Open main menu
Skip to top
Skip to bottom

Contents

Most recent archives
950, 951, 952, 953, 954, 955, 956, 957, 958, 959, 960, 961, 962, 963, 964, 965, 966, 967, 968, 969

(Please sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes like this: ~~~~.)

Accuracy of sourcesEdit

I am trying to add this page as a source to 2018 German Grand Prix which is comprised of 13 pages. However the next/previous page buttons are a little iffy. When you press these buttons it takes you to the correct url (the url I linked/page/page number) but it doesn't come up with any content until you refresh the page. Is it okay to only include the ref once or do I have to insert an unique reference for every page that I get info from. Thanks, SSSB (talk) 15:15, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello, SSSB. Thanks for calling into the Teahouse 'pitstop'. I can't quite replicate the problem you describe, but my view is always cite the exact url on which a stated fact is derived. Each of those 13 BBC live blogpost pages is quite long, so use the relevant one. If you state, say, five facts in a row, all of which are derived from one url, I'd say it is fine to use just one reference at the end of the sentence or paragraph. If you want to use one reference in multiple places, you can allocate a refname to each one (e.g. refname=BBC20181; refname=BBC2018p13) and call that named reference up again and again without having to type everything out again. You can read more on how to reuse a reference here: WP:REFNAME. Does this answer your question? Nick Moyes (talk) 15:44, 16 June 2019 (UTC)    
OK, thanks. SSSB (talk) 15:51, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

──── On a related note is it okay to only reference each page once in each section or do I have to do it at the end of evey sentence that includes information from that page. SSSB (talk) 16:15, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

@SSSB:My view would be that, if it's just general statements that are not likely to be deemed contentious, then once at the end of each paragraph is OK (not each section - that's not sufficient). However, if you're including information that is liable to be challenged, then you are well advised to add a citation after each sentence to support that content. Better to over reference than under reference, but finding the middle, sensible way is best. Here are two alternative perspectives for you to consider: Wikipedia:Citation overkill and Wikipedia:Citation underkill. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 17:11, 16 June 2019 (UTC)  

Untitled postEdit

I thank you for your generous invitation. I'm all for hearing/write (later analyze with Aristotle deductive logic or 1 of many form of modern logic) individuals unique perspectives. I have a question as to whether you think this would be useful for me as I'm very highly educated?! BS UofK Mathematics; (minor Architectural drafting. M.Sc. UofK Computational Physics xtra CH Mathematics. M.E. University Grad program 2nd Master's in Structural engineering. ( (Certified Recommended, Professional, PE, etc. Professional Engineer (Structural) Licensure - 18 years experience - Valid, Licensure is likely to be granted within 6 weeks in 4 states (Florida, Maryland, KY,AZ) Massachusetts, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New York, California, Texas. I write our 3 proprietary design/architectural/committee Software. I know 90% of the 12 most common Coding Languages retained w/o noticed effort because I'm writing software for 15-18 hrs weekly also updating/writing/patching for all 6 Office Locations. Also am Certified as C|EH Ethical Hacker. Cybersecurity Specialist, HTML5,CSS3,Python, JavaScript-2.0 Advanced Specialist. ∑ M=(ɣ)K = E/√1-V²× K²/C² — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fools.philosopher (talkcontribs) 19:28, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

  • @Fools.philosopher: - welcome to the Teahouse! Unfortunately, you see to have a somewhat murky comprehension of how Wikipedia works - as an encyclopedia, it is built upon material published in reliable sources. Any content added to Wikipedia articles must be accompanied with citations, so as to ensure the verifiablity of the encyclopedia, one of Wikipedia's pillars. Thus, your expertise, while appreciated, cannot be used in lieu of sources to justify edits. However, they will come in handy when trying to correctly interpret and provide a synopsis of sources. Wikipedia also needs to be parsable, so altering your register when editing, and writing in a more cogent, coherent fashion, would be helpful.
As a community, we welcome all people, irrespective of education, but expertise is very helpful when making edits to niche, complex areas. Your software skills will also not be of too much assistance, as Wikipedia is built upon a modified form of HTML, MediaWiki.
However, if you want to assist editors in curating an encyclopedia, you can edit in any area you find interesting. I would suggest joining the WikiProject of areas in which you wish to make contributions, and they will assist you in finding areas that could use improvement. It is a very rewarding experience, and I sincerely hope you reap this benefit and help enhance Wikipedia. Hope this helps, if you have any further questions do not hesitate to ask - Stormy clouds (talk) 21:03, 16 June 2019 (UTC).
Fools.philosopher, my blunt fellow Wikipedian is mostly correct. It's one of the best things about Wikipedia. Anyone can edit it. Everything here is paraphrased from reliable sources. It takes no qualifications. Where your qualifications can help is finding sources. And we write to an audience that we assume has some college education, not 12 year olds. But what we don't do is theorize, deduce, infer, etc. We simply report on what others have written. Also, we are all equal. Content is decided by consensus. In consensus building discussions, you can use the smarts that earned you those impressive credentials to format good arguments based in sources and Wikipedia policies and guidelines. What you can't do is claim your expertise as an argument. Everyone comes here with some level of misconception. Those who succeed here listen and internalize Wikipedia's culture. Those who don't hang on to their misconceptions and either grow so frustrated they quit, or end up getting their editing privileges revoked. I hope you are in the first group. John from Idegon (talk) 21:27, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
John from Idegon - the comment you reference has been removed by the IP editor who posted it. However, Fools.philosopher, the thrust of their argument, and my comment, and John's, all remain valid, and are worth considering as you embark on your editing adventure. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:41, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
I recommend Wikipedia:Expert editors. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