability, and our specific guideline on the notability of athletes. Consider whether your subject clearly meets the standards listed there. Also, check if the topic is already covered, perhaps under a different spelling or in a section of an article about a wider topic. You will waste a lot of time, if you create a new article, and then find that the encyclopedia already has an article about that.
• Second, read how to create Your First Article and referencing for beginners and again consider if you want to go ahead.
• Third, If you have any connection or affiliation with the subject, disclose it in accordance with our guideline on Conflict of interest. If you have been or expect to be paid for making edits, or are making them as part of your job, disclose this according to the strict rules of the Paid-contribution disclosure. This is absolutely required; omitting it can result in you being blocked from further editing.
• Fourth, gather sources. You want independent, professionally published, reliable sources with each discussing the subject in some detail. If you can't find several such sources, stop; an article will not be created! Sources do NOT need to be online, or in English, although it is helpful if at least some are. The "independent" part is vital. Wikipedia does not consider as independent sources such as press releases, or news stories based on press releases, or anything published by the subject itself or an affiliate of the subject. Strictly local coverage is also not preferred. Regional or national newspapers or magazines, books published by mainstream publishers (not self-published), or scholarly journals are usually good. So are online equivalents of these. (Additional sources may verify particular statements but not discuss the subject in detail. But those significant detailed sources are needed first.)
• Fifth, use the article wizard to create a draft under the articles for creation project. This is always a good idea for an inexperienced editor, but in the case of an editor with a conflict of interest it is essential.
• Sixth, use the sources gathered before (and other sources you may find along the way) to write the article. Cite all significant statements to sources. Do not express opinions or judgements, unless they are explicitly attributed to named people or entities, preferably in a direct quotation, and cited to a source. Do not use puffery or marketing-speak. Provide page numbers, dates, authors and titles for sources to the extent these are available. A title is always needed. Submit the draft when you think it is ready for review. Be prepared to wait a while for a review (several weeks or more).
• Seventh, when (well perhaps if) your draft is declined, pay attention to the comments of the reviewer, and correct the draft and resubmit it. During this whole process, if you face any unresolvable editing hurdles, or cannot comprehend any editing issue, feel free to post a request at the Teahouse or the help desk and ask the regulars. Repeat this until the draft passes review.

Congratulations, you have now created a valid Wikipedia article. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:09, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

How To Public an Article Succesfully, But About Kowledge Discovered to Recently

 186.143.165.211 (talk) 22:13, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Unregistered editor. Welcome to the Teahouse. Remember, Wikipedia is not the place to publish new things. Wikipedia mreports what reliable sources have already written about something, provided there are enough such sources to make the topiuc notable It is rare that any recent discovery will have enough coverage to qualify, so the answer is "mostly you don't". Please wait until there is significant coverage of this new knowledge in multiple reliable sources that are totally nindependent of the discoverer(s) of this new knowledge, please. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:19, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Election pages

Resolved

 – (1) Short descriptions follow title case. (2) Election articles must have notable verifiable content regardless of similar election articles. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:41, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello,

I have been doing some editing recently at the Washington House of Representatives elections pages (mostly short descs and infoboxes), but have noticed some inconsistencies. Firstly, other states such as California have pages for elections going back decades (California has dedicated pages from 1864 onward) but other states don't. Notably Washington, which doesn't have any pages for House elections before 2002.

Is creating a page in order to keep consistency like this justifiable? (Subjectively) It may not meet WP:N but when it comes to elections are the criteria different?

Also on an unrelated note: should short descriptions start with a capital letter? I find a real mix of both uppercase and lowercase letters at the beginning of descriptions.

Thanks, Giraffer (talk) 10:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello Giraffer, it appears it's been a while since you asked, so I hope you don't mind me trying my hand at some imperfect guidance as an alternative to complete silence. Here goes:

To start with the easy one, WP:SHORTDESC says to use sentence case, starting with the capital letter. Now for the hard part:

Of course, the official party line is and always will be WP:N, but the kind of articles you are suggesting are easy to presume notability about, so I don't think they will be asked to meet WP:N at the start, but WP:V will be essential. In other words, it may be acceptable without all the details that some of the modern, especially American elections have, but at least they would need to have well-verified essentials, like who ran and who won. Otherwise, an article for consistency's sake alone would only waste readers' time without providing enough information to show for it. I recommend bringing this up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums which is the place to meet people interested in, and knowledgeable about the notability of election articles, and luckily it seems to be active as well (it has one message from just three days ago). You might be interested in the To do list they maintain as well. I have a hunch election series are incomplete all around the world. Hope this helps! Good luck, and best regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 19:09, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok thanks, I will check those out! Giraffer (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@Usedtobecool and Giraffer: I'll note (for other readers) that the elections are not "not covered", but instead are sections in articles like 2000 United States House of Representatives elections#Washington, containing the "essentials". Whether there is enough other information available (and notable) to support a separate article is probably the question. The existence of individual articles in other cases does not mean they should exist (i.e. WP:OSE). This may have been discussed somewhere like the WikiProject. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 22:45, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Article About Notable Company Was Rejected

Hi! Two months ago, I submitted an article about a company called ShipMonk. ShipMonk is an American 3PL that has been covered outside of Wikipedia by outlets such as Forbes and Inc. It ended up being denied by the person who edited it and I haven't been able to get a response from him when I asked why.

Here is the draft: Draft:ShipMonk (I hope I linked that correctly)

What is confusing me is that another company who specializes in the same thing and is the same size as ShipMonk, ShipBob, has an article on Wikipedia that is not at all dissimilar to the one I posted. I understand that articles on Wikipedia have to be relevant, and I also understand that this is not the place to advertise. However, I stayed away from using shiny adjectives or buzz words. I'm also struggling to understand the threshold for notability, as, like I said, another article exists about a company that is very similar.

Of course, since this is my first time submitting an article, there may have been things that I missed, which is why I would really appreciate your help! Thanks in advance. Beatanese (talk) 16:54, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Beatanese, your draft really does read like an advertisement; and it's off-putting to even consider the question of notability while the content is deserving of speedy deletion. There is a lot of crap on Wikipedia thats gets through the cracks of quality control, all of which is done by a volunteer community. All you are making a case for, by citing ShipBob is to delete that article, not add yours. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 19:42, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

ShipBob now up for Speedy deletion. David notMD (talk) 20:14, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@Beatanese: You might be interested in reading the essay Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. GoingBatty (talk) 21:22, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@Beatanese: and this as well Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Questionable and self-published sources. I only saw a few sources (Sun-Sentinel, Herald) with passable coverage. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:08, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

hi

Just saying hi Callumsmth (talk) 20:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Callumsmth, Hello! Welcome to Wikipedia, and the Teahouse! Hope you'll stay a while, and learn to love it like the rest of us. Congratulations on your first article; history will forever note your username as the one that created that particular article on Wikipedia. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 20:38, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, hi there, Callumsmth. Great to have you here. Creating a new article on only your second edit is a really good achievement. Superb stuff! As you've used your own photos, I'm guessing you're a keen walker, or maybe even a peak-bagger or climber? If you plan to stick around, you might be interested in adding your name (or at least keep an eye on) one of our themed editing groups. It's Wikipedia:WikiProject British and Irish hills. It isn't hugely active, but I see your new article on Goldenberry Hill is currently number one in the 'Hot Articles' list for having the most edits made to it over the last few days.

One thing that I do feel needs doing to your article is removing the image link, which states: "You can see more photographs in more detail here". This isn't really the right kind of 'voice' in which we write encyclopaedia pages, as we never speak directly to the reader, nor should we link to DropBox directories, either. Links to more recognised sites can either be used as references, or be added to an 'External links' section. If they're images that you took yourself, you are best off moving the good ones to Wikimedia Commons. The other thing to point out on the WikiProject page is the Article Assessment' chart. This lists the number of articles against their respective quality. With over 550 'short 'Stub' articles, there's plenty of opportunity to improve existing pages, too, should you find yourself short of ideas to work on! All the best, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:23, 3 June 2020 (UTC)  

Article under development tag

Question: Greetings, I wanted to ask if it is possible to place some sort of a tag at the top of an article stating that the article is undergoing significant updates ? JoyceGW1 (talk) 07:34, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@JoyceGW1: That would be {{In use}} if it's going to be a short time (an hour or several), and you should remember to remove it when done. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 07:48, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@JoyceGW1: If you're planning on coming back to it, you can also use {{Under construction}}. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks ! , JoyceGW1 (talk) 02:46, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

An offensive (and potentially disruptive) editor

Resolved

 – User in question has been blocked temporarily. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:32, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I came across this edit summary here: "...Learn sources correct, f*****g s***hole." - June 1

A view of the editor's talk page revealed multiple warnings by other editors. The editor also wrote this on the talk page: "Just a truth you tell you, this account is meant for a joke..." - March 31

The editor's contributions were, well, obscene:

• "f*** off you absolute t**" - May 29
• "f*** you" - May 26
• "The Sweden certification is f*****g gay" - April 21
• "Your gonna get the b**** of applesauce alright" - April 15
• "f*** you you virgin" - March 28

Should I be concerned? Redthreadhx (talk) 10:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

It took a little while to find the edits you were talking about, since they are found in the histories of various articles. If you want to report inappropriate behaviour by an editor, the Teahouse is not the best place for it – and it is not all that useful to present censored versions of the offensive summaries with no indication of where they can be found. If you don't want to put offensive language on a talk page yourself (which is understandable) you could add a link to the edit, like this. Anyway, yes, those edit summaries (in their uncensored form) are problematic, most of them, not because they contain swearing but because they attack other editors. ("The Sweden certification is fucking gay" doesn't attack any editor and so it can just be ignored, like it deserves.) If you are reluctant to approach the editor on their talk page, which is understandable with a person who has a history of attacking others, you can ask an administrator for assistance – though I'm sure several administrators will read your post here. --bonadea contributions talk 10:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Followup:I posted a strong warning about personal attacks to the user's talk page. We'll see what happens. --bonadea contributions talk 10:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Double followup: the vandal has been blocked indefinitely. RedBulbBlueBlood9911Talk 11:23, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Indefinitely or for a period of 31 hours, whichever comes first.--Quisqualis (talk) 03:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Having some arguments with some citation methods

Resolved

 – OP pointed to the {{rp}} template. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:30, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm having a bit of trouble with some citation methods. Essentially, I've got some references I want to invoke. And I'd like to invoke them more than once. And I'd like to call a different page number every time. (So far so good. I know this bit.) And this includes the original invocation (I just like the word 'invoke', makes me feel like a wizard) of the reference. (This is the bit I don't know.)

The problem is that every time I try this, the first citation end up looking like this:

(first invocation (insert magic wand and sparkles here)): blah blah blah^[1]

1. ^ a blah blah blah pp.32

and then when I use a citation style like {{r|refname|p=XXX}} afterwards to call a different page number of the same citation, it'll cite the same pp.32 citation, but with a different page number next to that same [1] reference. Essentially meaning that I've got two different page numbers:

(second-onwards invocation): blah blah blah^[1]:89

1. ^ b blah blah blah. Blah. Blah Blah: Blah Blah Publishing Ltd. pp. 32.

It's really annoying. I don't know how to fix it. I've got one article - Geisha - where this is a marked problem, because there's one book cited *23 times* that covers a bunchload of topics and it genuinely *is* that useful and valid, even with other sources in play. Meaning I'm calling a number of different page numbers all over the shop, but the first either has to confuse the reader through what I've outlined above, or it's just left blank.

Which, I have to be honest, I don't like doing, as I really do like to lead the reader to the specific reference - nothing worse than having to dig through a 300-page-long book just to figure out what the author of that bit of that Wikipedia page was talking about. It frustrates me, and if there's something I can do about it, I'd really like to. Any help? Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 00:29, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@Ineffablebookkeeper: Why not just remove the page number from the first instance of the refname and give it its page number similar to {{r}}? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:40, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@Ineffablebookkeeper: If this sounds a bit scary, here are some instructions I prepared earlier for a very similar template I like to use to add page numbers after a reference:

• To reuse a reference you first have to give the reference a name, then on subsequent uses you 'call it up' by that name, without having to re-enter all the details again. See WP:REFNAME for a full explanation.
• You can then use the {{rp}} template to add specific page numbers immediately afterwards, like this:

First fact found on page 29 of a book.

Second fact found on page 114 from the same book.

Hope some of this makes sense - just edit this page to see the actual coding you would use. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

References

Thank you so much - this works perfectly, and it's exactly what I was looking for! --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 01:38, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Editing an Template:Infobox owned by WikiProject Musical Instruments

Having used a number of the pages for musical instruments in the past, I thought perhaps the Template:infobox instruments could use a taxonomy much like the scientific classification for organisms. Trouble is, I have no idea where to begin editing a template. Should I request an update via WikiProject Musical Instruments, and how would that be accomplished?

I'd hope to use for a taxonomy using the Hornbostel-Sachs classification, which is up to 13 digits, in the format XXX.XXX.XXX-XXXX

Like that of the organism classification, each level would be a link to the page for that level of instruments, e.g. Euphonium - 423.231.2 4 - Aerophones 2 - Wind Instruments 3 - Labrosones 2 - Chromatic Labrosones 3 - Labrosomes with Valves 1 - Valve Bugles 2 - Wide Bore

This would make it easier for researches to move around the taxonomy to find similar instruments they may not yet know the name of. Atohanie (talk) 01:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@Atohanie: Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for wanting to make it better. The template {{Infobox_instrument}} already has a field for the Hornbostel-Sachs number and description. If there is something not working with it, or if you would like to expand it further, then yes, start a discussion on the project's talk page: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Musical_Instruments RudolfRed (talk) 03:33, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Atohanie and welcome to thje Teahouse. That sort of thing could be done, but it would be a major change to the Template and how it is used. Before even considering how to do it, there really should be some consensus that it is worth doing.

I thin k the analogy to species taxoboxes does not hold up. For species there is a single widely accepted hierarcy, generally agreed for more than 150 years, with many reliable sources to show just where any species fits, and many more to say thsat the place of an organism in that hierarchy is a very significant datum, one that pretty much every encyclopedia article and refernce book about the species is likely to mention. Is there any even faintly comparable agreement that a hierarchy, much less this particular hierarchy, is a good way to classify musical instruments? Because evolutionary descent is a one-way branching tree (every species has a single parent species, although it may have multiple descendants) species fall very naturally into a hierarchy. But A new instrument can be created using aspects of several different previous instruments, and thus falling into multiple categories. In any case, I wouls suggest taking this to the WikiProject Musical Instruments talk page and suggesting the idea, and see if it has any support. Then and only then should there be discussion of how to implement the idea. I suspect that the idea will not get wide support, but I could be mistaken about that. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:40, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Blocked

What happens if you get blocked because you have a username against Wikipedia policy and then request to change it and then blocked because your user page supposedly has advertising content and are wrongly accused of being paid to edit. Then you request to be unblocked if you delete the wrongly interpreted user page and try to convince the person that you are a serious editor (which you are). You appeal to both the administrator who blocked you indefinitely (which is unencouraging to a new editor) and also appeal your block. However, no one responds and you are unable to edit for a while due to a misunderstanding. Anyone know what to do? 2601:8A:4102:B3A0:1591:65A5:4692:51E (talk) 03:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

What you should not do is evade the block by editing while not logged in or by making another account, even to appeal the block. You can instead post another unblock appeal on your user talk page, pinging an uninvolvbed admin to ask for review, or email arbcom. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:47, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

What happens if you get blocked because you have a username against Wikipedia policy and then request to change it and then blocked because your user page supposedly has advertising content and are wrongly accused of being paid to edit. Then you request to be unblocked if you delete the wrongly interpreted user page and try to convince the person that you are a serious editor (which you are). You appeal to both the administrator who blocked you indefinitely (which is unencouraging to a new editor) and also appeal your block. However, no one responds and you are unable to edit for a while due to a misunderstanding. Anyone know what to do?

This was my previous post and I knew that someone would delete it due to sock puppetry. Once again, I am not an advertiser and am just requesting help on the tea house. I have not made a new account and I’ve used this IP to only request some assistance, not make further edits. I would state on my user page that I have an IP address but I can’t even access that. I was blocked indefinitely, so will I never be able to edit Wikipedia again because of a mistake? What can I do? Is there anything? I really need help from those who know how to help. 2600:1002:B115:35C6:54FC:11D5:37A6:44B1 (talk) 04:50, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello IP editor. If you have access to your user talk page, then submit a new unblock request explaining your future editing intentions in detail. If you do not have access to your user talk page, please follow the procedures at Wikipedia:Unblock Ticket Request System. Also, stop editing logged out. That hurts your efforts. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:58, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Poster, I must agree with Cullen328 here. The Unblock Ticket Request System is the way to go if you do n0ot have talk page access. Please do not post here again until (unless) yo0u are unblocked. Note that no9 one has deleted your post, and that an "indefinate" block need not mean forever -- it just means there is no set end date. it can always be reviewed and changed. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 05:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@DESiegel: I think they're just (over-anxiously; at least 5 times in the last two days at least 9 posts to their talk page in a day and a half since the last admin post) trying to get a review of their unblock request, which I'm assuming is User talk:Wjrz nj forecast#Unblock request 4. @Wjrz nj forecast: I'd suggest removing the repeated unblock requests and leaving just one. If a week goes by (i.e. next Saturday) without a response, then go looking for help with a single request for a review at WP:AN. We are all volunteers here and people allocate their time as they see fit. Expecting responses to anything within minutes/hours is unrealistic. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 09:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I’m sorry, but this block was clearly a misunderstanding. I will say, for someone who has been blocked due to a misinterpretation of intentions, waiting more than a week to be able to edit again is very discouraging. This happens on a night of primary elections which is a subject which I focus my edits on. Once again, I’m using this IP address only to gain a little assistance from the tea house and most likely this will be my last edit. I’m sure anyone else would be frustrated if they were blocked by mistake. Wouldn’t a “good faith” action be to post a warning or notice on my talk page to give me a chance to change my edits before I was indefinitely blocked? I even offered at the administrators notice board and to another editor that I would be happy to change my username if it did not follow policy. No one ever inquired that I should change it or that it was against policy. I’m just trying to figure this whole thing out but it’s hard when I don’t have access to my account. There seems to be no other means of assistance for those who have received an indefinite block. 2600:1002:B115:35C6:F817:2852:B039:2419 (talk) 01:45, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

You have been advised how to address the matter, the UTRS system. You have been requested not to keep editing logged out, as that is block evasion and only harms your eventual case. I have now blocked your latest IP address. was somewhat sympathetic to your original post, but not when you refused to follow procedure. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:49, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Reason to delete Ishan Pandita

What was wrong in the article Ishan Pandita. The article has been deleted. But I used reliable sources to make that article. I really don't know why it happened. I want to rewrite the article Ishan Pandita. Can you please help me to make the article? Debabrata Sarkar Mejbill (talk) 14:40, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Debabrata Sarkar Mejbill. The discussion at WP:Articles for deletion/Ishan Pandita (3rd nomination) was quite clear that four editors on that occasion (and others previously) were sure that Pandita does not currently meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. Please see No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. Unless you can produce at least three sources where people who had no connection wtih Pandita (or any clubs or associations he is connected to) have written at length about him, and been published in reliable sources|, you will be wasting your own time, as well as that of any editors who review your work. --ColinFine (talk) 14:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Recreation of Ishan Pandita

FYI

 – Section merged. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:37, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay, now what should I do to make the article Ishan Pandita again? I really want to make it again. Debabrata Sarkar Mejbill (talk) 15:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Please don't. The article has been deleted three times. He isn't a notable enough footballer. He signed for a Spanish club but never actually played for them- being the first Indian to sign for a Spanish club doesn't make him notable according to Wikipedia's definition of the term notable. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:40, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@Debabrata Sarkar Mejbill: Did you not see/understand Colin Fine's response immediately above this subsection (at #Reason to delete Ishan Pandita? —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 04:03, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Can someone help me getting my company informations published on Wikipedia ?

 titolatjor 16:19, 2 June 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tito Latjor (talk • contribs)

Tito Latjor Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is not a place for businesses to tell the world about themselves. Wikipedia only summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage state about companies that meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable company. Wikipedia has no interest in what a company wants to say about itself and has no interest in helping your customers or enhancing search results. You will need to read and formally comply with the paid editing policy, as well as conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 16:26, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

If you really want to publish an article about your company on Wikipedia you'll have first to make your company appear on reliable sources of information: Like wellknown and stablished newspapers, online and public data bases, etc. Then you will be only allowed to publish the facts and information that those reliable sources shared about your company, but always writing the links of those articles and publications about your company. You may be able to put a little of context between this facts and information but it haves to be neutral (you can't sell or write about the potential of your company, only about your current achivements if they are "notable" a notable company < [Thanks TitoLatjor]).

You must write the links of the sources at the end of your editing on Wikipedia on the "Sources" section. If you don't do this they won't publish the article about your company due lack of realiable sources of information needed to confirm that this information you want to share about your company it's accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.143.165.211 (talk) 23:10, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I would respectfully disagree with 186.143.165.211. Rather that listing references in a "Sources" section, you ought to put the reference immediately after the text which it is being used to support. You'll find advice at Help:Referencing for beginners. --David Biddulph (talk) 03:41, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@Tito Latjor: You seem to have posted someone else's response to how to make a suitable Wikipedia article, which is correct in its ideas, if not the actual details. In you own words, what part don't you understand (i.e., what is your question)? —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 04:16, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@AlanM1: The material that you thought was from the OP Tito Latjor was in fact from the IP 186.143.165.211 who (in this edit) placed his response in front of Tito Latjor's signature on his original (empty) message. I have now moved the IP's response. --David Biddulph (talk) 04:29, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

hI

 14.201.235.210 (talk) 04:49, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

So you vandalise two pages for no reason, then drop by to say hi? Do you have any questions about editing Wikipedia? RedBulbBlueBlood9911Talk 05:43, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Technical Inquiry: Export full set of edit summaries and-or search

I posed a question related to the subject at Help talk:Edit summary#Export full set of edit summaries and-or search, where it was noted that relatively few eyeballs would pass by; I was referred to the Help Desk, but thought it better to bring here based on the nature of the inquiry. Let me know if there is, in fact, a better place to take this. Thanks. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:55, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Ceyockey, WP:VPT perhaps? Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:57, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Source behind paywall

Hi, The draft for my page AdvantageGo, has been on the basis of notability of sources. I do have a notable, authoritative third party source I can use, however it is behind a paywall. My question is whether it is possible to use this source, even if it is behind a paywall. If so, whether it would be enough to add this source, to my more un-notable sources, to get my page accepted? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apanuccio2020 (talk • contribs) 08:31, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, you can use a source behind a paywall (see WP:PAYWALL), but obviously verification is easier with a freely available source. If you do use a source behind a paywall, you ought to indicate this with |url-access=subscription (see Template:Cite web#Access indicators for url-holding parameters). --David Biddulph (talk) 08:44, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Auto confirmed user

I have made more than 10 edits and I have had this account for a month. I am not still an auto confirmed user. Why? Leone di samuel (talk) 09:34, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

You are autoconfirmed; see here. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:38, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Connecting with other accounts

Can you connect wikipedia with Facebook Pages — Preceding unsigned comment added by APOSTLE MARY (talk • contribs) 10:35, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@APOSTLE MARY: No, Wikipedia is not a social media site. You can connect your account to your email or to other Wikimedia accounts (that should have been done automatically) and that's all. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Good wikiprojects to add to a service man who has seen action in 4 wars?

I have written an article about an astonishing individual known as Tiger Sarll (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Captain_Tiger_Sarll). I was wondering If anyone could give me some advice about some good wiki projects to get this article involved in. Thank you all so much. SALVAHOUSE (talk) 10:42, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@SALVAHOUSE: Welcome to the Teahouse. I would worry about getting it approved for the article mainspace first before thinking about which WikiProjects to join. I'll point out that the draft reads like a narrative, so you may want to fix that before submitting it for review. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@User:Tenryuu Thank you for your advice. ill do my best to make it not read like a narrative, I think it could be like that due to me taking the info largely from a biography written by Godfrey Lias OBE. Do you think this article has a chance of making it? I think the individual is remarkable. --SALVAHOUSE (talk) 22:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@SALVAHOUSE: I'm not much of a references guy; I focus more on copyediting and tone neutralisation. On first glance the references seem reliable and provide significant coverage, but I leave that judgment to other hosts to determine. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@SALVAHOUSE: Your article essentially retells the subject's biography from beginning to end. It's not an encyclopedic article due to being overly long and detailed, and not giving context as to how Sarll's story fits into the times in which he lived, how he was viewed, etc.--Quisqualis (talk) 03:07, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@Tenryuu: Thank you so much for your input. Duely Noted. --SALVAHOUSE (talk) 11:41, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@Quisqualis: Very good point, Ill see if i can phrase the context in which Sarll lived more appropriately. Thank you.--SALVAHOUSE (talk) 11:41, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Deleted Article

I wish to edit the following article I stopped editing in 12.11.2013

27 November 2013 (edit) Article Name R Raman Nair

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sambhu2020&diff=prev&oldid=583610767 Sambhu2020 (talk) 11:28, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Welcome back to Wikipedia after your 7-year break, Sambhu2020! You appear to have already found the abandoned draft at Draft:R. Raman Nair. I'm surprised it is still there, but you can certainly continue to work on it. Make sure you don't include anything that cannot be supported by an independent reliable source, and that this person is likely to meet our notability criteria. See also: Wikipedia:Notability (people). I should also mention that if you happen to know or be connected to this person, it is a good idea to declare that connection on your userpage. There is advice on how to do this at this Conflict of Interest page. Good luck! Nick Moyes (talk) 12:04, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

What to edit

I'm not sure what to work on at the moment. Any suggestions? Ovinus (talk) 08:45, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Ovinus Real, hello! Welcome to Wikipedia. If you want to help out with some tasks, you could visit the task center for some suggested tasks, such as cleaning up articles, writing new articles, expanding short articles (also called stubs on Wikipedia) and many other things. If your primary interest is reverting vandalism, you could visit the the Counter-Vandalism Unit for training and getting tools to fight vandals. All in all, I wish you best of luck for your time on Wikipedia. Stay safe! JavaHurricane 10:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@Ovinus Real: spotting from your userpage that you live in Califormia, do also check out Wikipedia:WikiProject California. 'WikiProjects' are miniprojects based around a single theme (California, in this case) with the aim of editors working to improve articles on that topic. It has a rather scary-looking 'Assessment Chart' which is a brilliant way to find stuff you might be interested in. To make the maximum impact for minimum effort, I'd look at the lowest-quality Wikipedia articles (Called 'Stubs') and click the number in the 'Importance' field. There are over 12,000 'low importance' but short articles, and 32 'High Importance' ones you could look at to see if any take your fancy. (see here). They key thing to remember is never add anything about a place you know that is based only on your own personal knowledge. Always go and find suitable supporting references to add alongside any edits you'd like to add. Good luck! Nick Moyes (talk) 12:15, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Latest reviewed version

Hi, It's been a while since i've posted on the teahouse, but I'm wondering if a system is in place wherein articles can be reviewed for their accuracy, and a link to that version of the article would be placed on top of the page and would guarantee an accurate article. I feel like I've seen something like this on wikipedia before, and if someone could link me to some information on this that'd be really nice. Thanks, JazzClam (talk) 11:42, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@JazzClam:, there are two primary review setups that appear at the top of the article - good articles & Featured Articles. They're both fairly involved (the latter much more so), but I'd certainly encourage you to look into what they involve and go for it if you want. I would note one key point - they only assess the quality at the time of the review. So if you see a GA "plus" on an article reviewed 9 months ago, you won't know from that whether it's up to date. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:38, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Quick Question Here

Hey guys, if I saw an autobiography in progress in a new users user page which category of speedy deletion should it be? Thanks Idan (talk) 13:41, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Idan None. Being an autobiography is not, in and of itself, a legitimate reason to delete a page. If it is an attempt (even a poor one) at a draft for an article, it should be moved to a different page, either as a userspace draft or in Draft space. It might also be a good idea to drop a note on the creator's user talk page, pointing to WP:AUTOBIO and explaining why autobiography is discouraged here. If it is really blatantly promotion, G11 could be used, but please remember not to WP:BITE new editors, and to assume good faith if at all possible. A move to draft space makes it unlikely that such a page will be effective for promotion, even if intended promotionally. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 13:49, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Coronavirus stats stopped updating for my county

Coronavirus stats stopped updating for my county. Why? It has been over a week and Erie county Pennsylvania still says 210 when it’s really 307... in this crazy time of people going back to work, why are you giving false stats?? If you can’t manage all updates, please remove stats.

Link to Wikipedia showing Erie PA with 210: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_Pennsylvania

Link to more reputable source with correct number of cases: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/usa/pennsylvania/

I own a small business and have been relying on your data to go back to work. Please fix this or take it down. Ty. 172.100.135.150 (talk) 13:30, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi IP editor. Wikipedia's purpose is not to provide the latest news. There are other places that do that, as you point out. The numbers in the Wikipedia article are presumably correct for the date they mention (17 May, at present)? That is the important thing. --bonadea contributions talk 13:36, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Also the website you refer to is mirror site (I believe). REDMAN 2019 (talk) 13:40, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello IP editor. Whilst on the one hand it's great to hear that you have been regarding Wikipedia so highly that you have been basing business and health decisions on its content, that is really not something anyone here would advocate. We are run, edited and updated totally by volunteers. Everyone here does their best to ensure accurate, up-to-date content. But we can never promise it. The references we use to update our pages are a really excellent way of checking that our content here is correct and topical. So if you have access to those sources, or to your own state or government's advice pages, these - to be honest - are the ones you should really be relying on for such life-affecting decisions that affect you, your business and your workers. We would never advocate using Wikipedia as the source of medical information for treatment, nor would we want to suggest that Wikipedia is so good and up-to-date that the figures we show are the best available. There is always a lag here. Whilst it has been ecognised that Wikipedia has been delivering a great service across of the world on the unfolding Coronvirus disaster, I think you would have been better posting your concerns for more up-to-date sources and data on the article's talk page, where an interested editor might see them, rather than in this general help-forum. Best wishes from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 13:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

UPDATE: I have just posted your concerns on the relevant article's talk page for you. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:21, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

How to resubmit a 'Rejected' article for review

Dear team, I have an article that has been rejected (not declined). I wanted to work on it based on guidelines from Teahouse and other review comments and resubmit again. Is there a way how it could be done? Thank you for any help that you could provide. Sohinimoitra84 (talk) 11:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy: Draft:Honey Bafna declined three times, then rejected. Comments by reviewers not addressed. Example: no citations for the career accomplishments. The three refs that are in English add nothing to establishing his notability. Interviews do not count, and one of the others is just a mention that co-stars gave him a birthday cake. David notMD (talk) 11:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Sohinimoitra84, the rejection means that reviewers have decided it's a waste of time, theirs and yours, to try and get it to mainspace anytime soon. But it's not a complete ban on working on it. Make absolutely sure you understand the issues and put in enough work to address them before you resubmit it again, and it might be looked at. Resubmitting repeatedly without visible improvements could be seen as disruption though, and the draft may be nominated for deletion, or you may be prohibited from working on the subject. Hope this helps! Usedtobecool ☎️ 19:29, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. I really appreciate it. I will work on it more and revisit the notability guidelines. I also had a question on if Wikipedia allows regional language digital information? Also how could one include book/hard copy references for items that may not have had digital information but had an impactful presence? Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sohinimoitra84 (talk • contribs) 08:14, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Sohinimoitra84, yes, regional language sources are acceptable if they are reliable (WP:RS). But, beware that sources could meet WP:V and still fail to meet the requirements of WP:SIGCOV, meaning not all acceptable sources necessarily add to notability. Offline sources are acceptable provided they are published and reliable. Offline sources don't have a url, otherwise, they are cited the same as online sources, ie. by providing the work, title, date, author, publisher, page number, etc., the necessary details that an independent editor would find sufficient for looking for the source to verify the information from, say, a library that hosts that publication. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:26, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Personalized highlighting -- never seen this before

Resolved

 – Feature is Chrome's Link to Word feature. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:52, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I noticed an interesting feature I've never seen before and I'm curious if it's new or I've just been a poor observer. I googled "Hōkūle‘a 1976" and the first result linked to Wikipedia's Hōkūle‘a page but with some handy highlighting of the information I was looking for. So, which is it, new feature or been-there-for-the-last-5-years-you-dope? Theleot (talk) 08:02, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Theleot, it seems the url was tailored to highlight the text after opening the article. Changing the "text=" bit changes which text is highlighted. I am thinking changing the article's name and text, one can tailor a url to highlight any text on any given page; more an internet browsing feature than Wikipedia feature. Does this url highlight the lead sentence of the BBC obituary for you? Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:26, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@Theleot: This is a feature of Google Chrome and not related to Wikipedia. I also get highlighting with http://primerecords.dk/#:~:text=tables at my own site which is just simple html and does nothing to achieve it. I don't know whether other browsers support it or have similar features. Your link doesn't highlight in Firefox, Internet Explorer or Microsoft Edge. I don't get such url's when I use Google search with Google Chrome so maybe it's a setting. You can ask for more at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing. PrimeHunter (talk) 08:59, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@Usedtobecool:@PrimeHunter: Very interesting. I was able to find more info once you guys pointed out it was not a Wiki but a Chrome thing. The feature was introduced in 2019. Thanks to both of you for noodling around and figuring it out! :) Theleot (talk) 09:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

why cant i edit pages

Blocked

 – OP blocked indefinitely and talk page access revoked. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:09, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

 Wikiman1233453543 (talk) 12:54, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

There could be an explanation in this miserable list. -- Hoary (talk) 13:09, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Blocked from editing articles explained on your Talk page. Blocked from editing your own Talk page for what appears to be not telling the truth in your attempt to be unblocked. And reverted/chastised for deleting content here at Teahouse. David notMD (talk) 14:05, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Autoconfirmation?

This is my fourth day on Wikipedia, when will I be autoconfirmed? (Oinkers42) (talk) 15:31, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Oinkers42 Sometime more than 96 hours after your accoujnt was created, I should think. I am not sure on just what schedule the automated process runs on. I think that woulds be rather late in the day on 4 June. What would you like to do that lack of autoconfirmed status is hindering? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:46, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Heading

Resolved

 – {{About}} template utilised. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:10, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

How does one go about placing a heading at the top of an article that says something to the effect of: "This article is about 'X', for 'Y' see:" Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 22:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

You are presumable looking for {{about}}? --David Biddulph (talk) 22:29, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

David Biddulph Not really. That uses the phrase: "for other uses". I specifically just need: for 'Y' see: [link] Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 23:32, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@Maineartists: Check the documentation for {{about}}. It allows you to make a binary link by adding some extra parameters. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:39, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@Maineartists: You also don't need a template. Consistency is nice but to save time you can type out what you want it to say as well. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 01:43, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

These "headings" are actually hatnotes and there are quite a few varieties of them for use in different circumstances. See the project page linked above, and Template:Hatnote templates which lists available templates for this purpose. IMO there is good reason to use templates for this purpose, because some forms have consensus to use and others do not, and the templates help one to stay within that consensus, as well as aiding consistency. "Heading" most often refers to a section heading, sometimes to a table heading. @Maineartists, David Biddulph, and Timtempleton: DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 02:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@Maineartists: Perhaps you didn't read the template documentation? {{About|Use1|Use2|Article2}} gives "This article is about Use1. For Use2, see Article2.", which was the wording your question asked for. --David Biddulph (talk) 04:36, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, @David Biddulph: It took me a while to figure out what you were directing me to; but once I understood, I was able to apply it correctly. Thanks again! Maineartists (talk) 23:00, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I've used {{for}}. --ColinFine (talk) 08:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Grids

Resolved

 – OP directed to Help:Wikitable for table basics. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:24, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

How do you make grids in wikipedia?PNSMurthy (talk) 07:02, 3 June 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PNSMurthy (talk • contribs) 07:00, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi PNSMurthy, you are referring to tables, I guess... have a look over here Help:Introduction_to_tables_with_Wiki_Markup/1 ¯\_(ツ)_/¯, CommanderWaterford (talk) 07:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks!PNSMurthy (talk) 07:27, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Names in articles

Resolved

 – OP directed to MOS:NAME for name conventions. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

What are the conventions with surnames and first names in biographical Wikipedia articles? I believe it's appropriate to use surnames only when referring to the person and then use pronouns however I am just willing to check. WDM10 (talk) 07:13, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi WDM10 and welcome to the Teahouse, you will find the answer over here Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography#Names ... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ CommanderWaterford (talk) 07:20, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. WDM10 (talk) 07:23, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

speedy deletion reason

I worked on an article for 2 weeks following all the wikipedia guidelines , but I receide sppedy deletion what shall I do? Udaiveersharma (talk) 17:37, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

It would be wise for you read the notification which you received at User talk:Udaiveersharma#Speedy deletion of User:171.50.137.38/sandbox. The words in blue are wikilinks to further advice, if you need it. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:14, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Article declined because of missing neutral or relevant sources

Dear All, this is a repost an a question to the reply of a host, (see below, thank you):

I did put in 4 sources: Every source has as main theme the subject I am talking about (Vier5). If interviews are not helpful, I can understand. Even if the source is the California Institute of Arts. I mean, how high and notable can a source be in the design and art world? And an article about documenta. I really do not understand.:)

https://www.documenta-archiv.de/en/documenta/121/14 — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndreasFrutiger (talk • contribs) 17:06, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

copy: Dear All, I recently did write an article about of group of artists I think it would be interesting for the community. I wrote a short brief and did put in 4 links to reliable sources in the Design and Art world (AIGA, Design Observer, Graphic Hug, CalArts Institute). Then it was declined because sources were missing?

What kind of sources should it be then?

Best, Andreas AndreasFrutiger (talk) 07:31, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy: Draft:Vier5. REALLY short, and sadly, while interviews as sources can be used to provide basic information, do not contribute to notability. In other refs, mention of Vier5 is only a sentence or two. David notMD (talk) 09:32, 22 May 2020 (UTC) AndreasFrutiger (talk) 16:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I stand by the comment I left at Draft:Vier5 on May 22 (specifically, ref 2 is an interview and refs 3 & 4 are only brief mentions), but what matters is what the reviewer left as reasons for declining the draft: "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article..." David notMD (talk) 19:14, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

My Submission

Did my submission get approved? Cristiano.Wilson73 (talk) 19:24, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy link: User:Cristiano.Wilson73/sandbox

Hello, Cristiano.Wilson73 and welcome to teh teahouse. Your sandbox has not been approved, because it has not been submitted for review. I have added a blue button that you can click when you want your draft submit4ed for review. However, I strongly advise you not to do so yet, and I am confident that if reveiwed in its present form, it would be declined. Issues with the current draft include:

• No sources are cited at all. Sourcesa are essential here. Read WP:CITE and referencing for beginners.
• There is a lack of context. It is not made clear what this event is, who held or sponsored it, why it is important or where it was held, or even in what year.
• The text does not in any way establish that the event is notable That is a key hurdle that all Wikipedia articles must get over.
• The closing suggests that this may have been copied from some document, although i don't fin d one in a web search. Wikipedia cannot accept text copied from elsewhere except in very limited cases, and in all of those the source must be properly attributed.

If you have further questions or this is not clear, please ask again here. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Draft:2020 Ghent Stabbings

Resolved

 – Draft has been speedily deleted per criterion G7. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:52, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• Draft:2020 Ghent Stabbings

Is there any potential in me working on this article, or is it not worth my time? I did work on it awhile ago but did get declined. Should I delete it? Captain Galaxy (talk) 11:15, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Captain Galaxy. Welcome to the Teahouse, and thank you for your post. It's a good question, so what you need to ask is "are there any subsequent media stories which show this event has had repercussions and an impact over and above the awful event of a single attack by someone, and the direct impact on their families?" If, as I suspect, the answer is "No", then the reasons for the original rejection still stand, and it would be sensible to either leave the article until it gets automatically deleted after 6 months, or you can place a user request to have it 'speedily deleted'. Let us know if you need help to do that. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:55, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Thank you for the advice. Could you help me with the 'speedily delete' process as I'm not sure how to do it by myself? Captain Galaxy (talk) 16:41, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@Captain Galaxy: ok - but rather than me doing it for you, I'll talk you through the process so that you can learn for the future. We have various criteria for 'speedy deletion' listed at WP:CSD. The one relevant here is criterion 'G7' (see WP:G7 - author requests deletion). There you'll see all you have to do is add the following template request to the top of the page: {{db-g7}}. (Just the bits between the curly brackets - none of the nowiki stuff between chevrons, should you be looking at the source code for this post) Publish the changes and you'll see the template appear on the page. If you later change your mind because circumstances around the story have altered, come back and I'll restore the deleted text for you. (If you happened to have Twinkle enabled in your Preferences, there's a drop-down menu in the TW tab at the top of the page which lets you select the relevant deletion criterion. It's the same process, but Twinkle just makes it faster). Good luck! Nick Moyes (talk) 18:07, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Thanks again and have a great day! Captain Galaxy (talk) 18:19, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Issue about COI

 Deferred to WP:3O

 – —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:46, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello. I translated Chang Yi (Taiwanese director) (a famous Taiwan move director on 1980s) from Chinese Wikipedia zh:張毅 (導演), which is also written by me.

user:Afoot post hoc thinks that I have a close connection (Wikipedia:Conflict of interest) with its subject. His/her reason is that I expanded some paragraphed without adding references.

I think this article is not a good promotion for Chang Yi. He had an affair with the actress Loretta Yang. It was a big news at that time. I added that to the leading paragraphes.

I would like to know what is the criterion about Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Does other Wikipedian also think it is COI? Wolfch (talk) 16:19, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@Wolfch: Welcome to the Teahouse. We do not promote subjects, and how you think this article is not a good promotion for Chang Yi is the wrong mindset to have on here. If you are making claims that any reasonable person has reason to doubt, you must cite it. The details about conflicts of interest are in the page you just linked. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:30, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@Tenryuu: I think Wolfch is making the point that they are unlikely to have a COI given that they added negative information to the lead. Wolfch, the editor who is saying you have a COI is extremely new, so I wouldn't put too much stock in anything they say. If you'd like someone else to review the page and gauge whether the tag ought to be removed, you could ask at WP:3O. It'll also get some attention if the other editor decides to nominate it for deletion. If it has enough citations to reliable sources, it'll survive the nomination. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:04, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@Sdkb:, Thank. I will ask at WP:3O to get more opinions--Wolfch (talk) 22:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Rules about promoting own work

Hi all,

I'm currently working on open-source (more specifically, GPL-3.0) software with the purpose of interactive plotting of mathematical functions and equations in the browser. It's a passion project and the intent is purely educational. Would it be unethical for me to, in External Links, link to pages using the software? For example, I created an interactive plot of the gamma function and its critical points, special values and asymptotes. Would putting this be violating some Wikipedia policy?

Sincerely, Ovinus Ovinus (talk) 21:47, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@Ovinus: Welcome to the Teahouse, and thank you for your question. I suggest you ask the same question on the article talk page and provide the appropriate link there. Then, independent editors can determine whether it meets the criteria at WP:External links. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 01:30, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

The reason left was: corp,adv

Somebody left a reason for not accepting my draft, which was

corp, adv

and I do not know what that means and why. Could somebody help? Julian Brasse (talk) 09:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

It looks as if User:DGG had a syntax error in his review, but he may have intended to point you at WP:NCORP and WP:NOTADVERTISING. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:49, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@Julian Brasse: Yes, as David Biddulph noted, there was a minor typo in the review template. I have fixed it so the reasons and explanations show up in Draft:Ifolor. --bonadea contributions talk 09:55, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I had noticed the error myself, and assumed it came from the template, . I should have followed up. DGG ( talk ) 01:56, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

is Authority control and sister project link "d" duplication, foreign language Quotations from Wikiquote on en wiki

• Lady Gaga contains wikidata template twice : {{Authority control}} and {{Sister project links|d=Q19848}}. is this considered duplication ?
• is it ok to use foreign language Quotations from Wikiquote hyperlink Williamina Fleming on Williamina Fleming in Sister project links template. is it allowed on our wiki ? Vishnuvardhan leela (talk) 07:53, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Want to translate an specific page from English to Spanish

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car_of_the_Year_Japan

I want to translate in Wikipedia this article into Spanish.

This is going to be my first article in Wikipedia.

I need help on doing it, since I am a new member here, want to do the things right.

So I hope it can be helpful.

Thanks in advance. Mktjapan (talk) 23:23, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@Mktjapan: Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for wanting to improve it. See WP:TRANSLATEUS for some guidance. Also, each language Wikipedia has its own rules and guidelines for how articles are written, so I suggest you ask at [4] for further advice. RudolfRed (talk) 00:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

That's good advice, but whereas WP:TRANSLATEUS says

We suggest text for the edit summary like: Content in this edit is from the existing English Wikipedia article at [[:en:Exact name of English article]]; see its history for attribution. Formatting follows..

I suggest that you instead write the same thing in Spanish. -- Hoary (talk) 01:34, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Mktjapan, the Spanish wikipedia does have some other rules to mark a page as translated, they tag it with some special tags. Have a look other here: [5]https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Traducciones. CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:55, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

DRAFT Lebanese Yacht Club was not approved

dear all, kindly note that i have just been advised that Lebanese Yacht Club draft for submission was not approved by the reviewer reason: Lacks events that pass Wikipedia's notability thresholds. can you please advise the possibility to resolve this problem and resubmitted again. appreciate your assistance. Princesse Marissa (talk) 09:48, 4 June 2020 (UTC) Princesse Marissa (talk) 09:48, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Princesse Marissa Hello. You've asked this question at the AFC Help Desk; please only use one method of seeking assistance, to avoid duplication of effort. Thanks 331dot (talk) 10:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Some questions

Hello,

An article I wrote on "British Nuclear Medicine Society" (BNMS) linke: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Nuclear_Medicine_Society, and learned a lot but still have some questions.

It initially got rejected 2-3 times. The main reason was insufficient notability and excessive advertisement. Even though it was very similar to an existing Wikipedia article, for example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Association_of_Nuclear_Medicine (EANM)

I thought it would be a good idea to add a new section to the article called "Contribution to society", since BNMS has existed for 60 years. The section was full of peer-reviewed references, some written by BNMS staff & other articles authored by non-BNMS researchers citing BNMS written manuscripts. Wikipedians advised me that it reads like a promotional article, so I tried to refine it as suggested. Anyways, it got finally accepted.

Since BNMS article got accepted presumably based on the new section, I thought it was appropriate to add a similar section to the EANM article, and I did.

Then, another editor removed this section "Contribution to society" from the BNMS article with a comment "Reorganised activities to prose, removed contributions to society section as it sounds non-neutral and is effectively a bibliography of BNMS, and tangentially related, publications". They also removed this section "Contribution to society" from the EANM article with a comment "Removal of "Contributions to Society" section - the heading alone doesn't seem neutral or encyclopaedic, and the content itself is essentially a bibliography and collection of citations, not what Wikipedia is for".

My questions are as follows:

1. Why does is it appear to be acceptable to list publications in the middle of biography but not for other articles? I have listed here a few examples as the complete list is very long.

-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mildred_Dresselhaus#Selected_publications

-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Julian_Buerger

-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daron_Acemoglu#Selected_publications

-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_H._Townes#Selected_publications

-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Levinson#Publications

-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevin_S._Scrimshaw#Works

-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyril_Stanley_Smith#Selected_works

2. If it is not acceptable, should such bibliography be removed from the middle of all articles on Wikipedia?

3. Why were the following articles accepted on the basis of meeting the visibility condition? I have listed here a few examples as the complete list is very long.

-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Building_Research_Organisation

-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Politics_Research

-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulletin_of_Latin_American_Research

-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Institute_for_Cancer_Research

-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancer_Research_Institute

-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleep_Research_Society#Publications

4. How can a person/organisation potentially satisfy Wikipedia's visibility requirement if it has not contributed to society? And if it has contributed, then why writing about it is considered non-neutral?

I would be thankful for your inputs.

Thank you

Earthianyogi (talk) 22:40, 3 June 2020 (UTC) Earthianyogi (talk) 22:40, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@Earthianyogi: Although Wikipedia has many policies and guidelines, they can be interpreted differently by various editors. There are also many articles that need to be updated or maybe even deleted. I suggest you read the essay Wikipedia:Other stuff exists, and continue working to make the Wikipedia articles better. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 01:33, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

For me, it's not the bibliography that's problematic, it's the phrasing. For an example, let's look at one entry that was deleted: In 2017, EANM along with the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, the European Thyroid Association, and the American Thyroid Association setted a group on differentiated thyroid cancer to discuss differences in an open, honest, data-driven, respectful manner to improve clinical management of patients. I don't know what "setted" means. ("Set up"?) In some contexts (notably "open software"), "open" has a clear meaning. In others, its meaning is somewhat unclear: it's evaluative. ("Open" by what standards? "Open" as described by whom?) "Data-driven": well, theology and "critical theory" aside, every study claims to be "data-driven", does it not? (But are the data representative, or cherry-picked?) "Honest" and "respectful": utterly superfluous, as I can't imagine a (non-parodic) statement of intent to be either dishonest or disrespectful. Additionally, associations routinely set up inter-association groups; what's remarkable about this one? -- Hoary (talk) 03:23, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@GoingBatty:, and @Hoary:: Great points, especially that "they can be interpreted differently by various editors." Also, I see why the content appeared like an advertisement. I tried hard not to write it in a tight academic style, as the content is written for the general population, even though it may depend a lot on the subject of the article and the reviewer's level of experience. It is easy for a detail-oriented reader to access the article directly as this level of detail may not be of interest to a general reader (Wikipedia is a multilingual online encyclopedia - right?). Since Wikipedia is built on a collaborative effort, would you agree that it would have been more productive for the experienced editor @Beevil: to highlight it before deleting the content, or be kind to make an effort to edit such superfluous words/lines within the "Contribution to society" section, rather than simply removing the whole section altogether? I think a positive contribution should be encouraged. I will try to rewrite this section and add it back again and will invite you all to review. Thanks. Earthianyogi (talk) 10:50, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Earthianyogi, WP:BRD applies; start a section at the talk page, invite the other editor to participate, and argue that some content could be retained, propose you could rewrite to fix if the concern is just the presentation. If and when you agree, your work is safe in history to be restored. The full revert does not mean you'll have to start again. Hoary gave their analysis, but they are not a mind reader, they can't guarantee that Beevil will not object on some other grounds. So, Beevil is the one you should discuss this with. Teahouse can not be expected to intervene on someone's behalf in every dispute. Editors here have provided their perspective, it is now on you to follow WP:DR procedures in support of your preferred changes. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 11:17, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Creating the 2nd Article while the first is pending.

I need help with how to create a second Article while the first one is still pending. The article I want do is the Young Communist League of South Africa. The challenge is that when I try to create it on my sandbox it looks like it mixes my first article with the edits. (Tefo S Radebe (talk) 12:30, 4 June 2020 (UTC)) Tefo S Radebe (talk) 12:30, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Tefo S Radebe. You can create a userspace draft, such as User:Tefo S Radebe/Young Communist League of South Africa or go right to draft space, with Draft:Young Communist League of South Africa. You can also create multiple sandboxes, such as User:Tefo S Radebe/Sandbox2 and User:Tefo S Radebe/Sandbox3. There is no need for new drafts to be started in a sandbox, and startign multiple articles in the same page can cause confusion, as you found. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 12:42, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Meanwhile, your user page: please see WP:FAKEARTICLE. -- Hoary (talk) 12:48, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Citations continued

I have worked out how to create citations but is there anything else I need to do to make my draft acceptable before I send it off? I am new! Thank you. Gingerfinallysnaps (talk) 11:10, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Are you asking about Draft:Philippa Beale? If so, my puzzlement starts in the very first paragraph. What are "semiotic images"? If "iconic works about advertising" means something other than plain "works about advertising", then what? -- Hoary (talk) 11:26, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Gingerfinallysnaps, and welcome to the Teahouse. Draft:Philippa Beale also has a number of formatting issues. In particular the sections are not formatted properly for Wikipedia. But more importantly, the sources for the draft are unclear. A number of works are listed in the "Bibliography" section, but it is not at all clear which, if any, of them is intended to serve as a source for the article, much less which statements are supported by which source. Pl erase read Referencing for Beginners and Citing Sources. Please also readour guideline for the notability of artists and our policy on notability and make sure that Philippa Beale is notable in the special sense in which Wikipedia uses that term. The works in the "Bibliography" section do not seem to list authors for the most part. The "Selected Exhibitions" and the "Bibliography" sections, and perhaps also the "Collections" section should be formatted as bulleted lists. There are also no wiki-links to relevant articles. Please see Help:Editing and Help:Cheatsheet for how to do wiki-formatting.

I hope this is helpful. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 12:15, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Created section titles by bracketing with == == David notMD (talk) 13:58, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Discography

why every wiki i create about me always gets deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarginalChino (talk • contribs) 13:16, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

MarginalChino Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You are not writing "a wiki", but "a Wikipedia article". However, Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves, please see the autobiography policy. Wikipedia is only interested in what independent reliable sources state about a person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person, or in your case, a notable musician. Wikipedia is not interested in what someone wants to say about themselves. If you just want to tell the world about yourself, you should use social media. 331dot (talk) 13:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

One draft page that you had created was deleted because it appears to have been a test page i.e. did not have any meaningful content. The second page was deleted because it failed criterion WP:A7 for speedy deletion i.e. it was not clear why this person should be notable. Ruslik_Zero 13:49, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

so if i write about my self on social media's will by bio be automatically sent to here or what????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarginalChino (talk • contribs) 13:52, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

MarginalChino Please do not create additional sections; simply edit this existing discussion for follow up questions. To answer you, if you write on social media, it stays on social media. The only way there will be a Wikipedia article about you is if others take note of your career in independent reliable sources with significant coverage and choose on their own to write about you- and only if you meet the special definition of a notable musician that we have. You should not attempt to write about yourself here or enlist others to. Wikipedia has no interest in aiding your career or enhancing search results for you. 331dot (talk) 13:57, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I will add that any article about you that might be created is not something that you would have control over. You could not dictate what appears there, prevent others from editing it, or lock it to the text you might prefer. A Wikipedia article is not necessarily desirable. There are good reasons to not want one. 331dot (talk) 13:59, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

so then why dont you approve or restore my deleted article i wrote???? people to find and locate me on google to know more about.....— Preceding unsigned comment added by MarginalChino (talk • contribs)

MarginalChino As I said, if you want your fans or other people to know about you, you should use social media. Wikipedia is not here to help you reach your fans. 331dot (talk) 14:09, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Marginal, you're not even creating truthful articles about yourself, you're just creating blatant hoaxes. – Thjarkur (talk) 14:20, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@MarginalChino: Wikipedia is not social media. You may want to look at some alternative sites at WP:OUT for something that better suits your tastes. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:38, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Draft: House of Highlights (sports media)

Hello, I'm trying to publish my first article to Wikipedia and I want to make sure I'm doing everything correct. I submitted Draft:House of Highlights (sports media) and I wanted to see if it has been reviewed yet and what I need to do in order to get it approved by Wiki editors?

Thank you! JDeditor850 (talk) 14:06, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

JDeditor850 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You have not yet submitted your draft for review; I will shortly add the appropriate information to allow you to do so. After you formally submit it for review, it will eventually be reviewed by a volunteer editor, and you will be notified as to what happens. 331dot (talk) 14:11, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi JDeditor850. If you are the same editor as HoHighlights, please make sure that you declare you are employed by the company you're writing about on your user page. Previous related question: Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1062#House of Highlights —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:45, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Mad

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Good morning my name is Ken I am a licensed fisherman I live in Dutchess County New York every place I go to the fish has a poster sign why is this is this legal I go to Ponds I go to lakes I go to parks always a poster sign saying no trespassing no fission Why do I have a pay for a fishing license when I have no words to fish please let me know please help me no fisherman Ken 24.168.41.38 (talk) 14:44, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi IP editor, this is not the place to ask your question. You may want to ask the local government instead. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:46, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

uytrvcx7647

 Bumsowee (talk) 14:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Bumsowee, did you have a question? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:02, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Redirect Rose report.

Resolved

 – Removed all content except the redirect to fix. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:44, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi. I want to redirect from the Rose Report, a company that does not appear to exist, to Independent review of the teaching of early reading (Rose Report 2006), a very notable site. I added a #REDIRECT to the Rose report but it does not seem to work. Thanks. John (talk) 15:10, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

 Fixed. Jnhmunro, leave only the redirect link on the page and nothing else (categories and redirect templates notwithstanding). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:23, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! John (talk) 15:35, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Userboxes making my page look disorganised

Resolved

 – Userbox bounding templates, floating via table, and {{clear}} suggested. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:00, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Userboxes making my page look disorganised

How do you make your userboxes cluster into a neat pile on your page? I have about five on the top of my user page and they are messing the top part of my bio: it is squashing my small little bio on the top and I don't know where else to put them. Do they have to be at the top or can you put them in the bottom? Need help! SarahTHunter (talk) 14:25, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

You may want to try using {{Userboxtop}} and {{Userboxbottom}}. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@SarahTHunter: One tip is to browse through the userpages of other editors and peek at the source code that they've used to create their pages. For fancy layout ideas, see Wikipedia:User page design center. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:35, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I add mine at end of all my other stuff. Be aware that some are taller than others, so if mixed in with standard size boxes, create gaps. David notMD (talk) 14:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

​You can float them to the side or clear the space before the text. You can also just place them at the bottom. – Thjarkur (talk) 15:28, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Problem solved. Thank you very much! SarahTHunter (talk) 15:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

business.com = reliable?

Hi, is Business.com reliable? Thanks, Bart Barcino125 (talk) 16:34, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Barcino125, taking a brief look at it, my guess would be no. If you wanted to be sure, you could ask at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Is there a specific page from that website you're looking to use? It might depend on the context. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:54, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

How do I put citations into a bio in a draft I am writing?

 Gingerfinallysnaps (talk) 09:25, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Gingerfinallysnaps, welcome to the Teahouse. Please have a look at Wikipedia:Citing_sources. Hope that helps. CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:57, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@Gingerfinallysnaps: Check out WP:ERB, which might be a bit easier to follow. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 16:57, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Is there a correct way to direct attention to this comment /slash "question" ... ?

See Talk:Deadname#The_"#fragment"_suffix_here..._no_longer_works_as_intended --Mike Schwartz (talk) 16:02, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Usually people aren't watching redirects, so you could: post at the target article, post here at the help desks, or use {{help me}}. – Thjarkur (talk) 16:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@Mike Schwartz: posting in the right place is an art that takes a bit of practice to master. You can see how many people are watching a page by clicking on "page information" on the right; if it says "less than 30" you're unlikely to get a response. Using {{Please see}} at a relevant WikiProject can help (but choose one that has recent activity on its talk page). It's also important to be concise, since editors are less likely to read longer messages, and I'd recommend using bolding/subheadings more sparingly. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:00, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello.

Got a message from a bot in my User Talk page, to join this, just saying hi. Skappy (talk) 17:19, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello Skappy and welcome to Wikipedia. If you ever need help while editing or using Wikipedia, stop by the Teahouse. We'll do our best to help you. Interstellarity (talk) 17:28, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! Skappy (talk) 17:30, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Why do my edits keep getting deleted

Why are my edits being deleted less than an hour after posting ? I’m adding true content and referencing. 86.183.115.190 (talk) 11:05, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

There are no edits associated with your IP address other than your above comment, so it is difficult to answer you. If you made the edits with an account, remember to log in before posting. 331dot (talk) 11:09, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

This is the first edit this IP address has made. If you mean edits you made under another IP address or your username, you need to specify which ones you are referring to in order for us to help you. Regards SoWhy 11:10, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. It was made under username Rickmaids. I don’t know if it’s logged in now — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rickmaids (talk • contribs) 11:55, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Your edit here [6] was reverted because Twitter is not a reliable source. Theroadislong (talk) 11:58, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Rickmaids, Twitter can be used in rare circumstances but the types of things for which it can be used are quite narrow. See WP:USERG and WP:SELFSOURCE S Philbrick(Talk) 18:11, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. How do I go about editing my own personal life with a source more reliable than the actual person it’s about please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rickmaids (talk • contribs) 12:16, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Rickmaids. You say that you are editing my own personal life. Are you asserting that you are Julian Dicks, then? If so, you should not be editing that article at all, only making suggestions at Talk:Julian Dicks. As to the actual edit, under WP:ABOUTSELF a twitter comment can be an acceptable source when it is verifiably made by the subject of the article. But is this a fact that should be in the article at all? Wikipedia is not a gossip column or a record of the details of celebrity life. The focus of the article is properly on Dicks's coaching career. Are such details of his family life really proper in an encyclopedic article? Also, the statement is very much of the moment. It will be out-of-date in a few months at most. Wikipedia articles should be longer-term that that, usually. Wikipedia is not the news. How many times would such comments need to be revised over the next ten years, say? If you still want to add the information, i suggest that you first discuss it on Talk:Julian Dicks. Please follow the Bold, revert, discuss cycle. You made a bold edit, it was reverted, and now please discuss it with other editors. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 13:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. No I’m not him I’m his agent . Cheers for the advice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rickmaids (talk • contribs) 13:05, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Rickmaids You must read the important information I have posted on your user talk page(User talk:Rickmaids) and comply with the policies described therein, as soon as possible. Thank you 331dot (talk) 13:07, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Article??

How do you write an article on Wikipedia. Thandolwethu Doctor Ndlovu Nhlapo (talk) 17:54, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Thandolwethu Doctor Ndlovu Nhlapo, Hi and welcome to Wikipedia. You might want to check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Your_first_article. CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:00, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

 Randall finsterwald (talk) 18:35, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Hank C. Burnette draft page

Colin and Bonadea, Thank you very much for your helpful advice on 15th May here in the Teahouse concerning my aim to create an English Wikipedia page for the musician Hank C. Burnette. I have read the various pages you referenced,hopefully followed your advice, and I have now started a draft page in my Sandbox. I wondered if you could read what I have written so far and let me have any suggestions as to whether I am on the right lines. I thought it would be best to check notability and the standard of citations for the main facts first, before going any further. Best wishes, Wizzlewick Wizzlewick (talk) 17:42, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Wizzlewick. I would say No, I'm afraid. The Oxford reference looks as if it is reliable - but you should be citing the Encyclopedia of Popular Music, not the Oxford aggregator. The question there is whether there is substantial material on him there or not, which I can't tell without having access to the source. If so, that is one suitable source. But I don't see another one in your draft. YouTube is his own channel, so it cannot contribute to his notability. Discogs is user-generated and so not a reliable source (see WP:RSP), and in any case there is no substantial information about him there.

Again, the question is, have several people, wholly unconnected with Burnette, chosen to write at some length about him, and been published in reliable places? The Encyclopedia entry might be such a place, if it is more than one paragraph; but you need a couple more of that quality. --ColinFine (talk) 18:34, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Wizzlewick.

• First of all, a formatting issue. You have several places where the same source is cited multiple times. Please use named references to combine these into a single citation.
• The more usual way is to give the legal name first, as Sven-Åke Högberg (born December 12, 1944), better known by his performing name of Hank C. Burnette is ...
• As per WP:DOB, for living people, only give the exact birth date if it has already been widely published outside of Wikipedia, or has been published by or with the obvious consent of the subject, such as on the subject's personal web page. Otherwise give just the year.
• Discogs is generally considered of dubious reliability. It is OK to cite for an album's track list, but really not for anything but that.
• Most of your cited sources are pretty brief, and I would be inclined to question the notability here. But Wikipedia:Notability (music) includes as a notability criterion Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart. which seems to be met here. Still I would prefer a more filled out draft and some sources which offer more in depth coverage. It may be that offline or archived sources would be needed.

I hope that is of some help. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:52, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

ColinFine and DES, Thank you both very much indeed. There is plenty for me to work on there! Much appreciated!

Best wishes, Wizzlewick Wizzlewick (talk)

I have been looking at the music Wikipedia:Notability (music), as kindly mentioned by DES above.

Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart. Hank C. Burnette had a single in both the UK and Swedish charts, and I have independent reference websites for these entries.

Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels Hank C Burnette had three albums released by Sonet Records, which is a sufficiently important enough independent label to merit its own Wikipedia entry. As an aside he also had one album issued by Columbia Records, which is obviously a major record label. He also had one album issued by Sun Records, which is extraordinary for a European artiste. I have found record label images and listings to support these record label issues.

So, I am guessing that if Hank C Burnette fufils two of the main criteria in the first list on Wikipedia:Notability (music) then he qualifies on music notability, does he not?

Sonic

 1-ball Official (talk) 17:52, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, 1-ball Official. This is a forum for users in needs of assistance in editing Wikipedia. Let us know if you need any guidance. Nick Moyes (talk) 18:53, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Show

 Deferred to User talk:CommanderWaterford

 – —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:37, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@CommanderWaterford: OMG! I loved that show. I wish it was back and was permanent! x20px|mm Galendalia Talk to me ^{CVU Graduate} 18:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Galendalia did you have a question? By the way, your ping of CommanderWaterford did not work, but this one should. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:05, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

DESiegel, thanks for pinging me ... honestly I am confused, what kind of show? Have I become famous meanwhile!? :) But hey, nobody has to spam the Teahouse, also have a talk page :) CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:17, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Diverse Photos Added to DC-3 Article on 17 May Deleted This AM; Other Opinions, Please?

Resolved

 – WP:Aircontent is a specific MOS geared for aircraft content articles. Disputes over images best talked about first at article's talk page. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:54, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

My photo edit of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_DC-3 done on May 17 was deleted today because "Those images do not aid understanding of the subject" and I disagree. I can see deleting some, as there were a number added, but as I said in the edit comments:

• Most photos went to the lower right, where there was adequate (wasted) white space,
• Photos were more diverse than the rest (one from astern, one close in chopping the wings so the fuselage shows better, one fueling, etc.),
• They were often cropped 16:9, so they can be used as Apple Wallpaper or PC Background (admittedly a minor point).

Additionally:

• My photos showed DC-3s actually doing something - supporting skydiving - surely that's 'aiding to understand',
• The first photo, placed to contrast the first pic below the infobox - an interior empty except for seats/aisle - better shows the scale of a DC-3's interior.

I've had my photos undone a couple of times and saw the point of view of the editor, but this time I disagree - they do aid understanding of the subject, IMHO, and they make the article more interesting, seeing photos rather than empty white space. In summary, Does white space on a page aid understanding of the subject better than photos of the subject? And I suggest my photos aid understanding at least as much, if not more than, any of the existing photos. If there is an objection to the number of shots, I can reduce them. This is my first instance where I disagree with an editor and am unclear if this is even the best place to object, but I assume someone will tell me if I should do something differently. BrettA343 (talk) 18:58, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi BrettA343 and welcome to the Teahouse. Have you and the editor had a discussion on these images? That is what I usually recommend first so you can both understand and see each others point of view? Galendalia Talk to me ^{CVU Graduate} 19:19, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

@BrettA343: As Galendalia kindly mentioned, discussion is a normal part of the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. I recommend that you have the discussion at the article talk page - Talk:Douglas DC-3 - in the hopes that multiple knowledgeable editors can be involved and come to a consensus as to which photos to use. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 19:59, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks @Galendalia: and @GoingBatty:, I'll try the editor first and then the talk page. Note that I've added a bolded summation question above, for thought about the DC-3 article (plus as a general argument for other articles) and will refer to this Teahouse question to both editor and talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrettA343 (talk • contribs) 05:57, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

@BrettA343: You want to keep this question here? Ok:

Does white space on a page aid understanding of the subject better than photos of the subject?

Whether the photos are replacing "white space" or not depends on how the article is rendered. Wikipedia content can be rendered in a variety of ways. Obviously, this changes when you resize your window, it might be rendered in "mobile" mode, it can be rendered on various Wikipedia replicas.

While we don't focus heavily on the download size of a page, we should not completely ignore it. We also shouldn't ignore that additional "elements" in a page have all sorts of overhead, e.g. they make editing a page incrementally more complicated. But additional content should provide more than a "scintilla" of improvement (not necessarily a lot more than a scintilla, but a little more).

A lot of people like to go to rules (though I actually like to point out the rule that there aren't any "hard and fast" rules, but I'll offer the rule anyay). Here it is: Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia is not. Refer to the section on media files.

Even though I do not feel so strongly about this particular rule, I shall continue. This article had 21 images, your change increased it to 28. But why stop there? There are literally thousands of DC-3 images available that could make this page more interesting or perhaps even more enlightening. How would you know where to stop?

To get on my soapbox, there are literally hundreds of thousands of WP articles that are really, significantly broken. My perspective, though not a common one, is that we should be discouraging changes that aren't fixing significant problems, or alternatively, implementing solutions to reduce maintenance requirements (e.g. articles that will necessarily require edits due simply to the passage of time). So IMO, I would ask people not to spend their time on "subjective" improvements to articles. Making such changes may give editors a greater sense of satisfaction, but they really do not serve WP very well. Fabrickator (talk) 19:40, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Fujairah Airlines Douglas DC-3 Wheatley

Air India DC-3 at Heathrow

DC-3 in SoAfrica

Hi, @Fabrickator:... Thanks for your response. I note that while you re-posted my bolded question, there was no attempt at a direct answer, so I'll give you my take on it:

White space does NOT aid understanding of a subject better than photos of the subject, which can significantly aid understanding, as well as making the article more interesting to the reader.

For me, based on the initial complaint, that should render the subject closed and the photos should go back up. You also failed to address 4 of my 5 bullets in the OP, but brought up subjects that the deleting editor didn't seem to object to, moving the goalpost.

About your related point that "white space" depends on rendering, you've made a good point regarding smartphones. I submit, however, that on today's desktops, laptops and even tablets, resizing windows is largely beside the point. Sure, one can make windows so small that rendering becomes an issue (and then it's an issue for the 21 existing pics, too), but do we develop for all possible uses or what people generally do (and I suggest that that the norm is to browse Wikipedia with a reasonable-sized window, though I don't have a cite for that). I also don't know about Wikipedia replicas, except that Wikiredia renders my matrix photo galleries in left-justified columns, about 5 or 6 times the scrolling length of Wikipedia - do we really care what replicas do or don't do (it seems counter-productive as it creates another bonus for using WP.)?

Re Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia is not and media files, can I assume your point is that my file descriptions leave something to be desired. My descriptions are usually more informative (see my mountain photos) and I hope to have better descriptions for my DC-3 photos as of June 4 or so, when asked-for reference sources should arrive from my home to where I'm staying. I will note, however, that my descriptions are as good or better than many in Wikipedia, and even some in the DC-3 article (though again, mine will improve). If there are other objections, please specify. TIA.

I've got to say that I find your next paragraph - "How would you know when to stop?" - a tad silly in the context of my photos in this DC-3 article. No one's suggesting adding thousands except for your implication. All my photos have been deleted and your argument would be like me saying: "There are 21 photos up... maybe you should remove all of them. But how would you know when to stop? (Presumably when they're all down.)" Having no photos up is as silly as having thousands up, IMHO. Are you seriously suggesting someone might want "literally thousands of DC-3 images" on a page? If not, as I would hope, what are you trying to say, please? For context, you state that I added 7, but I also said that if there are too many (not an argument by the editor who took my photos down, of course), I can reduce the number of photos - how about 4 of mine and deleting 3 of the existing "DC-3 sitting on a tarmac" photos? Is that a doable compromise? I don't want thousands, I just wanted to add some photos to aid understanding of skydiving support and give a better 'feel' for the interior size than a totally empty plane gives. And heck, maybe add a little colour and people using a DC-3.

So I'll suggest that in light of this new criticism that 28 photos may be too many, I'm including photos on the right that I think are 'candidates for deletion' - a change is sometimes good to keep articles 'fresh' and different. Like mine (temporarily), these photos have little in the photo description, and I think unlike mine, they are more repetitive - too similar to each other and many of the existing images - DC-3s just sitting on the tarmac, doing nothing. The photo with multiple photographers in the article is to me, another candidate for deletion. What do you think?

Re you 'soapbox paragraph' and "there are literally hundreds of thousands of WP articles that are really, significantly broken", I did not know that. Is there a list somewhere? I hope you're having an OK time fixing them, but I know my strengths and desires won't have me fixing them at least until I run out of photos (and I don't think adding photos complicates editing much, either). And in contrast to you, I think my photos do serve WP well and I know others who agree with me. If the consensus at WP, however, agree with you, I'm likely out of here. I'm here to serve WP because it's a worthwhile project, IMO.

Finally, I get the sense that keeping the question here was a problem for you... I gave the question to the editor who deleted the photos almost 3 days ago and he hasn't responded - at this point I don't know if he will. Had he answered on his talk page, I likely would have responded to him there, but barring that, I thought there was context here, and here at least I got a response. Next time, I'll contact the editor first. BrettA343 (talk) 19:20, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@BrettA343: @YSSYguy: ... BrettA343 wrote:

White space does NOT aid understanding of a subject better than photos of the subject, which can significantly aid understanding, as well as making the article more interesting to the reader.

For me, based on the initial complaint, that should render the subject closed and the photos should go back up. You also failed to address 4 of my 5 bullets in the OP, but brought up subjects that the deleting editor didn't seem to object to, moving the goalpost.

I found this whole point you're making, comparing the value of your content to white space, to be so very strange. While I use a laptop, I don't normally maximize my windows. Of course, one cannot dispute your claim that, in some renderings, these additional images display in areas that would otherwise just be white space. But this is still just a "better than nothing" argument.

As to the idea of compromising about replacing some of the existing pictures with ones you have chosen, that would really just change this to a claim that "my content is better than the existing content", which is still just a subjective claim.

I am not amused by your determination to be the arbiter of the debate, e.g. you presume to have overcome my objection on this one point, and in the absence of responses to each of your other points, you claim victory. While I'd like to be able to save everybody some trouble and convince you that the objections made to your changes are valid, I suspect such an effort would be futile.

You should consider one of the various dispute resolution methods, though it's not really as though this results in somebody else arbitrating the dispute, but it's less disruptive than an edit war. Fabrickator (talk) 19:37, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello again, @Fabrickator: & @YSSYguy:. I have five points about your opening sentence and what you find "so very strange"...

1. I wonder if this is another instance of your perception and how it might not be a common one (I wish others would chip in with comments).

2. I wasn't the one who raised the point about 'aiding understanding' (the only reason for me to compare whitespace/photos). That was YSSYguy.

3. Another editor noted to me that "we have some guidance that recommends avoiding excessive whitespace" and he "always removes excess whitespace".

4. I don't know your experience level and you don't seem to have a user page, but have you seen: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Whitespace ?

5. I'd be interested in knowing, specifically, just what you find so very strange. Because I don't find it strange at all.

I find your second sentence misleading because I see an implication that I brought up maximizing my windows - I did not. I almost never maximize mine, and I only talked about "reasonable-sized windows" when "browsing Wikipedia". And photos are better than whitespace is exactly a "better than nothing" argument, because whitespace is nothing. What's wrong with that argument in this context, please?

As to your compromising paragraph, I'd gladly let others decide if mine are better or not than the top two I noted before (one of which is visually cluttered and missing an engine and the other is indistinct with poor lighting and slanted by about 4⁰). Note that based on your points, I've kept in the third pic. And please note that I didn't initially look at replacing those two photos - they were there in my edit. It was only when you raised this (new) issue of too many photos that I thought, well, I've alreadye suggested removing some of mine and no one commented, so how about deleting some existing ones? I tried to resolve the "debate" (I had thought of it as a discussion until now) by presenting other options - to me, that's a good way to resolve things - otherwise we're stuck at you wanting no change and me wanting my initial change and we go around in circles. Let's try moving forward. If you recall, I was the first to suggest - twice - that my photo count could be lowered, even before anyone, including you, raised it.

Also, I'm not "claiming victory" (though thus far, you leave my arguments largely uncontested) and I'm not here to amuse you or not amuse you. You seem to think this is all about you. I'm just trying to suggest alternatives to come to a peaceable resolution for making a better DC-3 article, and I honestly think my changes make it better. By all means, try to convince me that objections are valid, but don't keep moving goalposts and please don't just ignore my points and then take it personally only when I elaborate and make more concrete suggestions to address your late-stated issues. Trust me, I'm a reasonable guy. I don't know if you two are the only ones who object to my photos or not, but I've asked others on the DC-3 talk page to get involved.

And I object to your portrayal of efforts being futile. In the opening post, I noted a couple of times where an edit of mine was undone (photos moved or deleted) and one had a good reason while the other gave no reason. Neither of those cases were "futile" and to my knowledge, those are the only undos I've experienced until May 24. What's futile from my perspective is your debating skills. You rarely address my points - sometimes picking on only one which you repeat, and then don't directly address that point - and when I address your rebuttal, you bring up something else. It's difficult to debate a moving target. This started with a single point, that my photos "didn't aid understanding of the subject"; I think I've addressed that and have twice asked YSSYguy for his input, first on May 25 and then on May27. I'm not sure what else I can do.

And with the blow back I've received from you, I'm sure not about to consider a dispute reolution without changing my initial edit to address your points as best I can, so please have a look at the DC-3 article now (changes instigated also due to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Be_bold). The top two photos noted in my previous post have been commented out and I've added 4 of my own photos. And this won't escalate into an 'edit war' (especially if you let it stay up for a few days so people can see it), but if it goes to a dispute resolution I want the points you've already raised, addressedi. And feel free to uncomment the two photos I removed (like I had in my initial edit)... there's lots of whitespace near the bottom right that could contain other photos, instead ;-).

The same editor noted above also wrote: "Photos are generally a good thing in articles, as they bring the subject to life and aid reader understanding. I think that they just make the articles more interesting and appealing." And another person suggested that the sameness of the existing DC-3 photos made it boring. He also said: "Brett, your DC-3 photos are absolutely terrific... vivid, vital and fun." I don't know about 'fun', but I think a different context and various angles and perspectives, with a few people involved in DC-3 usage, are good things. I even think you'll get to appreciate these photos. Cheers, BrettA343 (talk) 20:18, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

First point - this discussion should be taking place at WT:AIR, not here as guidelines vary by project.

Second, images must add something constructive to the article, not merely fill space. Wikipedia is not a book attempting to stretch some text out to fill a certain number of pages. On an article with an enormous selection of images such as the DC-3, that means paring down the number of images to those that best clarify points in the article, and it is nice if there is at least one image in each section large enough to justify one, and covering all major versions, at least some of the major or notable operators (with an emphasis on those mentioned in the text), aircraft involved in major incidents (which again should already be in the text), as well as images of the most notable survivors, which means back stories. Personally (although not everyone follows it), I like to see a drawing, if one is available in the specifications section. None of the images should be there that are not connected to something in the text next to them. We do have a link to the wikimedia photo collection, so including images for the sake of including them is discouraged, and that includes galleries.

Within each category one should select based on clarity (minimum background clutter or unrelated aircraft or equipment), quality (in focus, not pixelated etc), colour/vs b&w, flying vs being on the ground and angle (to provide variety). Generally, unless there is only a small number of operators, no more than one image belonging to a particular operator should be used to avoid providing disproportionate coverage.

Third, and this came up earlier, doing the 23rd rewrite on a decent article (anything B or above) is a waste of effort that would better be aimed at the tens of thousands of stubs and C class pages out there, particularly as any change you make as a new-ish editor will likely go against norms that have been arrived at with considerable discussion on <<all>> of the merits either way. That includes things like images, or the "see also" section. - NiD.29 (talk) 23:03, 30 May 2020 (UTC) ps - One shot of the interior is fine, two is overkill. Multiple shots of the same aircraft when thousands were built is wildly inappropriate, moreso when neither of them adds anything significant to the page. - NiD.29 (talk) 23:10, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Two DC-3s - loading and taxiing

Waiting for the next DC-3 load

Hi, @NiD.29: Thanks for your input - it's great to have another voice even if I don't get 'my way'. Your points are well taken and it makes total sense to me about "multiple shots of the same aircraft when thousands were built". You could have saved us a lot of time if you had arrived earlier (not a criticism) or if I knew where to post this. I'd never heard of WT:AIR and others suggested @YSSYguy:'s talk page and the DC-3 talk page. I've got lots to learn!

And I thought my images did do something constructive, say, compared to the Air India and Fujairah photos, neither of which seem to be referenced in the article. The article mentions "skydiver shuttling" and disregarding your 'overkill' note, they supported that point. I'd still like to add one (and only one) image to the article and I suggest one of the two to the right (the top one appeals to me because of the unusual angle, the fact that both C-GSCA and C-GSCB are included and it's more obviously supporting skydivers). And as I said, I hope to have more information about them on June 4 (I've already found out that C-GSCA crashed and was written off ~7 years after these shots were taken, and C-GSCB is in a museum in Dallas, TX as of Jan of this year). So partly seeing that the photo count is down to 19 in the DC-3 article and partly because it supports text, would you object to me adding one of these photos roughly opposite to the related text? And if no objection, do you have a choice which?

Re your third point, as I mentioned when it came up before, I'm not your guy (not yet, anyway) to look for the tens of thousands of stubs and C class pages (thanks for identifying them for me) and improve them. I think it's likely that I have less than a two-year future ahead of me and I want to use that time adding photos, adding a few 'missing' mountain articles, improving text or facts on related pages where I have the knowledge to do so and writing a family history (not WP-oriented; started by my Dad). As it happens, so far I've used over a hundred shots without 'going against the norms' (some were stubs). Sorry if my new-ishness has stepped on toes here - I'm learning and will watch out for 'decent articles' in the future. BrettA343 (talk) 15:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Don't stress about stepping on toes - everyone does it, and it is rare edit on an established article that won't get someone excited, hence why I have been creating new articles from scratch or fixing stubs. I agree that some of the images could be swapped for better ones and was in fact looking into it when I got distracted by something else, and indeed new images come up all the time that may improve what was included previously. I would like to see a colour photo of one of the wartime KLM aircraft (they were one of the early operators and may have had the first exports) in orange but could only find one thumbnail sized image in b&w than was taken from a poor angle, and was too cluttered to boot.

Generally questions should be posted on the page where the contested edit was made - although some people feel the need to post such things to the person's userpage, that risks the discussion getting buried. If no-one responds, and no agreement is possible, then it should go to the project discussion page, which is watched by more people, and which has in its archives the reasons why various decisions were made on everything from style guides, to what to include or exclude and all the arguments presented for and against. Any questions just ask and someone will answer though. This is just part of the learning curve, which is steep. We do have a style guide to follow for aircraft articles that warns of common pitfalls and gives a good idea of the ideal - and checking any A or B class page will also give a good idea as well.

Of the two images, I would lean toward the shot from behind because it is different. Instead of "loading" in the caption I would be more explicit, and say "DC-3 boarding parachuters while another taxis by" (or similar), then position it across from where parachuters are mentioned in the text. Cheers - NiD.29 (talk) 17:43, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi again, @NiD.29: Sorry I can't help with any wartime photos, but I'm not quite that old ;-). And thanks for your advice on where to post. But mostly, thanks for your input re the top photo of my preceding post... it's greatly appreciated! Cheers, BrettA343 (talk) 03:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

NP, and hope to see you around. - NiD.29 (talk) 07:29, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm back already, @NiD.29:! I'd be interested in your opinion of my DC-3 photo add (as discussed), especially the enhanced description (the caption's marginally updated, too). TIA. Cheers, BrettA343 (talk) 21:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Looks good. - NiD.29 (talk) 21:57, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

It looks a whole lot better on Commons, @NiD.29:. Now that it's 'in production', the former formatting of a short intro para and a bullet for each plane's status is all kaput!  It's just one long text string of a single para.  Is there any way to fix that? Cheers, BrettA343 (talk) 22:12, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Not sure where you are meaning - I made some tweaks on the image's own page - does that fix it? - NiD.29 (talk) 00:30, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

My not knowing WP so well, I got on to what's apparently known as the 'media display page' for the image, @NiD.29:, and it's there that it doesn't format my para and 2 bullets text - it all appears as one long paragraph. It displays that when you just scroll down instead of hitting the 'More details' button, which I'd never pressed before. It's too bad that the media display page doesn't format text, IMHO, but I gather nothing can be done about that *sigh*. Thanks, though! Cheers, BrettA343 (talk) 19:14, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I can't say I have ever used the media viewer before - but of course wikimedia has be down right now - the only time I have ever heard of it being down. - NiD.29 (talk) 20:06, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

How to you add a new term to the system with the meaning?

I would like to add a description to a process I am coining... HOLON System I am new to the system... how do I do that? Lori Swetlin (talk) 20:10, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Lori Swetlin and welcome to the Teahouse. Generally speaking, you don't. A term you are in the process of coining is very unlikely to be notable as yet. our guideline on neologisms says: Articles on neologisms that have little or no usage in reliable sources are commonly deleted, as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term.. See also Our policy on original research, and our policy on promotional writing. nless others, independent of you, have discussed this term at some length in published reliable sources, it does not belong on Wikipedia, and even if such sources exist, you should not be the one to writ the article. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

How to edit?

How to edit other articles Jumpycamel (talk) 20:16, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Jumpycamel, and welcome to the Teahouse. I have left you a welcoming message on your userpage with a few basic links to get you started. If you feel you need more, checkout Help:Getting started, or take our interactive tour called The Wikipedia Adventure, and try to collect all fifteen different badges along the way. Just like getting in a car for the first time: start slowly with Wikipedia, making simple manoeuvres, and don't try to do too too much or go to fast at first. We're always here to assist if you worried you might crash. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:13, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Wondering if I need to declare a COI for a new article

I'm considering making an article for the Disappearance of Steven Cook - he went missing in 2005, remains discovered a decade or so later, with an inquiry returning an open verdict in 2019.

I think it's notable enough and I definitely think there are enough sources to cover it, reliable and notable ones - however, I have a somewhat remote connection to the deceased.

He was my mother's cousin, though I don't know how close they were, and my father worked on the website to promote the search for his body, which has now been taken offline following the discovery of his remains.

Even though he disappeared when I was 5, and I never knew or met him that I can recall, I still don't want to fall foul of the COI policy, so I'd appreciate any help with this. Thank you! Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 12:20, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Ineffablebookkeeper and welcome back to the Teahouse. Part of the question is how close you feel to Cook, and whether you might have any problem writing neutrally about him. But if others perceive that there could be a problem, in the interest of transparency, it is probably better to declare a COI, even in a marginal case. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 12:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@Ineffablebookkeeper: I agree with DESiegel. If you hypothetically came across an important but unflattering piece of information about this person, would you hesitate to include it in the article, or would others reasonably have that perception? If so, you should disclose; otherwise you're fine.

If you do disclose, I'd recommend specifying the specific (fairly loose) connection you outlined above, since if you don't, others will likely assume it's a close connection and give the article unwarranted scrutiny. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:50, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi - thanks for getting back to me, I really appreciate it. I feel as though I'd have a relatively neutral connection to the subject - I've never really felt one way or the other about it, it wasn't a big thing in our family, and I think the last time I saw some actual blood relations of mine might've been at a funeral I went to - but if it's advisable to declare a COI on my userpage, I will, as obviously it's impossible to be objective about yourself. I'm assuming this won't prevent me from actually creating the article? Thank you again! --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 21:09, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@Ineffablebookkeeper: Oddly, I know, to varying degrees, a lot of people (nevermind businesses) that are subjects of Wikipedia articles. The way I look at it, I would declare a COI if I were to do anything significant to their articles that is at all subjective (i.e., other than correcting grammar, cleaning up a cite, etc.) – generally anything that would not be classified as minor. Most of them, I've never edited at all. I don't believe (though I might be forgetting one) I've ever felt the need to declare a COI for. You're got the right mindset in questioning it, so you should be fine, whatever you choose. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 23:05, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Redirects To My Draft

Resolved

 – Wait until article has passed review. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:28, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I wrote an article about a parent company entitled IXL Learning. The company owns and has a number of subdivisions, so how do I create redirects that lead to the article? Thank you for your time. Le Panini (talk) 21:03, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Le Panini. Your question is a little premature, I'm afraid. Please wait until your article has got through review at Articles for Creation and then through New Page Patrol. Only then might the question of creating WP:REDIRECTS be relevant. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:06, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Understandable. Thank you! Le Panini (talk) 21:08, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

CITV article vandalism

Resolved

 – Edit has been there for years and is actually sourced. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:31, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello. I am extremely new to Wikipedia and while looking at the CITV page someone has put "Michael Jackson" as the former Central worker in the The Stonewall Productions era (1989–1991) section. I do not know who this is supposed to be and cannot find the person who did it, so if you know this, can you please edit it. Thank you! Tommy0001 (talk) 18:56, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Tommy0001, welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for the interesting question! I donb't know what interface you are viewing Wikipedia on, but all articles have a History page; here is the one for CITV. There's a link there near the top to "Find insertion/removal", which facilitates searching for "Michael Jackson" in a page with a long history like this one. I had to restart the search twice, but it turns out the name was added in this edit on 2 August 2012. And while it was searching, I already found a source: this, dated 3 May 2004. So it seems this is a case of someone else having what must at one time have been a pretty common name. Phew. If it had turned out to be an unsourced recent change, I would have suggested hitting "edit", changing the sentence back to whatever it had been before using copy-paste, and leaving an edit summary something like "reverting unsourced change made on DATE", so that if the change was in fact accurate, someone could redo it with a reference. But please don't assume such a detail is vandalism; it can turn out to be correct, as it did in this case. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:22, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello Yngvadottir, and thanks for the comment. Well, as they say, you learn something new everyday. I guess it was quite a daft question. Anyway, thanks for the comment and I guess I should learn how to use Wikipedia a bit better now :P Tommy0001 (talk) 19:56, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Not at all daft, I think it was well spotted, and that's why article histories are publicly viewable and why we try to provide references so readers can check. I just didn't feel comfortable adding what looks like a forum post as a reference. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:02, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Need Review of Draft for First Article :)

Hello hosts! I am excited to be creating my first article for Wikipedia. I have created a draft here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Kyle_McMahonFrankNSteinJr (talk) 14:46, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I was wondering if someone could review and let me know:

1. 1. Do I need to include Credits & if so how do you add them?
2. 2. How do I do the sidebar? It doesn't seem to work for me.
3. 3. How do I add the references automatically that I cited in the article?

Thank you so much. Looking forward to hopefully adding to the community.

Frank FrankNSteinJr (talk) 14:46, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, FrankNSteinJr, and welcome to the Teahouse.

1. If by "credits" you mean a list of 

McMahon 's broadcast appearances in films and on TV and Radio, we generally call the first a "Fimography" by analogy with a bibliography. A List of records and CDs is called a Discography. And so on. Only the more significant appearances should be included. All feature films, but not every inmdividual TV or radio appearance. Format them as a bulleted list, and give the title of the show or production, the date, the publisher (which may be a network or a station), and the name of the character played if there is one ("as Jo Jo the Clown" or "as himself").
2. If by the "sidebar" you mean an infobox, see {{Infobox Person}} or {{Infobox Actor}} for instructions. But do nopt worry about an infobox until the rest of the draft is in better shape.
3. I have added the {{reflist}} template to your References section. If you use the <ref>...</ref> mechanism, the cited refs will show up automatically. Please read Referencing for Beginners for more detail on this.
4. Several of your refs show error messages. Please read these, in many cases the fixes should be fairly clear. Again, read Referencing for Beginners
5. Twitter is not usually an acceptable source unless citing a specific tweet from an identified and verified person who is either an expert, or the subject of the article. IMDB is mostly not considered a reliable source.
6. Drafts should not be in categories, but they may be present as links to show the categories desired when and if a draft is approved. But usually 4-6 categories are quite enough.

I hope that is helpful. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:28, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I’ll get to work on this, fix what you noted and read the guide you posted. Once this my first article is done and published, I’d like to move on to Creating or adding to other notable Delaware people and places. I’ll have more confidence to do it :)

Thanks so much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrankNSteinJr (talk • contribs) 15:50, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

You are quite welcome, FrankNSteinJr. If you have further questions, please feel free to come back here to the Teahouse to ask them. Do please remember to sign your posts on discussion page such as this with four tildes (~~~~). The wiki software will convert this to your signature (default or custom) and a timestamp. But please never sign in the test of articles or drafts. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:04, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you again! I read through all of your links which were extremely helpful. There is an editor named ThreadIsLong who added some suggestions to the Draft/KyleMcMahon as well. I took both of your suggestions and implemented them.

1. I took out the "trending on Twitter" sentence because the sources would be considered unreliable (a tweeted screenshot). 2. I also took out the sentence regarding the United Nations Youth Ambassadors Program because the only sources on that were from McMahon himself. 3. I updated two other sources to reliable sources. 4. I added Selma's Oscar win, which I found when looking up what studio the movie is from. I used the Academy Awards website as the source for the Oscar 5. Per your instructions, I added a bulleted list with Title, Date, Studio, Credit. Which leads me to a question about this: As I was looking through sources, I saw that he has a credit on a Tina Turner tribute album but I didn't think that was notable enough to include. Is that okay to not include it or should I add it? (He also has one song through Warner Brothers that was free with the Oprah Lifeclass shows, which I am realizing now I forgot to add to the credits)

As I stated on his page, I'm having some fun with this as I feel like I'm doing a research paper for the world.

FrankNSteinJr (talk) 00:51, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

WHICH NEWS SITES ARE DEEMED CREDIBLE FOR A MUSIC ARTIST

Which news sites are deemed credible for a music artist to be placed on in order to have a wikipedia page created? Marquis Tarver (talk) 23:50, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Marquis Tarver The musician should meet WP:MUSICBIO. As for which news sites are credible, see WP:NEWSORG. Hillelfrei ^talk 00:21, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Additionally, please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Start with books published by reputable publishers, academic journals, and reputable magazines and newspapers and their websites. For newspapers, don't be misled by an august title: The Times of India, for example, recycles PR junk. For starters, try The Guardian, because it's pretty good (often very good indeed) and free of charge. Incidentally, a "music artist" can more neatly be called a "musician", and Wikipedia asks all participants not to SHOUT with capital letters. -- Hoary (talk) 00:24, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@Marquis Tarver: Welcome to the Teahouse! Another criteria to consider is whether the source is independent from the musician - see WP:Independent sources. While there is no complete list of every possible source that would be acceptable, there are many examples at WP:RSPSOURCES with explanations about what makes each one reliable or unreliable. GoingBatty (talk) 01:39, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Are you the subject of this draft? I ask because your names are startlingly similar. If you are not, then your username is misleading and violates Wikipedia policy; please use a different username. If you are him, then you are attempting to write an article about yourself. Doing this is "strongly discouraged". Put more directly: One way or another, the attempt is probably doomed. If this musician is notable, then there will be plenty of independent, reliable sources about him, and unrelated people will want to use these in order to create a disinterested article about him. -- Hoary (talk) 01:44, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@Hoary Yes, I know that. I don’t know anything about Wikipedia and I am just trying to learn more about it to self educate myself. I would like to say I don’t feel as if anyone was shouting in the messages above wanted to clear that up. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.136.90.254 (talk) 03:51, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

The title of this section is in all caps, which some can interpret as SHOUTING. GoingBatty (talk) 01:48, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Creating a Category

How do I create a category from scratch by myself? (Oinkers42) (talk) 23:11, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@(Oinkers42): Welcome to the Teahouse! The instructions on how to create a category are posted at Wikipedia:Categorization. GoingBatty (talk) 01:59, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello?

Hello? Mirett (talk) 00:43, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@Mirett: Welcome to the Teahouse! Did you have a question? GoingBatty (talk) 01:59, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Alphabetical Referencing

I notice that some articles have the usual reference list plus an alphabetical listing of those references. How do I do that alphabetical listing? Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:57, 4 June 2020 (UTC) Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:57, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Jenhawk777, welcome to the Teahouse. Not sure of what exactly are you referring to, can you give us an example of an article?! CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:20, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@CommanderWaterford: I went and looked and I think it's listed under Bibliography--do I put that in by hand? Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:54, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

There's one here: [7] Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:59, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello Jenhawk777 and welcome to tehj Teahouse. I suspect you noticed an articel using Parenthetical referencing. This is a system inm which the direct citatiosn give onloy the author and year to identify the work, with a separate list of works cited with full details, usually in alphabetical order by author. the template {{Harv}} exists to support this system, which is used in a minoprity of Wikipedia articles. Some prefer it, some dislike it. As per, WP:CITEVAR, articels should not be changed from one citation system to another unless a consensus to do so is firat obtained, and usually good reasons are needed to form such a consensus. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:07, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello again DESiegel! I come here enough I feel like we're getting to be old friends. :-) I didn't understand anything you said ... The article I referenced has both lists, not one or the other. It has the normal numbered references in the order they appear in the article. I have that too. But they also have a second listing under Bibliography that is the same authors listed alphabetically. It seems like, in an article where there are many references, that having an alphabetical list as well might, at times, make it easier to find things. Sometimes I remember the author but can't remember where in the article I saw it, hence the value of an alphabetical listing. But if I have to go through them all and relist over 200 references one at a time, well, I'll just suffer through and do without! I was hoping there was such a thing as an 'abracadabra alphabetize my references' command! There should be! :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:17, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Jenhawk777 The article Role of Christianity in civilization is using a mix of parenthetical (aka Harvard) and full-ref citations, which is confusing and inappropriate. For example, the current ref 5 (Haskins, Charles H. (1898). "The Life of Medieval Students as Illustrated by their Letters". The American Historical Review.) does not appear in the bibliography, because it is not formatted in the parenthetical style. Any given articled use one style or the other, and stick to it. I note that you commented negatively on the citations in this article back in 2018, see the article talk page. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:23, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

DESiegel I saw that you went and put a tag at the top. I hope they don't find out it was me that clued you in!  :-) One editor probably started the article one way and other editors came in and did it the other--so that's how they end up with both huh? Screw it up? Okay, I'm not up for that either, so I guess no alphabetizing for me. Sigh. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:28, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In what might be called the standard, or full-ref style, the numbered footnotes go to full citations, which appear in the order in which they are first used. In the parenthetical or Harvard system, the numbered notes go to a brief form of the citation, with just enough info to identify the work in the list of works cited or Bibliography. Full details are given in the Bibliography, whicfh is i9n alpha order. Did you read the page I linked to, above, Wikipedia:Parenthetical referencing? This system is explained in detail there. There is a related system know as shortened footnotes, which uses {{sfn}}. Converting from one

Yes I did tag the article, Jenhawk777, and I will be starting a talk page discussion about it. It may well be that One editor probably started the article one way and other editors came in and did it the other but editors are supposed to keep using the existing format, or else get consensus and change all the old refs, so that only one format is in use in a given article. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:34, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes sir I did read the page. If consensus can be gained--I think most of the refs are standard--perhaps I could volunteer to do the work of making them all alike, thus doing the proper penance for getting the article tagged. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion is now open at Talk:Role of Christianity in civilization#Citation style, Jenhawk777. Feel free to add your voice. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:52, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@JenHawk777: Like others, I prefer the standard "long-cite" approach (the single list of numbered references). I think a lot of articles that have mixtures started out in the Harvard/sfn style, but currently, a lot of people are only familiar with the simpler (IMO) long-cite style, so they get added in that style. Harvard is more prone to problems with broken links if people unfamiliar with it attempt to do anything significant with the sourcing. One good reason to use the Harvard style, though, is where you have a lot of different pages to cite in a small number of sources, and you don't like the {{Rp}} approach (a reasonable concern when multiple cites are chained together like this^{[1}:23[4]:i–iii[5]}). —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 01:55, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@AlanM1: Hi Alan! Nice to meet you. I like the standard citation as well because I periodically go look things up that I question--at least I want to. As DESiegel pointed out, I was very unhappy when I felt thwarted in that effort on Role of Christianity in civilization. Of course that was before my informative friends here told me about the Harvard method--sounds a little indecent doesn't it?--and no one answered my question on the talk page so I had no idea why those refs looked as they did. At any rate... I do use the {{rp}} approach all the time, even when I have multiple cites chained together, and yes it's a little messier no doubt, but at least anyone who comes along behind me can readily find what's being referenced! So I guess I will add my vote for traditional long citing and all the beautiful alphabetical listing will eventually go away. So sad, but if you can't have both, better to have the one with all the info. Thank you for all your help. You guys are great. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:24, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@Jenhawk777 and AlanM1: At this point6, if you want your views to have any effect on the article in question, the place to express them is Talk:Role of Christianity in civilization#Citation style, as whoever closes that discussion is unlikely to read this thread or take it into account even if S/he does. You might want to consider copying these last two posts there, if you so choose. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:31, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Come on DESiegel keep up! I have already gone there and put in my two cents! Thanks for all your help.  :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Using map from book?

Hi! Can I straight up copy/paste a map from a book if it's minor, verifiable, and if I properly credit the map source and year of publication and its author? Julia Domna Ba'al (talk) 13:44, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Julia Domna Ba'al, Hi and welcome to the Teahouse - no, you cannot, most probably it will be an infringement of a copyright. please have a close look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright. CommanderWaterford (talk) 13:46, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the answer! Yes it is a copyright infringement. I have two followup questions if that's alright.

1. How much can I quote a book without violating copyright? Say I'm explaining something then in the end I want to quote a writer. Like Philip Hitti saying "a preview of the gigantic show to come". This is fine, right?

2. If I make my own map using one in a book as reference, that's fine right? it will be very similar, as it's a map after all, but created from scratch on my end and using my style.

Julia Domna Ba'al (talk) 14:03, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Julia Domna Ba'al.

1. US copyright law is rather vague on exactly how much may be freely quoted of a copyrighted work. In one rather extreme case quoting 300 words from a several hundred page autobiography was held to the "the heart of the matter" and not allowed, but there were some unusual factors in that case. See Wikipedia:Quotations for details our the policy here. In general quotations should be fairly brief, usually no more than 1-2 paragraphs and often no more than a sentence. Quotes should be relevant to the article, and not misrepresent the quoted work. Quotes must always be attributed to the person (or entity) quoted in the article prose, and must be cited to a reliable source that shows that the quote is from the person it is said to bge from.
2. The facts conveyed by the map in the book (such as what city is located where) are not protected by copyright. You may use those facts to create your own map freely, although it would be good practice to credit the original map as the source of the new map.

I hope that clarifies things a bit. Do feel free to ask more questions here. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 14:36, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@Julia Domna Ba'al: You might also first search for a public domain (or freely-licensed) version of the map you want to use. The UT PCL collection, for example, is mostly public domain. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 23:25, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• If you do decide to use one of those maps, before you upload it to Commons, you should make sure it's not already there. BTW, have you looked to see if a usable map for your purpose is not already at Commons? —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 23:30, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

-
DESiegel, AlanM1 Thank you for the links and the help! That website is great but my map is pretty niche. I will remake it, no problem. My issues have resolved. Julia Domna Ba'al (talk) 04:16, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Related to editing rules

 SHWETANSHU BHATT (talk) 04:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

SHWETANSHU BHATT, Welcome to the Teahouse! Did you have a question? CommanderWaterford (talk) 06:49, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Your first edit was reverted because it had no citation. Your second and third edits to same article reverted because you copied content that is protected by copyright. Your Sandbox User:SHWETANSHU BHATT/sandbox contains what I am guessing is the same copyright protected content. There are limits to how much can be quoted. A better approach to editing Ghost town is to use your own wording to describe the situation in India, along with that citation you found. David notMD (talk) 09:42, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Block Wikidata access in software infoboxes

How can I avoid data being pulled in from Wikidata in software infoboxes? It is annoying if it picks up the wrong logo or screenshot. In case of multiple variants of the same software (NOT a fork under a different name, but same look and feel, so only 1 screenshot is needed per language, but multiple software infoboxes), the original name cause Wikidata info to be pulled in. At the EN wikipedia, it does not, but at the FR and IT pages of the same program it does. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinelerra and https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinelerra . Manitech (talk) 12:02, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I think that you'd better to ask this question in itwiki and frwiki, respectively. Ruslik_Zero 13:52, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok, will do. Does this mean that such a possibility is language dependent? Thanks, --Manitech (talk) 14:16, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Manitech A Given template may pull content from wikidata always, never, or optionally. Different versions of Wikipedia use (or may use) different templates, even when the purpose is similar and the template name is the same or related\, the template coding may be different. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:03, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Understood. In the EN wikipedia then, is there a "keyword" that will prohibit a template of single field thereof to be pulled from wikidata? --Manitech (talk) 20:10, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Not a general one, to the best of my understanding, Manitech. Some templates are so written that if a field value is explicitly specified, it overrides the wikidata value. Others so that the wikidata value is used and the local value ignored unless the wikidata value is missing or blank. Some might control this with a keyword, but I think not many. It all depends on how the template is written. A few years ago there was an RfgC (a project-wide discussion) in which it was proposed to bar templates using wikidata values at all, but that position did not gain consensus. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:52, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I (retired programmer) would have proposed something like "name = xxx" take from wikidata if possible, and "name == xxx" do not consult wikidata. So one could say "logo == ¨ and prevent it from picking up a logo from wikidata or showing a logo, and controllable per field. Anyway, many thanks for the clarifications. It is how it is. Cheers, --Manitech (talk) 10:18, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Is there anyone who can help me with this?

Hi I was working on a page (specifically This one) and it appears that I have broken the EPFC limit. It says that you can manually use the mw.incrementExpensiveFunctionCount but I have no idea how to use it. Could someone help me? REDMAN 2019 (talk) 13:20, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@REDMAN 2019: wow - that's a pretty technical question for the Teahouse (although PrimeHunter normally charges to the rescue with those)! As it's a Wikimedia Commons-related question, I wonder if you might be better off asking at c:Commons:Help_desk if you don't get an answer here. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:12, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Alternatively, you can try WP:VPT. Regards SoWhy 14:18, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Good point- I should have suggested that. Ta. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@REDMAN 2019: mw.incrementExpensiveFunctionCount is the opposite of what you want. It doesn't change the limit of 500 but increases the ongoing count during processing of a page without actually calling an expensive parser function. This means you will have one less call available before breaking the limit. The limit cannot be changed. You have to either split the page or find a way to use fewer expensive parser functions. commons:Template:Football kit makes many expensive #ifexist calls to test whether there is an image for a pattern. It doesn't have an option to omit the test. When the limit of 500 is passed, all #ifexist calls automatically return false without making a test. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:54, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: thanks for your reply I will see if their is a way to reduce the number of expensive parser functions on the page in question. @Nick Moyes: I know my way around Wikipedia pretty well by now and that unfortunately means that if I have a question to ask here it will probably be a hard one :) Cheers! REDMAN 2019 (talk) 10:13, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@REDMAN 2019: I have created commons:Template:Football kit/No check without the expensive #ifexist checks.[8] You can change some of the calls to the new template. The result will be poor if a pattern image does not exist so always check that first. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:00, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 10:27, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Request for names in South Africa of people who can help wth editing pages to go into WIKIPEDIA.

Good Day , I wonder if you can be of assistance. I am in need of a South African , preferably residents in Gauteng, who can assist with putting up pages of information into WIKIPEDIA. Your assistance will be greatly appreciated. Regards Lungi Siqebengu. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.144.88.71 (talk) 12:07, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, you could try asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject South Africa. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:26, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Updates to an incorrect wiki page

Danny Bergara I have spent several hours correcting the discrepancies on the wiki page for Danny Bergara and have just seen that everything has been taken down again. As far as I am concerned I have used factual information regarding his playing and management career. I have provided a photo which I have specific permission to use by The Bergara Family. I have not used any personal bias in anything that I added to the page and the only thing that needed referencing I added a source (David Conn). I cannot understand how to complete a COI form but in honesty do not feel that there is one. (I will complete if required but there is no user friendly advice available). It appears that Wiki would rather have a page full of nonsense than a page full of interesting and factually correct writing. PhilB1883 (talk) 12:10, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello PhilB1883 and welcome to the Teahouse. As you can see at [9] you were reverted by Materialscientist, who provided a reason for the revert. If you disagree, your next step per WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle is to start a discussion with Materialscientist at Talk:Danny Bergara. Help:Introduction may be of use to you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:20, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Even if everything you added is true, you either provided no references, or else referenced and promoted your own book. And yes, COI applies. If you cannot figure out the COI template, then on your User page describe that you are an authorized biographer of Bergara, etc. etc. David notMD (talk) 13:11, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Changing Colour in map

How can I change the color of a map? For Example File:Azad Kashmir Map.svg in this map, how can I change color of each province by different color Banksboomer (talk) 13:04, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Banksboomer, and welcome to the Teahouse. Azad Kashmir Map.svg is an image, specifically a vector graphics image. T o change the colors, one would have to download a copy, edit it with an image-editing programs locally, and upload the edited image, possibly to a different file name. I cannot give detailed instructions on the editing step, as it depends on the software available, and i am by no means an expert with any such software. If you do this, please remember to credit the source image, as yours will be a derivative work. Or you could request that another volunteer make such a change. the Graphics Lab accepts some such requests, I understand, but I cannot guide you through its process, as I have not used it myself. In any case it is stffed by volunteers, who may choose which tasks they will or won't work on, as is Wikipedia in general. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 13:25, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh, in future, please link to images here at thje Teahouse, rather than displaying them as one would in an article. Thank you. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 13:28, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Google search does not yield new Wikipedia article on the subject

I recently created the article on Esin Atıl. However, when I do a google search for the name, it does not list the Wikipedia article in the results. Is there any way to fix or speed up the process by which the article is "found" in a google search? Thanks. Mahrujan (talk) 15:06, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Mahrujan, and welcome to the Teahouse. New articles are marked with\ the NOINDEX flag until they have been reviewed by a member of the New Page Patrol or until they are 90 days old, whichever comes first. There is nothing you need to do to make this happen -- NPP works through new articles as best as the volunteers can, and volunteers choose which articles to patrol. The 90-day cutoff is automatic. Once the NOINDEX is gone Google and other search engines will index the page when they get to it. Wikipedia has no control over this beyond removing the NOINDEX flag. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:20, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Can I Make An Article About Bugatti La Voiture Noir?

< PLEASE GIVE YOUR QUESTION A TITLE. Type this in the "Subject" box, above. -->

Hi Wikipedia! I was wanting to make an article and finally know how. I searched the Bugatti La Voiture Noir in the home page and there was nothing. It just redirected me to the Chiron Page. So finally I found out what I was going to write about. So happily I searched up how to make on in google. It actually led me to a Wikipedia article in itself! I was wondering and hoping (fingers crossed) that you would accept the article. Anyway if you would approve this great article I would be very happy. I would love it if you would tell me the next step at some point. I am new to this and not completely sure how it works so that would be very helpful.

James RabinowitzJamesrabinowitz (talk) 14:58, 5 June 2020 (UTC) Jamesrabinowitz (talk) 14:58, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello Jamesrabinowitz, to be able to write an article requires familiarity with Wikipedia's verifiability policy and its notability guidelines at the very least. There is also WP:NPRODUCT which gives additional guidance about whether it is desirable to create an article about a product. Beyond that, I could not say without being presented some reliable sources that you envision using to support the article you intend to write. But, may I suggest you visit the WikiProject Automobiles and its talk page at WT:WikiProject Automobiles? That is the hub for editors interested in writing about automobiles to discuss, coordinate and support each other's efforts. They may be able to tell you by themselves in a definite yes or no, whether it's a good idea to create an article for Bugatti La Voiture Noir. If and when you are ready to get started on the article, I recommend you start at WP:Your first article, which provides detailed guidance on starting new articles. Do please skim through the pages that the bluelinks I have given here lead to, and feel free to ask for clarifications if I've thrown too much at once in here. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:38, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Jamesrabinowitz. Welcome to the Teahouise and Wikipedia. It does not appear that you hacve saved any article or draft to Wikipedia as yet, at least not under this account. I have left some messages on your user talk page with advice about creating new articles. But please understand that creating a new articled is a hard task, and that it is usually better to work on improving existing articles first, to get a better understanding of how Wikipedia works. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:43, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I have the sources now

John Junior draft - the submission got rejected and now I have the correct sources for the article, but I'm trying to do it myself, just need some help please thanks Johnjunior2020 (talk) 15:48, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Draft:John Junior

Hello, Johnjunior2020, and welcome to teh Teahouse. Your draft was declined, not rejected. This is a subtle bgut important distinctio0n. As used by Articles for Creation "Declined" means "You haven't got this right yet, feel free to try again.", while "Rejected" means 'Stop! This won't be a Wikipedia article -- don't waste your time."

I am glad that you understand the need for multiple independent published reliable sources There is also the matter of tone. The current draft starts: who is on a mission to raise awareness for mental health and to end the stigma surrounding mental health problems. this seems rather promotional and rather informal in tone. The bit about fluffy friend Charlie is definitely too informal. Wikipedia articles should be formal and neutral in tone, and factual in content. They should not give opinions of the quality or worth of topics or people, although they may report the opinions that named people have expressed. Articles should neither endorse nor attack anyone or anything, although they may report facts considered positive or negative by most people, if these are supported in sources.

Alsom please read our guideline on autobioigraph, which is strongly discouraged here, and on Conflict of Interest.

I hope this is helpful. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:07, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Looking for Help on "Corporate Notability"

Hello,

Please see my article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Whale_Cloud_Technology

It continues to be declined with "corporate notability" as main reason, although I worked with an administrator to bring it up to speed with Wikipedia guidelines and removed all marketing buzz speak (as it appeared) and added independent, reliable, sources as references. After these edits, I posted the article for review but it was declined again with same reasons.

I am writing freelance for the company. I have read & followed all rules and also made a COI as advised by the administrator.

I would be highly grateful if someone would help me publish this article successfully and help me learn about the mistakes I'm making so that I can avoid them in future and contribute more constructively to Wikipedia, bringing information on topics that have not been covered here already.

Many thanks in advance. Virtuista (talk) 14:52, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Virtuista, thank you for making necessary disclosures about your conflict of interest. It helps. Did you read the WP:NCORP page that the reviewer linked in their comment? The second section titled "Primary criteria" is quite insightful. The issue with notability is not fixed with editing. If the sources you have do not meet the criteria given at that page, the only way to remedy that is to find more, better sources.

The draft could read better. Consider the lead sentence: Whale Cloud Technology Co., Ltd, formerly ZTEsoft Technology Co. Ltd, is a digital transformation company selling services to various market segments including telecom operators, governments, and enterprises. "[D]igital transformation company selling services" does not tell me anything about what the company does. "Digital transformation" is linked but the article on it says it's the use of new technology to solve problems. So, what technologies does Whale cloud use to solve which problems in which companies? "[V]arious market segments" is also vague. You could just name the (kind of) companies it has actually worked with. And what does "vertical assets into its existing solutions" mean? And " has allowed Whale Cloud to forge new partnerships with" is needlessly laborious. MOS:WTW has some guidance on words to watch. Finally, please do not repeat "Whale Cloud" in every sentence. I am thinking some wise psycho-analyst told the marketeers that repeating a word many times is a brilliant strategy to get the brand etched into people's subconscious. And that is probably true for ads, but the lack of pronouns is one of the tell-tales of advertisements masquerading as articles on Wikipedia, and is easily identified by experienced patrollers and reviewers. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:22, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Title change

I work for a museum that in 2016 changed it's name from Montclair Historical Society to Montclair History Center. Can't figure out how to change the title. Do I need to make a whole new page? I am authorized to do this by my director. Queendeedi (talk) 16:40, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Queendeedi, I took care of it for you (it something you could not have done yourself). However, it was done because it complies with our guidelines not because the director authorized it. I also urge you to read WP:COI. Because of your relationship to the subject you should not directly edit the article but propose changes on the article talk page. S Philbrick(Talk) 16:49, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Renaming an article with italics

The title says it all. I rarely edit or create pages related to media (books, TV, film, etc.), but have recently created the page I May Destroy You. I did not create the page with italics, so can I rename it to an italicized version? Thanks. KidAd (talk) 04:38, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Technically you won’t have to rename the page, and you also can’t do so. You can just add {{Italic title}} in the first line of the source code. RedBulbBlueBlood9911Talk 05:14, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! KidAd (talk) 05:30, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@KidAd: Many infoboxes like {{Infobox television}} add italics by default unless you disable it with a parameter.[10] PrimeHunter (talk) 08:57, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Good to know. As I said, I am very unfamiliar with editing in this subject area. I mainly stick to politics and academics. Thanks again. KidAd (talk) 17:32, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Anna Richards Brewster bio contains error

The last line of text in paragraph three of American artist Anna Brewster Richards' biography section, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Richards_Brewster, states that "The success of these publications led to a commission for illustrations in a 1906 edition of Bill Nye's Comic History of England (1896).[6]" The link on Bill Nye's name goes to the Bill Nye the Science Guy bio, which means this is an impossibility as Bill Nye the Science Guy was not alive in 1906, nor did he publish a book in 1896. The link should instead go to Edgar Wilson "Bill" Nye (1850 – 1896), who was a distinguished American journalist and who later became widely known as a humorist. I am not an editor, but would hope someone is able to resolve this. The footnote it references is: Brewter McClatchy, Susan (2008). Maxwell, Judith (ed.). Anna Richards Brewster American Impressionist. Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press. pp. 11. ISBN 978-0-520-25749-8.

Cjjasper (talk) 17:38, 5 June 2020 (UTC) Cjjasper (talk) 17:38, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Cjjasper and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia. I have made the change to the Anna Richards Brewster article in these edits. Thank you for finding and reporting that error. You could have made that change yourself -- another time feel free to be bold and correct errors when you find them. Then you will be an editor. If you are able to spot and report such an error so precisely, you know more than many first-time editors do about how this site works. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:51, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Why my edits are deleted?

On a page George Floyd I added information about his career - he was an adult movie actor. Also, I gave sources to that information - https://iharare.com/george-floyd-was-a-porn-star/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUVtrcXt2vo . The user @Got a Smart Idea deleted my information and closed access to edit the page. His arguments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Get_a_smart_idea#Why_are_you_covering_George_Floyd%3F That the page belongs to "the living people" category and it's not true because the person is already dead. Second his argument, that the source is not reliable. That's also not true because "iHarare Media" is Zimbabwe's newspaper - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_of_Zimbabwe . To clarify information, the page provides a video, proving that is true. So what's the problem? Please add my provided information to that page, because now - I can't. Maksimiuk (talk) 16:53, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@Maksimiuk: First of all I reverted IP edits not account edits, unless they were you.Secondly,I think BLP involves recently deceased people from the description in WP:BLPDD. When reverting those edits, I took account those details. If there is any error feel free to re-do those edits but a rollbacker will clearly revert the edits.Thirdly,I am not an administrator to protect a page, so clearly the administrator also realized the Disruptive edits Got a Smart Idea^{tell me about it} 17:27, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Maksimiuk. The article George Floyd has been "semi-protected" so it can only be edited by autoconfirmed users, that is, users whose accounts are at least 4 days old and have made at least 10 edits to the encyclopedia. This is not imposed on you specifically, but on all newish users, to avoid vandalism on this very high profile article. As to your source, you could discuss it on tALK:George Floyd or on the reliable source noticeboard. I am no expert on newspapers from Zimbabwe, but the link you provides looks rather tabloidish to me, and seems to include a lot of speculation. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:35, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh and our Biographies of living People policy does indeed apply to people who have recently died, as well as those still alive. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:40, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

DES Thank you very much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maksimiuk (talk • contribs) 17:54, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Help me review my draft before I resubmit it for approval

Hi,

The page I submitted for review (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:MBH_Corporation_Plc) was declined due to notability and that it reads more like an advertisement than a wiki entry. I've edited the page and I added some few references too. Please help me review it before I resubmit it for approval.

The references I used include: Financial Times, Bloomberg company profile, Health Business UK magazine, The National AE newspaper, Proactive Investors UK and Live trading news etc. All of which are not press releases and they discuss the subject in some detail and not passing mentions. Leckson (talk) 10:22, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

What are your connections to Paystack and Draft:MBH Corporation Plc? If paid, then WP:PAID requires you declare so on your User page. David notMD (talk) 10:42, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for reminding me. I'm not connected to Paystack in any form but I'm hired by MBH Plc to make wiki contributions on their behalf. I've updated my userpage to reflect this. Help me review my draft please and let me know if there's any more improvements that needs to be done before I resubmit it for approval. Many thanks, I appreciate.Leckson (talk) 19:55, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Article rejection - Angelika Bischof-Delaloye

Hello,

Another article that I wrote on Draft:Angelika_Bischof-Delaloye got declined by Atlantic306 for a reason "Needs some references directly about her". The submitted article was based on point 4 and 8, as in the article Wikipedia:Notability (academics).

Point 8 - Editor-In-Chief of a scientific journal
https://ejnmmires.springeropen.com/about/editorial-board

I cannot find a direct resource talking about her, other than that she was mentioned in the following book

Book mention
History of Nuclear Medicine in Europe, By Michael Feld, Michel de Roo

and at these websites

websites
https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/bischof-delaloye-cv.pdf https://applicationspub.unil.ch/interpub/noauth/php/Un/UnPers.php?PerNum=3090&LanCode=8 https://publons.com/researcher/3367891/angelika-bischof-delaloye/

I thought point 8 would cover the notability. Is this list not enough? Thanks

Earthianyogi (talk) 19:11, 5 June 2020 (UTC) Earthianyogi (talk) 19:11, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Note that your draft was "declined", not "rejected". Rejected means that the reviewer believes that there is no chance of the draft being accepted; Declined means that it could be accepted if the draft were improved. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:19, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Welcome back Earthianyogi, From your contributions, I don't see that you've made any attempts to contact the reviewer. It is conceivable that the reviewer only considered the draft for WP:GNG. Have they indicated anywhere that they considered WP:NACADEMIC too? If you contacted them and let them know that her claim to notability is one of the points of one of the special notability guidelines, the reviewer may reconsider. Or they could provide you further guidance as to how/why your analysis is wrong. That would probably be the juncture at which to seek a third opinion. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 19:40, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@Usedtobecool:, thanks for your reply. When you say that I have not made any attempt to contact the reviewer, does it mean that I have to write a message on their talk page? I did tag Atlantic306 in my message above, is that not considered appropriate? I am still learning how does it all work here. Earthianyogi (talk) 20:00, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

The fact that you've tagged them does indeed mean you've started a conversation but if you intended to discuss it with just them, it would have been more appropriate at their talk page or the draft's talk page. The fact that you've posted here at a public forum also kind of implies that you've sought outside opinion on the issue; and it kind of seems like you've skipped an opportunity at discussing it one on one with the reviewer. See a thread a few posts above, #What to do when an editor attempts to whitewash unfortunate realities, for example, where the OP did also tag the other editor. It's a teeny tiny bit like taking a magistrate to your local grocer's about a shortchange, isn't it? They could tell you both it's illegal to shortchange, and no one is going to get arrested over a shortchange anyway, but do you really need witnesses to sort out a shortchange at your local grocer's? And, coming from your local grocer, isn't that more likely an honest mistake anyway? And if you were to later find out that it was all because you put a bill in the other pocket, would you not that it were in a room instead of the town square. Forgive my poor analogising, metaphor or simile or whatever it is that I was just trying, but you do get the point, right? With this kind of responses seeming like a good idea to me, and I about to hit publish knowing that you've already gone to the reviewer's talk page and had a conversation, I should probably be going to bed now. Good night, Earthianyogi! Usedtobecool ☎️ 21:13, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@Usedtobecool:, thank you. Your analogy is great, and I see the point. I just felt that it was appropriate to talk of the editor's page, so I did. But I appreciate your response, as I learned something new. G'nite Earthianyogi (talk) 21:40, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

What to do when an editor attempts to whitewash unfortunate realities

Unlike most counties Sweden has never mandated a country-wide COVID-19 lockdown. As a biomedical scientist I have followed Sweden's story closely because it is one of the few clean "experiments" that can address the question whether lockdowns are working. Unfortunately for Sweden it is now apparent that lockdowns really do work: the Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/sweden-epidemiologist-anders-tegnell/2020/06/03/063b20e4-a5a0-11ea-b619-3f9133bbb482_story.html) reported on June 4 that Sweden now has a MUCH higher death toll than neighboring Scandinavian countries. Specifically Sweden has eight times as many deaths as Denmark and 19 times as many deaths as Norway. I posted and correctly cited this public health outcome on the COVID-19 Wikipedia page for Sweden (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_Sweden). Another editor (Bladjur) promptly deleted my edit, as well as another sentence citing a story in the Guardian that as of June 2nd Sweden had the highest 7-day rolling average death toll of any country. I reposted the Sweden / Denmark / Norway comparison in the second paragraph of the Swedish COVID-19 page but I'm almost certain Bladjur will delete it again.

Sweden's high COVID-19 death toll is an important result of the brave or foolish experiment the Swedish Public Health Agency conducted this spring. Many people are interested to know the outcome of Sweden's experiment... it could influence policy in other countries and even save lives. Reading the Swedish COVID-19 Wikipedia page a few days ago you'd never know that Sweden has such a high death toll, instead you'd learn a lot of arcane and uninteresting facts about Swedish ministerial policy... the whole article appears to be essentially a lengthy marketing piece written for or by the Swedish Public Health Agency. My question is what recourse do I or Wikipedia have to protect Wikipedia from editors who want to whitewash embarrassing or untimely information? StanfordPostDoc (talk) 07:59, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

The place to discuss content issues is on article talk pages – I can't see that you have attempted to discuss this at Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in Sweden. Please note that personal commentary and evaluative language such as "laissez-faire policy" is never appropriate in a Wikipedia article. (I confess to being very surprised that the Wikipedia article does not mention the fact that a lockdown would not have been possible in Sweden since no provision for that kind of action in peacetime exists in Swedish law. It is possible that that could be considered original research, though.) --bonadea contributions talk 08:32, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Just as a note, I reverted SPD's latest edit, mainly since it added evaluative language; in addition, adding time-sensitive information to the introduction of the article is potentially problematic per WP:UNDUE. There are a couple of other issues with the addition as well, but I'm sure they can be hashed out in talk. --bonadea contributions talk 08:51, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@Bonadea: It does mention it, in the Strategy section. bladjur (talk) 13:10, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

(ec) Hello StanfordPostDoc and welcome to the Teahouse. Per WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, your first step should be to start a discussion with Blådjur and whoever shows up at Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in Sweden. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:35, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello StanfordPostDoc! From what you say, it's too soon to focus your energy on the possible motives and affiliations of editors on the other side. It could as well be you've missed something. If you check out the history page of that article, the edit summaries accompanying the edits that reverted your additions give some explanation. You'd best follow the bold, revert, discuss method of resolving content disputes. You made an edit, it was reverted, so now you should start a discussion at the talk page explaining your concerns and why you support reinstating the content. If you reach an impasse with the editors who are actively editing that article, there are other Dispute resolution processes that you can explore, which may start with asking a third editor to give their opinion (WP:3O) but go as far as openly advertising to the whole community to provide an input (WP:RFC). There is also the Neutral point of view noticeboard where you can post to bring attention to whitewashing, etc. that you believe compromise the neutral point of view policy of Wikipedia. Please note though that Wikipedia is not for WP:RIGHTINGGREATWRONGS, so if the world, meaning most of the available reliable sources, has got something wrong, Wikipedia will reflect that even if you believe it to be wrong. Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:36, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@StanfordPostDoc: Those are pretty serious allegations. But you can rest assured I won't delete it again. Because I never deleted it in the first place. Didn't even remove a single character. I did however move your sentence, as it didn't make sense and was without context (regarding lockdowns): Danish and Norwegian strategies are very different from each other. Denmark imposed "lockdowns", similar to some US states I imagine. Norway didn't, and their strategy might be closer to the Swedish one than the Danish, as People in Norway has been able to go shopping or dine at restaurants all the time. I did however delete the following sentence: "Despite reporting only laboratory confirmed COVID-19 deaths Sweden had the highest 7 day rolling average death rate of any country as of 2 June 2020". I deleted this simply because it isn't true. Detailed stats on COVID-19 deaths are of course available to anyone: as of 1 June, there are 511 death certificates that states Covid as the cause of death, but without the disease having been confirmed in a laboratory. So your accusations of whitewashing basically comes down to me deleting a sentence that failed verification? bladjur (talk) 12:45, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@StanfordPostDoc: I see now that a recent edit from you was removed. Again, I didn't do it.

I've written parts of the article, and I'll likely write more. So perhaps instead of being mean with baseless accusations, maybe you could be kind and give me some input on how to improve it.

• What are some questions regarding the pandemic in Sweden that can't be answered by Wikipedia?
• What information do you think is missing?
• Where do you think it reads like marketing?
• Can you point to any NPOV problems in the article? bladjur (talk) 13:06, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

This is an interesting conversation... thanks for your input everyone. I use Wikipedia as a resource everyday and donate $$ every year but I've only recently started editing, so I apologize for not knowing the right protocols. And Bladjur, sorry if I imputed motive where there was none.

The Swedish "no lockdown" policy has been a brave and important public health experiment. I realize that wasn't the motive of the Swedish Public Health Agency but nonetheless they have done what few other countries were willing to risk. As a biomedical scientist I strongly believe that the results of that policy, whether good or bad, are critically important information to share, not only with Swedish citizens but with public health professionals and citizens everywhere. And that Wikipedia is an excellent and universally accessible platform to share it. If the experiment goes badly and thousands of people die unnecessarily then public policy makers worldwide can use that lesson to save lives in their own countries and provinces. If the experiment goes well and Sweden's decision to avoid a lockdown has little impact on illness and mortality then governments everywhere can learn from that experience and minimize economic damage by keeping their economies open. Those are both really important outcomes that Wikipedia can influence.

Now that some hard data is in, it is obvious that Sweden currently has a COVID-19 death rate many times higher than neighboring countries. This situation may change for the better... perhaps next fall it will become apparent that Sweden has developed a kind of herd immunity... but as for now it's clear that Sweden's "no lockdown" policy has resulted in many more deaths per capita than in neighboring countries that chose to lock down. A reader of the Wikipedia "COVID-19 in Sweden" page would currently be hard pressed to discern these facts. Sure, they could find the total number of deaths and illnesses in Sweden but as far as I can tell there is nothing that puts those numbers in perspective relative to countries that locked down. Mainstream newspapers... the Washington Post and The Guardian... are reporting this information but for some reason the opening section of the Wikipedia page focuses instead on a lengthy discussion of Swedish ministerial policy and other information that seems unrelated to the critical questions of whether Sweden's no lock down policy cost lives, protected the economy or perhaps both.

My editorial posts over the past two days were intended to provide the latest reliably reported information on the question of whether Sweden's decision not to lock down has caused an increase in COVID-19 deaths. Both of my edits were deleted, or possibly moved somewhere obscure, almost immediately. I still think it's the most important question, and probably the prime reason that people are visiting this page. I'm open to suggestions as to how to best share this information, and hope that next fall maybe the news from Sweden will be better. It'd be great to report that too! Thanks for reading through this, if you made it this far!

StanfordPostDoc (talk) 22:08, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Easy way out

Hey there, Teahousers! I know this is the easy way out. But every time I ask a question, the experienced editors point the way and I get lost right off the bat. So I'll just ask: can someone just do this for me? Thanks. I know it's possible - because it's all over WP. But somehow I know if I do it, another editor will come along and say I didn't upload it correctly. I need to upload this image: Andrew Wyeth's Maidenhair to Wiki Commons similar to these: Winter 1946, Christina's World, etc. I know it's under Fair Use - For visual identification of the object of the article. The article as a whole is dedicated specifically to a discussion of this work. Non-free use rationale 2. But I just don't know how to get there. I've written an article in my sandbox that I'd love to use in the inbox. Thanks in advance. Maineartists (talk) 23:00, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Maineartists. I'm afraid the answer is No, at the moment. Fair use images are uploaded to Wikipedia, not to Commons (Commons onoy accepts freely-licensed material); and according to WP:NFCC, non-free images must be used in at least one article, but may not be used in a draft. So, you'll need to wait until your draft is accepted in main space. --ColinFine (talk) 23:24, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

ColinFine Hey, thanks a lot. I'm still learning all the hoops, you know? even after all these years and articles. I'll post the article to the main space and go from there. Thanks again. Maineartists (talk) 23:37, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

When does a page go live?

I've made more than ten edits on the page I created, but it is yet to go live. What more can I do? Afolabi Jide 10:32, 5 June 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afolabijide (talk • contribs)

That doesn't happen automatically. Someone else can address that for you, but I wanted to let you know I've moved your draft to User:Afolabijide/sandbox. Its previous location was your userpage, which isn't the correct place to draft an article. John from Idegon (talk) 11:16, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Afolabijide The text in your sandbox currently lists only 4 reference sources. The first is credited to the organization that Mr. Afolabi heads, and so is not independent of Mr. Afolabi. The second is by Mr. Afolabi himself. The third does not discuss Mr. Afolabi, but rather quotes him for a couple of paragraphs. The fourth is a report of a ceremony and social event on the occasion of the birth of two children to him and his wife, and is not really relevant to the reasons for his notability.

If this is ever to become a proper Wikipedia article, it needs to have multiple published independent reliable sources that discuss Mr. Afolabi in some detail, not things written by him or his affiliates, and not interviews or blogs or the like.

Also, the similarity of your user name to that of Mr. Afolabi suggests that you have some close connection to him. If that is so, please read our guideline on conflict of interest, and make the required declarations as described in that page. If it should happen that you are Mr. Afolabi, please also read our guideline on autobiography. Note that writing about yourself is strongly discouraged, and if done at all must be done very carefully. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 13:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@Afolabijide: I think DESiegel was encouraging you to read Wikipedia:Autobiography. GoingBatty (talk) 00:47, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Unblock request

Can you please unblock me from all articles? Sammyboy2009 (talk) 00:32, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

@Sammyboy2009: The Teahouse is not the correct place to request unblock. Furthermore, I don't see a block on this account. Is it possible you have an account that is blocked? If so, you will need to get that account unblocked before editing with this one. Interstellarity (talk) 00:52, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Sammyboy2009 you are not blocked from any articles, or you wouldn't have been able to post this. (I double checked your block log, and you have never been blocked.) However your account is not yet autoconfirmed. Some articles (but only a few) are "semi-protected to that only autoconfirmed users may edit them. And only autoconfirmed users may create new articles directly in the main article space. You may create pages in the Draft space (such as Draft:Example topic) or in your user space (such as User:Sammyboy2009/Example topic) and work on a draft until it is ready for the main article space. I would advise you to submit any such draft to the Articles for Creation process, where an experienced editor will review the4 draft, but that is not required.

You will become autoconfirmed after you have made at least 10 LOGGED-IN edits, and your account is at least 4 days old. This is automatic, hence the name AUTOconfirmed. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:52, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Maidenhair

OK. Real quick. I'm creating an article on the painting Maidenhair [11] by Andrew Wyeth. However, when one types in "Maidenhair" into WP they get: Maidenhair plants. Not even a disambiguation page of the word. I can't list an article on a painting on this "page". How do I get around this? Making it into a disambiguation page or listing it on the page correctly? Thanks in advance. Maineartists (talk) 00:16, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Maineartists. At the draft stage don't worry about this. When the time comes to move it to the main article space, disambiguation can be applied, with the new article perhaps, going to Maidenhair (Wyeth picture) or some such title. As it happens I am a big fan of Wyeth, and I am working (slowly) on Draft:Betsy James Wyeth, and in pursuit of this acquired copies of An American Vision, Andrew Wyeth: A Secret Life and The Helga Pictures, and I have Wyeth at Kurners on order. If you do not have any of these and would like me to look up some point in one of them, I would be happy to do so.

Pf course you will remember that not every painting, even from as well-known an artist as Andrew Wyeth is separately notable. But I wouldn't be surprised if this one is. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:43, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, DES. I'm quite sure Maidenhair is notable among Wyeth's works enough to create an article at WP. That being said, is it really necessary to place a secondary title extension (Wyeth picture) off the title? Considering typing in the original word brings you to this page: Maidenhair plants? I just wanted to see how I could discern the page from being all "plants" and making it into a disambiguation page of the general name. PS KUDOS! to you on creating a page on Betsy! Maineartists (talk) 00:57, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

It may b e that Maidenhair, currently a redirect to Maiden's hair, can become the place for the article on the painting. But that decision can wait until the draft is ready for mainspace. It is a judgement call as to what the typical reader here would be looking for most often when s/he typed "Maidenhair" into the site search engine. See Wikipedia:Disambiguation for lots of details and cases. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:04, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Gotcha! Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 01:21, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

A question about copyvio

Picture this scenario: Website A creates a page about something or someone, and User A copies that to make a new page. No one notices. A few months later, Website A changes its information to make it look almost completely different to the page. After this, User B comes along and realises that the text in an old version of the article was copied from Website A (which no longer looks like how it does in the article). Would User B need to use {{Copyvio-revdel}}, and if so, how would they know what revisions to mark as requiring redaction? User:Thatoneweirdwikier | Oh, Toodles! 17:58, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

It is a copyright violation to copy a website, even if that website changes later. RudolfRed (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:18, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Thatoneweirdwikier, and welcome to the Teahouse. In your scenario, the original article was copied from Site A, and was therefor a copyright infringement of site A. Then site A was significantly changed. If all revisions of the article were copies of the text previously shown on Site A, the article would simply be deleted under WP:CSD#G12. If the article had been edited so that it no longer infringed the previous version of Site A (nor the new version either) then all the versions that did infringe would need to be revision deleted. Looking to see which revisions are close to the first one can often help an editor determine which ones need to be revdel'd. Often the Internet Archive's "Wayback Machine" service will show snapshots of Site A's earlier version, which can help. I have dealt with such situations -- they can require a lot of time to get the set of revisions to delete properly sorted out. It is one reason why we try to deal with copyvios asap, before they get deeply embedded into an article. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:24, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

(I'll answer too, because hypotheticals are like games I can't resist) Thatoneweirdwikier, if the evidence proving the violation is still there, say, in the wayback machine, that evidence can be presented in the revdel request and the request will be acted upon. The same can be used to narrow down the revisions to revdel. But I think admins decline to revdel revisions when they can't compare the source pages with the article themselves. If there are no significant edits from other editors, User A could simply request speedy deletion under WP:G7, otherwise, User A should clean up the article removing all the content that they know is a violation. The copyvios will remain in history until the evidence to justify revdel becomes available. But I am thinking you meant to ask whether User B would need to use the "copyvio-revdel" template. Again, if B is simply acting from their personal knowledge but has no evidence to attach to the revdel request, it will be declined anyway, so revdel request itself is out of the question; if they do have the source, they can just use that to narrow down the revisions. User B can not request G7 because it was A who created the page, and B can not request G12 (copyvio-speedy deletion) either because they have no evidence. All they can do is remove the copyvio from the article and request that no one reinstate it, and hope that others will take them at their word. Many instances of copyvios are recognisable from the text itself, since very few writings are written like an Wikipedia article. In such cases, again though revdel can't be done, presumptive removal of infringing text is possible. So, if in your hypothetical scenario too, the infringing text reads suspicious enough, it is more likely that other editors will take User B at their word, and honor their request not to reinstate it. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 19:27, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I was referring to User B for the use of copyvio-revdel. Thanks for noticing my mistake! User:Thatoneweirdwikier | Oh, Toodles! 19:49, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Thatoneweirdwikier, Adding my two cents because I do a fair number of revision deletions. If you see such a scenario I encourage you to request a revision deletion. It is obviously helpful if you can identify the beginning revision, and I admit I swear under my breath when someone requests a revision deletion without identifying the revisions but I can usually figure it out so I'd rather have the request without the identification of the specific revisions than not to have anything. I'll also agree that it can be tricky to do a revision deletion if you cannot see the original website, but if the original website was identified as a source is almost certainly in the Internet archive, so it can be found that way. S Philbrick(Talk) 20:22, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi everyone, thanks for the suggestions. Unfortunately, with the page I am looking to use the template on (Draft:Jack Stauber), the website it copied from is not available on the Wayback Machine. This is likely because it is a fan wiki. Any other suggestions? User:Thatoneweirdwikier | Oh, Toodles! 12:49, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

hi

 Zindor (talk) 13:16, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Do you have a question about using and editing Wikipedia? --David Biddulph (talk) 14:15, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

yes, where 2 start? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zindor (talk • contribs) 15:07, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Go to an article on a topic you know about, and think about how it could be better. That could be as minor as grammar, as major as deleting or adding content. Keep in mind that truth needs verification, i.e., references. I put a Welcome box on your Talk page. David notMD (talk) 15:51, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

why my article isn't approve?

Im confused!!Why my article isn't aprrove. Hexa Pyro (talk) 16:19, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Hexa Pyro, No need for being confused at all - your draft does not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, it does not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Your draft is lacking of any source at all, please have a look at Wikipedia:Notability_(people) and Help:Your_first_article. Hope it helps, CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:23, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

editing the article on methylene (compound)

I am Philip R. Bunker and was much involved in the spectroscopic study of the methylene radical. This radical was discovered by Herzberg and Shoosmoth in 1959 in the laboratory in which I have worked for the last 55 years. I know what I am talking about here(!) and my improvements to the article that correctly give the reference to its discovery and to the latest experimental determination of its structure and singlet triplet splitting seem to be edited out by somebody who is not as knowledgeable. What can I do? Bunkerpr (talk) 15:49, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Bunkerpr, welcome to the Teahouse. First of all the place to discuss any diversions round the article is usually the Talk Page of the Article, so if you have any concerns you should address them over there. The sysop El C reverted your edits a several times because you have been deleting and modifying contents without explaining why you did so. Usually Modifications should be referenced, have look over here Help:Introduction_to_referencing_with_Wiki_Markup/1, meaning you will need to add a reliable secondary source. Every User can state that he has been working of this topic, for Wikipedia Readers it is not verifiable if this true or not. If you continued on reverting like the way you did this might be interpreted like Edit Warring, have a look over here Wikipedia:Edit_warring. Best would be to address and discuss your concerns at the Talk Page Talk:Methylene_(compound) of the Article. Feel free to ask me if you have any further questions/concers. CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:33, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I have blocked the user for editing disruptively and for ignoring multiple warnings to that effect. Sorry, but competence and communication are required on Wikipedia. El_C 16:38, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

is review supposed to take this long?

My page, Languages of Central Asia, is taking a very long time to be reviewed. Also, just a few days ago ago, in the review box thing, it said "This may take more than 5 weeks". Now it says "six months". Is this intentional? Bumsowee (talk) 14:32, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Bumsowee Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The estimated time for reviews is just that- an estimate- and it can fluctuate depending on how many drafts are pending review. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, reviews are not always performed in as timely a manner as we might like. Reviews are also not performed in any particular order. You will need to be patient. 331dot (talk) 14:35, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

The duration estimate depends on how many drafts are in which of the age categories at Category:AfC pending submissions by age. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:49, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

And, Poof! it was reviewed and declined today. See reviewer's comment. The map has been nominated for deletion, as there appears to be a copyright issue. David notMD (talk) 15:58, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

https://gulf2000.columbia.edu/maps.shtml has a very clear statement on the copyright status of the map. It is not in the public domain. (A pity – it's an excellent map.) Maproom (talk) 16:42, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Format of articles

I am very new to wikipedia and am writing my first article in visual editor. It is simply a list of winners and runners up - Any tips to help me get it included properly would be appreciated

Many Thanks REFEREEIPC (talk) 20:46, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, REFEREEIPC, and welcome to the Teahouse. I suppose this is in regard to Draft:Elite Lady 8 Ball Pool Players, is that correct? In general this sort of all-stats article is not favored here, although there are some exceptions. WP:NOTSTATS says: Wikipedia articles should not be: ... 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. Thus you should add sourced context information that explains what these results are, and who compiled them. Cites sources for the states should be provided, and some sources that discuss such statistics so as to demonstrate the notability of the topic. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:05, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for replying - yes I am working on the elite ladies draft - I noticed that there is a very similar article that presents all the mens comp winners but there was no the womens equivalent so I was trying to mirror that format - Its in table form, is split into separate events - I think it is readable - I have added references to all the articles / websites I have used to compile my article. Does there need to be other types of references ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by REFEREEIPC (talk • contribs) 21:13, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

REFEREEIPC, please do not use external links in the article body. See WP:EL and WP:LINKSPAM. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:03, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for replying - Am I right in assuming that External links are links to websites ? I cant work out how to split my article into differnt titiled sections eg Main body / references / external links How do I set up separate sections to allow me to add a section for External links please ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by REFEREEIPC (talk • contribs) 08:03, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, REFEREEIPC. See Wikipedia:section for details on sections. In general you add a section by inserting text such as ==Section header== in the draft, with nothign else on that line. It is the paired equals signs that mark this as a section header. A subsection is marked with ===Sub-section header=== with trriple equals signs around the header text. Each further sub-level gets an extra equals sign. Note that section headers are in sentence case, that is only the first word is capitalized except for proper nouns and other words which would be cap'd in running prose. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:47, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Advantages of Editing?

Sir what are the advantages of editing Wikipedia pages will we be benefited somehow and are there ranks given to experienced editors and Also how can I change my Wikipedia username, and how can we create new Wikipedia pages like some local MLA's or MP's whose pages are not present now? Khanjanneog (talk) 16:08, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Khanjanneog. Welcome to the Teahouse, and to Wikipedia. May I answer your very sensible questions in bullet form?:

• The 6,000,000 articles on Wikipedia are all created and maintained by volunteer editors. They receive no payment, except the immense satisfaction that they are contributing to the worlds greatest, free encyclopaedia, and are helping to share knowledge around the world. Wikipedia has now grown up, and is no longer the place where unreliable information is found in abundance. In these days of fake news and terrible viruses, it has become a valuable place for good information to be collated. Helping to build that encyclopaedia can become an all-enveloping hobby for many of us here.
• We do not explicitly rank editors by the experience. After 10 edits and four days here, you are AUTOCONFIRMED, and can edit most articles. (that link also explains other 'access levels' on Wikipedia.
• You have made so few edits since you joined us today that, rather than going to the effort of requesting a username change, you are probably best advised sinple to abandon this account, forget the password, and never ever use it again. Then just create a brand new account with a name of your choice. But be aware that editing with from accounts at the same time is not acceptable, so just forget the old one and only use the new one.
• I don't know what an MLA is, but national members of parliament are likely to be notable (an essential criterion for having an article here), but local politicians may not be notable just because they were elected to a local government. Other factors would need to come into play. See WP:NPOLITICIAN for what the criteria for eligibility. One key sentence there is "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline."

I hope this has answered all your questions. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:38, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Khanjanneog, the closest Wikipedia comes to "ranking" editors is Wikipedia:Service awards, but that should not be taken very seriously. Syill some editors do enjoy moving up that ladder, but the prime motivation should be having helped create soemtong of value to others. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:53, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I understand Sir, but as I am new in this field so I wanted to learn about it in details. Doesnt mean to hurt any feelings of others. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khanjanneog (talk • contribs) 16:59, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

No problem. Hosts (also volunteers) here at Teahouse have infinite patience. Except when they don't. P.S. 'Sign' your comments by typing four of ~ at the end.

How Can a Wikipedia page be Created?

Can Wikipedia pages be created by editors? Khanjanneog (talk) 17:00, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Khanjanneog, and welcome to the Teahouse. Here are some steps which, when followed, often load to success.DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:21, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• First, review our guideline on notability, our policy on Verifiability, and our general notability guideline (GNG). Consider whether your subject clearly meets the standards listed there. Also, check if the topic is already covered, perhaps under a different spelling or in a section of an article about a wider topic. You will waste a lot of time, if you create a new article, and then find that the encyclopedia already has an article about that.
• Second, read how to create Your First Article and referencing for beginners and again consider if you want to go ahead.
• Third, If you have any connection or affiliation with the subject, disclose it in accordance with our guideline on Conflict of interest. If you have been or expect to be paid for making edits, or are making them as part of your job, disclose this according to the strict rules of the Paid-contribution disclosure. This is absolutely required; omitting it can result in you being blocked from further editing.
• Fourth, gather sources. You want independent, professionally published, reliable sources with each discussing the subject in some detail. If you can't find several such sources, stop; an article will not be created! Sources do NOT need to be online, or in English, although it is helpful if at least some are. The "independent" part is vital. Wikipedia does not consider as independent sources such as press releases, or news stories based on press releases, or anything published by the subject itself or an affiliate of the subject. Strictly local coverage is also not preferred. Regional or national newspapers or magazines, books published by mainstream publishers (not self-published), or scholarly journals are usually good. So are online equivalents of these. (Additional sources may verify particular statements but not discuss the subject in detail. But those significant detailed sources are needed first.)
• Fifth, use the article wizard to create a draft under the articles for creation project. This is always a good idea for an inexperienced editor, but in the case of an editor with a conflict of interest it is essential.
• Sixth, use the sources gathered before (and other sources you may find along the way) to write the article. Cite all significant statements to sources. Do not express opinions or judgements, unless they are explicitly attributed to named people or entities, preferably in a direct quotation, and cited to a source. Do not use puffery or marketing-speak. Provide page numbers, dates, authors and titles for sources to the extent these are available. A title is always needed. Submit the draft when you think it is ready for review. Be prepared to wait a while for a review (several weeks or more).
• Seventh, when (well perhaps if) your draft is declined, pay attention to the comments of the reviewer, and correct the draft and resubmit it. During this whole process, if you face any unresolvable editing hurdles, or cannot comprehend any editing issue, feel free to post a request at the Teahouse or the help desk and ask the regulars. Repeat this until the draft passes review.

Congratulations, you have now created a valid Wikipedia article. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:21, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Most viewed videos on youtube in 24 hours

 223.235.155.157 (talk) 16:47, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Did you have a question about how to use Wikipedia? RudolfRed (talk) 18:11, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Continous Deletion: Please Help!

Hi everyone, I created an article Draft:Tolu' A Akinyemi and it's getting nominated for deletion for the second time by the same editor because she suspected a WP:COI but i sincerely don't have any COI with the subject. Can anyone help on how the article's tone can be re-improved? The article meets WP:GNG and was infact voted to be relisted at DRV but it was deleted anyway as per the consensus.--Olatunde Brain (talk) 15:36, 6 June 2020 (UTC) Olatunde Brain (talk) 15:36, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Brain7days, it appears from reviewing the history of the article that the article has not been nominated for deletion twice. It was however deleted via an AFD process and you apparently took it to a deletion review where the consensus to delete was upheld & it furthermore appears as though you unsuccessfully tried to convince the closing admin to restore the deleted page back to your draftspace but apparently they didn’t & you went on to recreate the article again via an AFC process where it was declined & now a CSD G4 tag has been placed on the article due to the fact that the article in question was initially deleted via an AFD process. Celestina007 (talk) 16:25, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

why do you continue to make false allegations against me? When and Where did i try to convince the closing admin? The article was voted to be relist at DRV. Why? Why? Why? are you doing all this? Do you have anything agaisnt me? I think it's about time i head over to WP:AC you can not continue to intimidate me on wiki because you have the tools and resources.--Olatunde Brain (talk) 16:35, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Brain7days, the consensus at DRV was not to relist, although some editors favored that course. I have declined the G4 speedy, and you may now, if you choose, edit the draft to improve it so that it would not be deleted in a possible future AfD. You will need to find and cite several independent published reliable sources that discuss the subject in significant detail. Unless several such sources are found and added, the draft will eventually be deleted. I urge you to sop worrying about the previous discussions and focus on this chance to improve the draft. Note that if the needed sources do not exist, no amount of rewriting will help. Please do not submit Draft:Tolu' A Akinyemi for re-review until and unless significant improvements have been made. It was perhaps unwise for Celestina007 to have reviewed this at AfC after that editor had nominated it for deletion at AfD. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:16, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

@Brain7days, hello dear colleague, I have nothing against you & appreciate your efforts thus far. I have made no false accusations against you so don’t say that which is untrue. As in this very diff you approached Sandstein querying him as to why he upheld the delete consensus of the previous AFD at the DRV. He did so because contrary to what you said on his talk page, all the editors who participated did not !vote to relist, rather it was a combination of editors !voting to relist & other editors endorsing the delete rationale. Apparently the editors endorsing the deletion had a better argument hence it was closed as a delete hence like I earlier stated; upholding the delete rationale of the original AFD. Feel free to take this to the ANI & see how it plays out. No one is intimidating you my dear brother & colleague also like I said if you feel intimidated do go to the ANI & make an official complaint there & provide diffs to substantiate your claims that I, or anyone for that matter has intimidated you thus far. You simply cannot keep on recreating articles on non notable persons. You created an article on yourself, which was deleted & now you are creating an article on someone you are close to. Being a single purpose account for promotion on yourself & close friend isn’t permitted on this collaborative project & may lead to your account being blocked. Feel free to ask me any questions when in doubt as I am always readily available & a ping away. Cheers! Celestina007 (talk) 17:20, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

DESiegel, I was performing my AFC related work when I stumbled at the article yet again & in my opinion I felt nothing had significantly changed from the original one hence the G4. Furthermore your reson for declining the G4 is very much apt & accurate. Celestina007 (talk) 17:36, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Celestina007 I think you for doing AfC reviews, which is a tedious and often thankless job. (I have done some, put not as many as most regular reviewers.) I did not mean to suggest that there was anything improper in your actions. But it m,ight be wise for reviewers not to review drafts that they have previously nominated for deletion. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:27, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

User page

Hello! I created a user page when I first made an account but then someone found the contents to be promotional and blocked me for days. I did not mean for it to be promotional, it was just the wording that made it seem that way. How can I make a user page without it seeming promotional? I don’t want to be blocked again. Is it safer to just not make a talk page? Thank you! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 04:04, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

@Lima Bean Farmer: Welcome to the Teahouse! On your user page, you could write about what you like to do on Wikipedia and/or fill it up with userboxes. There are many more suggestions on Wikipedia:User pages. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 04:14, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

@Lima Bean Farmer: Or you can have no user page at all – it's not required. Note your "user page" is User:Lima Bean Farmer while your "talk page" is User talk:Lima Bean Farmer. The user page is primarily for content that is from you for the purposes outlined at WP:UP while your talk page is for other users to post messages to you (and you may respond). If you don't want to get blocked or have your user page deleted, don't use it for promotion and do use it for the purposes in WP:UP and you'll be fine. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 04:44, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Lima Bean Farmer: The problem was really the page combined with the former username you had. Since your previous username was a radio station's call sign, the userpage you created seemed to be advertising for that station. (BTW, if you work with or for them, you need to see WP:COI and WP:PAID and must disclose your employment on your user page). Telling people to pay attention to their elections by itself isn't promotional -- if your account isn't named after a company distributing information of any sort. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:49, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I have no affiliation with WJRZ. I used to listen to the radio at my grandmother’s house by the shore in New Jersey. Being new to Wikipedia, I needed an account name and this came to mind. I am not paid by anyone and not here for any promotional purpose. Just wanted to clarify. I appreciate the help about a user page! I will be creating one soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lima Bean Farmer (talk • contribs) 18:51, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

How to rename a page?

Hi, I think the pages for S&P futures and E-minis should be renamed 'S&P 500 futures' and 'E-mini S&P 500 futures', since those pages are referring to those particular futures contracts, whereas a larger class of "S&P" futures contracts (although usually variants on S&P 500 like 'S&P 500 Value' 'S&P 500 Growth' futures contracts) exists, and a larger class of "E-mini" futures contracts exist ('E-mini S&P 500', 'E-mini Russell 1000', 'E-mini Nasdaq 100' etc.) exists. How would I rename them? Do I just move them to new pages? The talk pages on those pages, and the talk page on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Finance & Investment seems to be dead so I couldn't get an opinion. Eric.c.zhang (talk) 18:39, 6 June 2020 (UTC) Eric.c.zhang (talk) 18:39, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Eric.c.zhang. Yes, the proper procedure is to move the articles to the more accurate titles. Please read Help:How to move a page for details. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:47, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

@Eric.c.zhang: The article E-minis already discusses several different types of options. No need to rename it to something specific. RudolfRed (talk) 19:01, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

@RudolfRed: my mistake I meant the E-mini S&P page. Yes the E-mini page discusses various futures, but E-mini S&P seems to refer specifically to E-mini S&P500, but not with the proper name, which also precludes other contracts like E-mini S&P 400, E-mini S&P500 ESG, for example. I think E-mini is fine but E-mini S&P should be renamed. Eric.c.zhang (talk) 19:07, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

On vital articles and merges

Hello. I'm currently adding short descriptions to vital articles, and I came across Concordat of Worms which is still listed as a vital article despite appearing to have been merged with a different article and is currently just a redirect. Should its vital article status be removed or kept? – MonAll ^t·c 12:27, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, MonAll. Judging by the lack of responses, I suspect I'm not the only one here who has never heard of Vital articles. I suggest that the place to ask is WT:WikiProject Vital Articles, as that is the project that maintains them. --ColinFine (talk) 19:30, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

COVID-19 pandemic by country and territory - Human Population column

Has it ever been considered to place a column of each countries human population in the "COVID-19 pandemic by country and territory graphics"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic#covid19-container

Human Population: https://www.worldometers.info/geography/alphabetical-list-of-countries/ 75.166.176.177 (talk) 20:59, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello IP editor. That's a good question, and one probably best asked at the talk page of that article. It's not something we could influence here. (Speaking personally, I would like to see total populations AND the all-important population density as people per sq.km. That would allows effective comparison between different sized nations). All the best, and stay safe, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:32, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Hollywood Music in Media Awards

2009 Volunteer I have had discussions with the Found Brent Harvey and The Hollywood Music in Media Awards about edits to Wiki article.

I need help on how to reconstruct an article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_Music_in_Media_Awards

Jrocksgibson (talk) 03:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

@Jrocksgibson: if you need help with an article, please start a discucssion on that article's talk page. If you have a WP:COI you can use {{Edit request}} if you have a specific edit you need help with. RudolfRed (talk) 03:21, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

User:RudolfRed|RudolfRed I have posted {{Edit request}} in the talk of this article. Though the requests are not listed anymore. I am not sure if that is typical while someone reviews or not. My discussion I have started on the talk page lists WP:COI and states the conversation of money was offered though I wish not to accept such terms. I find it more valuable to be able to learn with the wiki community about the accepted practices in editing articles. My most sincere apology if I am posting specific questions or edits in the wrong places and having conversations in the wrong areas. It seems like the talk page is where I should be talking though the some conversations seems to be posted directly to the article deletion page when answered. Thank you for you communication. I will try to follow your requests.Jrocksgibson (talk) 16:36, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Jrocksgibson. I gather thjat Hollywood Music in Media Awards (HMMA) is currently nominated for deletion, and the AfD discussion is in progress. I further gather that you would like help in demonstrating the notability of the organization using some of the links yuou posted above. I further understand that you have previously been a volunteer with the HMMA organization, but are now a paid freelancer for it, and have made a declaration to that effect. Is all that correct?

IF it is, , well I for one am not inclinced to read through more than 25 news stories to try to fine ones that would help establish notability, particularly not for a paid editor, who should be able to do the basic research unaided. What I advise is that you read through your own list looking for stories that discuss the organization in some detail say at least three paragraphs, and more if possible. Note this should not be just a list of winners and losers, nor even analysis of why they won and lost, but writing about the organization itself or the awards as am institution. Find the best three sources, or if you are unsure, up to five, and list them at the AfD. Then if you want, post a brief message hre linking to the discussion. Do not copy the links heree again, please. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:42, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

User:DESiegel|DES Thanks for your reply. You are correct that I was a volunteer in 2009. I have listed myself as CoI because I had a brief conversation with Brent Harvey founder about The Hollywood Music in Media Awards. I saw his request at this link.https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6673339306809155584/ Which I replied to him via private message and let him know that I shared some interest in helping with the edits. During our conversation via phone Brent explained me that the article was nominated for deletion and he asked if there was a way to edit the article. I told him I had no experience editing wiki before and this would be my first contribution to the community. He mentioned "I will pay you for your time" but we never went into details since. After exploring the Wiki I noticed some of the rules and procedures which I felt inclined as a new user to share my infomation about myself to keep the beliefs valid in the community. I am not a paid CoI and I will refuse payments furthermore to represent this article. Though I am willing to be transparent to anyone since I wish to learn and grow in this experience. I apologize about posting sources here! I did not realize it would not be accepted. I will review these links again and try to follow your suggestions. I restate again in you are incorrect that I am a paid CoI or paid freelancer. I am a volunteer here on wiki though I was a volunteer for the organization in 2009. No afflictions since a few days ago when I had a conversation and began my own research. But I do offer communication in any concerns about my involvement and I understand the importance that I do not conflict in the article and I hope this is clear. I will try to do the basic research unaided at this time. I welcome more discussion that may help since I am still learning! I will list them AfD and I will link the discussion here once done. Thanks again for you willingness to review my questions. I appreciate all feedback.Jrocksgibson (talk) 16:36, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hollywood_Music_in_Media_Awards#Hollywood_Music_in_Media_AwardsJrocksgibson (talk) 21:36, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Working on HMS Boreas (H77) — how would I go about adding web sources to the references?

I'd like to add a source to this article from a website, but I'm not sure how to format it with the citation style of the article. What should I do? User:Thatoneweirdwikier | Oh, Toodles! 20:58, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

You should use the visual editor,you just enter the url and it cites it for you, please also make sure it is a Reliable source. thank you. --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 21:56, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Thatoneweirdwikier. HMS Boreas (H77) uses a form of shortened footnotes, but apparently does not use {{sfn}} or {{harv}}. So the thing to do is to find your source and add it to the "Bibliography" section using {{cite web}}. Then in the body where the sources is to be cited, add <ref>Author</ref> or if no author is listed for the web source, use <ref>Site name</ref> for the actual footnote. The automated insertion of cites that the visual editor provides does not, as I understand it, handle this sort of citation system. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:52, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't think, Thegooduser, that that will work for the citation style used in that article. Take a closer look, please. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:53, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

DES, sorry about that. I am just assuming (which should not have) that it was a normal source. My bad for being stupid with replying. Sorry. --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 21:56, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Help me review my draft before I resubmit it for approval

Hi,

The page I submitted for review (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:MBH_Corporation_Plc) was declined due to notability and that it reads more like an advertisement than a wiki entry. I've edited the page and I added some few references too. Please help me review it before I resubmit it for approval.

The references I used include: Financial Times, Bloomberg company profile, Health Business UK magazine, The National AE newspaper, Proactive Investors UK and Live trading news etc. All of which are not press releases and they discuss the subject in some detail and not passing mentions.

I resubmitted it and it got declined again, and the reviewer referred me to the Teahouse to seek for help. Please help me out as I don't know what action to take next. Thank you very much and regards. Leckson (talk) 20:00, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Firstly, DO NOT remove AfC comments, even if you feel that you have addressed what was being commented about. Secondly, wording "the firm enables small and medium sized enterprises to scale their businesses without selling out." is clearly promotional. Thirdly, most of the refs are acqusition announcements - these are not article about what MBH is, only what it has been doing, i.e., buying companies. That does not contribute to notability. My personal opinion is that the company does not yet meet Wikipedia's definition of notability, and you should report back to MBH that you have failed. David notMD (talk) 20:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing my draft. I've returned the Afc comment but I'll like to point out something. MBH is a venture capital firm that acquires companies and helps them grow. So that's what they do which is why some of the references are acquisition announcements. The draft also contains references that talks about what they do in detail which you can see before the last paragraph that talked about their investment portfolio.

Regarding the promotional sentence you mentioned earlier, what should I use instead as I'm out of ideas. Thank you very much for your time. Leckson (talk) 20:35, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Leckson58. If those are the best sources you can find for the company, then I think you should give up. Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says about themselves, and, while I haven't opened every one of them, I haven't found a reference that is not obviously based on information from the company (either in an interview, a press release, or a listing provided by the company). What Wikipedia is interested in - almost the only thing it is interested in - is what people wholly unconnected with the company, and unprompted by the company have chosen to write about the company (and been published in reliable places). --ColinFine (talk) 22:23, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Where Happened To My Custom Page

For a great many years when I brought up the initial Wikipedia page it was a (mildly) custom page, tied to my account. About a week ago it no longer comes up. A stock page comes up. Did something change with Wikipedia's use of custom pages? Or? Mrreed1939 (talk) 17:49, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Mrreed1939, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm not sure what page you were seeing, that was "mildly custom". I wondered if you might have had a user page that has now been deleted, but I can find no record that you ever created one: indeed, this appears to be your first ever edit, almost exactly ten years after creating your account: congratulations. So I'm not sure how you could have customised any page without making edits. I don't think anything changed on the Main page last week. Sorry. --ColinFine (talk) 19:49, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Mrreed1939, I wonder if you had your browser take you automatically to your watchlist (as mine does – I've started to type en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Watchlist so often that it takes me there as soon as I type "en"), but now you have cleared it from your browser's memory somehow. Maproom (talk) 22:26, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Adding all of a user's contributions to my watchlist

Hi, I was wondering how I could get a user's contributions to show up on my watchlist nomatter what page their edit is on. Thanks!  Darth Flappy ^«Talk» 16:20, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

That sort of feels like stalking. Easier to see an editor's past edits, just by clicking on their Contribution at any article. David notMD (talk) 17:41, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Yah I guess so, thanks for the help  Darth Flappy ^«Talk» 23:29, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

How to add personal information in wikipedia article?

how to add personal information in Wikipedia articles? Hexa Pyro (talk) 22:45, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

@Hexa Pyro: You generally do not. See WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY, WP:BLP, and WP:COI for why. If you are the subject of an article, you can post information in a verified account on some other site and make an edit request on the article about you to cite that source. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:55, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

If by personal information you mean facts you know to be true that have not been published, you don't do that either. Wikipedia requires verification via citations. David notMD (talk) 00:53, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Creating a new section on a page?

Hi,

I started a project to collect official evidence from police use of force cases in the United States a couple of years ago. I was doing this in the hopes of creating a database for people to access these materials (video, documents & photos). I obtained these via legal means e.g. via FOIA requests when required. I still want to share this evidenciary material with people but creating and maintaining an independent online database is not something I am able to do. This is why I would like to share what I have with an existing database like Wikipedia.

The videos are all uploaded onto YouTube. The videos are unlisted, so they can only be accessed via link and the documents and photos are stored in g-drive. This is all information that is (and should be) available to the public but sometimes you have to request it to get it.

I was wondering if it is possible to add a section for evidence on the relevant Wikipedia pages. For example, I have 200+ exhibits (videos, documents and photos) given to me by the DA's office on the shooting of John Crawford III.

user: Busimhlongo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Busimhlongo (talk • contribs) 09:36, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you 165.73.100.42 (talk) 09:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@Busimhlongo: If you own the license to the videos, you can add them to Wikimedia Commons, the file repository used for Wikipedia. You can add categories to them to group them with other videos that depict similar things. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 10:20, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Busimhlongo. If the videos are all on Youtube, and appropriately licensed, I can't see what the value would be in uploading them to Commons as well. You can't use any of them in Wikipedia, because all information in Wikipedia is required to be based on reliably published sources: anything you tried to do based on these would be original research, I'm afraid. If some of them relate to matters which are already covered in Wikipedia articles, it might be possible to add them to those articles as illustrations - see WP:Videos (you would need to upload them to Commons to use them in this way), but not as sources for any information. --ColinFine (talk) 14:15, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Busimhlongo! Wikidata has the ability to make statements about external resources (such as YouTube or G-drive URLs), Q-items can be created to represent real-world entities (such as print documents), it can be queried to return specific result sets, and connects to the larger "linked data" ecosystem. Linked data is somewhat technical to deal with (it makes my head spin), so this mightn't be a good option if you’re not so inclined. I imagine there would be a fair amount of work involved, and not much visibility. You would need to ask at Wikidata whether that’s worth pursuing.

As for adding the documents to a public repository, that's seems a good idea. If something happens to your Google account then do the G-drive items disappear? Whether Commons is the right fit is a good question. Are the documents free of copyright? Are there restrictions on redistributing FOI content? How to establish provenance, and that the material is unaltered?

Adding to Wikipedia? Sources need to be verifiable, I wonder what is the community view about "well, you could file an FOI yourself and confirm"? We try to avoid primary sources: without secondary interpretation it’s hard to write about them without straying into original research.

A specific Evidence section would need discussion on the article talk pages, or there might be a wikiproject with relevant experience. But the primary-source, original-research aspect is likely to be a hurdle.

I hope you manage to bring the information to light, would a reliable news outlet be interested? Pelagic ( messages ) Z – (11:08 Sun 07, AEST) 01:08, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

In cite journal template, how to use page number as identifier

Suppose I want to cite a piece of information that appears on p. 355 of the following article:

John Doe, "Of some big bones in Yorkshire", Journal of Natural History, volume 2, issue 1, pp. 344-366 (1823).

Suppose the article has not been digitized and doesn't have a doi or any other identifier; it can only be found in bound volumes in libraries.

How do I cite this using the cite journal template?

What is confusing me is this. In the documentation for the cite journal template, it is stated that the parameters page, pages, and at denote the page or pages in the source that support the content. Only one of the three can be used within a single citation. Another relevant parameter is id, described in the documentation as ‘a unique identifier, used where none of the specialized identifiers are applicable; wikilink or use a template as applicable’.

So according to the template, it looks like I should put page=355. The problem is that normally one should use the starting page, here p. 344, to identify an article such as this. As far as I know, this rule is just about universal in academic writing: an article is normally identified by specifying the last names and first and middle initials of the authors, the abbreviated journal name, the volume number, the beginning page number, and the year. In the sciences, the issue number is optional except in the rare cases of journals for which each issue restarts page numbering from 1. The title of the article is also often optional.

What is the best way to format the above citation? Is it page=355 and id=P. 344? That produces the following awkward result: 2: 355. P. 344. It is awkward because what should follow the volume number is, according to every academic style I know, the page number of the beginning page of the article. It certainly seems to make sense to first identify the article, and only then pinpoint where exactly within the article is the relevant information to be found.

More recently, some science journals started identifying their articles by an ‘article number’ and numbering each individual article from 1. In this case, too, the article identifier should come before the specific page number. Reuqr (talk) 18:32, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Reuqr If a journal article has not been digitized nor indexed in some publicly available database with a unique ID, please simply do not enter anything for |id=. Thart parameter is not required, and for older pre-internet journals will almost never have a useful value (unless they have been scanned and assigned IDs). As to the use of the page parameter, do note that Wikipedia's citation templates generate citations in style CS1 or CS2, which is not exactly like any academic style, but is similar to the CMOS style. There is currently debate at Help talk:Citation Style 1#Use of Pages in Cite Journal on this issue. (feel free to join the debate) Some support what the documentation says, and hold that the actual page where the relevant text appears should be listed. Others favor the standard of using the first page, or first and last pages, of the article. Several editors called for the creation of one or more additional parameters so that both pieces of metadata can be captured. For now, I would urge complying with the documentation a,d providing the page where the actual supporting facts are to be found, but not every editor here would agree, as the discussion plainly shows. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:46, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I would advise against using the "article number" here, until it is more widely adopted, and our systems support it. Also, in Wikipedia citations the article title is not optional, it is strictly required for CS1/CS2 citations, and I think all other citation styles in current use here. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:51, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi DESiegel, thanks for the reply! It is interesting to note that there is this debate going on. --Reuqr (talk) 19:00, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Reuqr, your example could be cited as {{Cite journal |year=1823 |first=John |last=Doe |title=Of some big bones in Yorkshire |Work=Journal of Natural History |volume=2 |issue=1 |page=355}} or as {{Cite journal |year=1823 |first=John |last=Doe |title=Of some big bones in Yorkshire |Work=Journal of Natural History |volume=2 |issue=1 |pages=344-366 [355]}} Does that help? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:06, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

@Reuqr and DESiegel: Here is my two-pennyworth (as a novice in all of Wikipedia's various citation styles): If only one approach could be taken, I would definitely want to see the cite journal being used as currently required by Wikipedia (and per DESeigel's argument) and to give the precise location by single page number/page range in which the cited statement can be easily found. That, to me is how Wikipedia (but not Academia) ask for citations to be given. That said, I feel that a complete reference to a paper in a journal does really need the full page range too. (I can't order a copy of that entire paper through interlibrary loans if I'm unable to specify the start and finish pages in the journal). But it is of secondary importance; I have spent hours wading through online journals trying to find the exact statement which someone has failed to give a specific page number for - it's so frustrating. For that reason my personal approach (whether rightly or wrongly) is to try to give the full page range of the work in the citation, and then use the {{rp}} template to specify inline the precise page number(s) where the cited statement is located. I have taken both of David's examples shown above (corrected the Work parameter to use a low case 'w') and formatted them, in order, as inline citations below, with my preferred approach using the page reference template given as Example 3.

• Example1: some bones found in Yorkshire are big.
• Example2: some bones found in Yorkshire are big.
• Example3: some bones found in Yorkshire are big.

I will watch or participate in the discussion that David links to with some interest. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:08, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes and DESiegel: Thank you both for your replies! I, too, very often use the {{rp}} template. DESiegel's second way (‘344-366 [355]’) is definitely one way to go, even though, striclty speaking, it also goes against the guidelines. There really should be a way to include both the first page-last page as well as the relevant page; I guess I'l see you all in that discussion! --Reuqr (talk) 03:37, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

References

Submitting a personal biography

I am mentioned in a number of articles in Wikipedia and it would be good to have a dedicated page, for purposes of drawing together these references. Is it possible for me to submit an article in the the third person? It would be based on my biographical details available in the directory of the Fellows of the Royal Society of Arts. 2A02:C7F:183F:A300:94B5:99A0:CAF6:B5FE (talk) 20:47, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Although possible, it would be a bad idea. -- Hoary (talk) 22:27, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello IP, as I'm sure you can understand, autobiographies are more closely scrutinised. Many find the experience unpleasant. However, if you read Wikipedia's conflict of interest editing guideline and abide by it, you can do it. Be sure to use the Articles for Creation process as that guideline suggests. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:16, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I would add that details from one directory are unlikely to be sufficient for a balanced encyclopedic article. Significant coverage from multiple independent reliable secondary sources is the recommended minimum. Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:18, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

How to put in profile

How to input profile 2601:1C2:E00:CCD0:4D93:6202:A0A6:1E3A (talk) 08:19, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

In short, don't. Wikipedia is not social media and does not contain "profiles" of individuals. It is, instead, an encyclopedia, like Encyclopædia Britannica or Encarta, containing well-researched and -cited articles (like a magazine or newspaper) about notable subjects, summarizing what independent, reliable sources have chosen to write about the subject at length. Please see the blue links if you would like further information. Thanks. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 08:46, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

List of oldest fathers

Hey all. I was looking over this list and one of the entries, that of an anonymous 66 year old, has a link to a scientific study that says men are biologically infertile after 65. In light of that result, I think that a more rigorous standard should be applied on that page where we highlight cases that are genetically proven. What do you think of that? Who is the oldest genetically proven father? Thanks for comments. Geographyinitiative (talk) 05:54, 7 June 2020 (UTC) " This seems to favour 65–66 years as being a biological rather than a social age limit for fatherhood. " Geographyinitiative (talk) 05:57, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Geographyinitiative, and welcome to the Teahouse.The place to discuss this would be Talk:List of oldest fathers, but I am inclined to doubt that one study can be sufficiently definitive to totally rule out any man fathering a child at age 70 or higher. Humans are highly variable in matters of biology, and even something far to rare for a given study to see a case of will produce quite a few examples across the world's population. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 06:20, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I recommend consulting WP:WikiProject Medicine about health claims like this. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:10, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I've made a great post on Wikiproject medicine's page and one on the talk page. In the wikimed post, I directly ask them for scientific evidence that any man has fathered a child after age 66. It's a cool topic so please monitor and join in if you're interested. Geographyinitiative (talk) 08:58, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

How do you tackle constant vandalism of articles by the same user?

As stated in the title, can users be reported if they're constantly vandalizing articles of a specific country? I have come across a user and they're constantly editing articles of a specific country with controversial statements and no citations to back it up. They've also got a few warnings on their talk page, so shouldn't users like this be taking precautions? Nodoodlesjustfacts (talk) 23:07, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Nodoodlesjustfacts. Yes, if a user has been warned sufficiently (we have four levels of warnings), they can be reported to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism (or WP:AIV, for short). Not all addition of uncited facts is vandalism - only those definitely intending to damage the article, should be caused VANDALISM. As an editor yourself, you can leave an appropriate warning message for them. This is very easy if you have already enabled WP:TWINKLE in your user preferences, and the 'TW' tab at the top of your page in desktop view allows you to 'Warn' another user with a selection of different types of notices. If you care to either paste in their username, or a link to the article they've been editing, we can tell you if 'vandalism' is the right term, and take any necessary action. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:21, 6 June 2020 (UTC)  

Thank you. They are adding statements that will contribute to an already hostile Nepal-India environment. And when checking his contributions page, they have added many controversial edits in Nepali articles. Most of his edits are about Indian influence in Nepalese cultures but with no valid citations, and also in articles where they're not needed. Most of his edits are also very passive-aggressive that works in favour of India, I'm unsure why he is adamant on editing Nepali articles and is aggressively determined to include India in all Nepali articles? When none of it is necessary. Their username is User:Gotitbro. The article they're constantly reverting edits of is [[12]]. All the removals of statements in this article are written in the explanation section. However, this user keeps reverting all the edits without reading them. While the dish itself is not Indian, they're adamant to put anything Indian related to this article for no reason. Momo is not part of India's national cuisine, but they're adamant to add India in the national cuisine list. For e.g, momo being sold only in India is not worthy of highlighting in a wikipedia, they're sold everywhere else in the world too. Or, that the "heavily influenced by Indian spices" have no validity, every country will have their own adaptations, and that has nothing to do with its origin. --Nodoodlesjustfacts (talk) 23:41, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Nodoodlesjustfacts - There are certain topic areas in which there are a special set of rules to restrict contentious editing. Many of these are areas of battleground editing that have been real battlegrounds in the past. These rules, known as ArbCom discretionary sanctions, are authorized by the Arbitration Committee and allow special sanctions to be imposed on disruptive editors. These areas include India. While the arbitration rules for India and Pakistan were largely intended to deal with quarreling between Indian editors and Pakistani editors, they would also apply to a quarrel between Indian editors and Nepali editors. I would advise reading about discretionary sanctions to see whether the editor in question should be warned about them. (A warning is part of the process.) Robert McClenon (talk) 00:57, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

The user above hardly seems to be aware of any editorial policies or sanctions and is brandying about accusations here and there. They first removed reliable references from the article and then its associated content in subsequent edits citing "no refs". The contentious history of the page can be gauged from the Talk page itself, the page was stable (by uninvolved editors) before a recent surge in disruptive edits such as by the user above, who has not only disruptively removed RS content but also added POVPUSH material at the same time citing blogs and cruft treating the article as their own WP:SOAPBOX. Despite repeated calls to discuss their edits on the Talk page, the user continues their WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT behavior. Gotitbro (talk) 02:06, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

This is about Momo (food). No vandalism is involved. Nodoodlesjustfacts and Gotitbro‎ are engaged in an error war there. Neither has tried to discuss the issue on the article's talk page. Maproom (talk) 09:36, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

The use above of the phrase 'brandying about accusations' has brightened the day of one Teahouse reader.SovalValtos (talk) 09:54, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Did someone mention brandy? Yes, that'd brighten up the Teahouse. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:12, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Mention of any other drinks in a positive light is considered treason against the Teahouse. See WP:Constitution of The Teahouse for details. Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:25, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive editing?

I would like help / additional perspective on whether the user Cavalryman is editing in a disruptive manner, specifically on Goldendoodle. The editors Recent history appears to be with an agenda against doodle crossbreed related pages and unconstructive vs constructive. Thank you. Mlepisto (talk) 06:10, 7 June 2020 (UTC) Mlepisto (talk) 06:10, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Mlepisto, Calvaryman seems to be working to improve the page. It doesn't mean they're right, but they seem to be doing it in good faith and not obviously breaking policy. If you think their edits are improper, talk to them. Start a discussion on the article's talk page, or Calvaryman's talk page. It might be a simple misunderstanding. If you can't talk it out, ask for a Third opinion, and should that fail, file a dispute resolution case. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:27, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hello, Mlepisto, and welcome to the Teahouse. Just because an editor disagrees with you and removes llegedly outsourced or poorly source or unencyclopedic content does not make those edits disruptive. The place to discuss content decisions is the article talk page, in this case Talk:Goldendoodle. Presentation of and comments on sources is usually a vital part of such discussions. If a consensus once forms that certain content belongs min (or should be taken out), then (and only then) editing against that consensus may become disruptive. Truly disruptive editing may be reported at WP:ANI, but the conduct of all editors involved tends to be looked at closely there, and filing an unjustified report may bring sanctions on the editor filing it.

I took a quick look at Goldendoodle and its talk page, and saw nothing obviously disruptive about any of Cavalryman's edits. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 06:37, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Concur. C's deletions primarily of unreferenced content and content sourced to goldendoodle associations = not independent. David notMD (talk) 10:30, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Nurse Practitioner: Dispute an article/Edit a semi-protected article

Hello, I'm new here. I created my account because I want to help better the Nurse Practitioner(NP) article, before moving on to create new content. The NP article is heavily politically biased and draws much of its content from unsourced statements, a single anti-NP lobbying group(TAFP), or incorrectly cited articles. Google and other cites link to this article and it is causing damage to the NP profession through error, and by being used to push a political agenda. I want to clarify, better cite, and adjust the highly negative tone of the article. How do I become able to edit the article? How do I call for correction or dispute resolution? How do I build consensus? Multiple users have called for a removal of the term "midlevel" and this has not been done. I am sad and frustrated that a wikipedia article could be this biased, I like wikipeida and want to make it a better place, please help. Concernedcitizenforaccuracy (talk) 10:25, 7 June 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Concernedcitizenforaccuracy (talk • contribs) 10:21, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Nurse practitioner is semi-protected, which means that new editors cannot edit the article directly, but can propose specifically worded changes on the Talk page of the article. You have already made a good start by listing at Talk examples of what you consider to be inaccurate content. David notMD (talk) 10:37, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Help with starting

Hello, I recently just joined Wikipedia. I’ve been going through some tutorials and stuff but I’m still not sure how to do a certain thing. So any help would be greatly appreciated! I search for an artist on Wikipedia and nothing came up. So I have a bunch of information and would love to create a Wikipedia page so that we when other people search the artist name some info would pop up. I am not sure though what the best way to do this is. Thanks again for the help! Christoher3130!! (talk) 13:41, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Christoher3130!!, welcome to the Teahouse, perhaps this might be of help ... Help:Your_first_article. Hope this have been informative for you, CommanderWaterford (talk) 13:45, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Help with starting

Hello, I recently just joined Wikipedia. I’ve been going through some tutorials and stuff but I’m still not sure how to do a certain thing. So any help would be greatly appreciated! I search for an artist on Wikipedia and nothing came up. So I have a bunch of information and would love to create a Wikipedia page so that we when other people search the artist name some info would pop up. I am not sure though what the best way to do this is. I am mostly doing this on a mobile device but don’t mind switching to a laptop if you think that might be easier. Thanks again for the help! Christoher3130!! (talk) 13:45, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I've merged this with the previous section. The first thing you need to do is to ascertain whether the subject meets Wikipedia's criterion of notability. If he does, then (as the answer to your previous question said) you can find advice at WP:Your first article. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:50, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Deleted articles

what happen to deleted ir removed articles? Are these archived or permenatly deleted? 70.126.211.74 (talk) 14:40, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! See Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Access to deleted pages. GoingBatty (talk) 15:04, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Been sanctioned?

Hi. Asking again since posting from a few minutes ago is not in list of asked questions.

So, as a relatively inexperienced editor focusing on Killing of George Floyd article. I learned videos are original sources whose audio/visual info requires RS. Received OR warnings. (Received reporting threat from user that didn't read talk/examine video. Maybe user didn't like info???) Finally understanding, provided RS for an edit 16+/- hrs ago; edit was accepted as DONE; Now I can't access article's talk page or my watchlist. Have I been sanctioned? (After providing an accepted edit with supporting RS?) Thanks for reading the question's preamble, and thanks for the help. Pasdecomplot (talk) 12:43, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

No you haven't been. -- Hoary (talk) 13:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Don't worry, Pasdecomplot. The first time I got one of those Discretionary Sanctions notices on my talk page I was scared witless! "What have I done?", I thought. The answer was Nothing, except that I had chosen to edit a page on a topic that was currently attracting huge debate, vastly different opinions, and liable to attract lots and lots of disruptive edits. So, for certain very specific topics, we place an alert on all editors pages who have made edits to that topic. It formally advises them that we will tolerate far less disruption (from anyone) than we normally might. So, for example, making more than one revert in a 24 hr period on such a sensitive topic would be far more disruptive there than it would be on a less contentions subject, like the Mona Lisa. So, you've simply got a DS notice; should you subsequently act disruptively, you can't say you weren't warned when you get summarily blocked from editing. There's nothing personal in that notice at all. I would say that getting a DS Notice is rather like the old fashioned British method of 'Reading the Riot Act', although under the terrible situation we have been seeing this week, that metaphor is really rather too close for comfort. Take care, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:02, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Pasdecomplot The important thing is on the top line of the message you received: "It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date." It just to make you aware of the policies. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:07, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@Pasdecomplot: There are a few topics on Wikipedia which are prone to a higher volume of edit warring and controversial edits. Another area is post-1932 US politics. Like Joseph said, it's a form message warning editors planning on participating to not be reckless with their edits. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:05, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Are you still unable to access Talk:Killing of George Floyd or your watchlist? -- Hoary (talk) 23:24, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Hoary Yes. Cannot access talk, can read watchlist but not access posts. (No reply command here either. Direct entering reply in edit function.) -- pasdecomplot (talk) 12:31, 04 June 2020 (UTC) —Preceding undated comment added 12:11, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

pasdecomplot I can't think of any "reply command". (I'm editing this, now, just as I'd edit anything else.) When you look through your watchlist, it should have links to the articles concerned. When you click on these links, are you not taken to the articles? -- Hoary (talk) 12:37, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Hoary wrong nomenclature? The reply command box normally found on pages is not here on this Tea House question. Perhaps my mistake in assuming it should be. pasdecomplot (talk) 13:09, 04 June 2020 (UTC)

@Pasdecomplot: When you say you can't access Talk:Killing of George Floyd do you mean that you can't read it or that you can't edit it? You won't be able to edit that semi-protected page until your account is autoconfirmed, which will be later today. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

David Biddulph cc Hoary Thanks David. I was contributing to the protected article through suggestions, and accessing all functions of talk for follow up, but access was stopped. Thus, I thought something had changed. I look forward to regaining access and contributing. Again, thanks for all the comments and help to the question from all contributors.

pasdecomplot (talk) 13:14, 04 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, pasdecomplot, I took the liberty of looking at your global stats and recent en-wp contributions. It appears that you’re not active on French or Hungarian Wikipedias where they are trialling a new reply tool, and you normally use the mobile web interface with "advanced mobile contributions" (AMC) enabled. The only relevant Reply I can think of is the the one at the bottom of the "non-read-as-wiki-page" discussion view (I have no idea what this is called) after you tap into a topic/section. Is it possible you dropped into "read as wiki page" somehow? Unfortunately, I don’t think they add any tags to distinguish the two different modes. Following on from what David Biddulph said, the George Floyd talk page was protected for two days but is unprotected now, if I’m reading the log right. As Teahouse is in the Wikipedia: namespace rather than Talk:, I’m not sure if the mobile topic view (with its reply box) appears here? Pelagic ( messages ) Z – (10:24 Sun 07, AEST) 00:24, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

pelagic Hi and thanks. The issue have been related to auto-confirmation as well. Might English Wiki add the AMC interface? At present, I don't have access to some editing tools, nor to undue commands- periodically talk posts appear in duplicate, and undue commands generate errors in hop processes. Possibly the AMC interface would solve these issues. I'll take a look. But do you know whether or not plans are in place? Thanks again. pasdecomplot (talk) 15:15, 07 June 2020 (UTC)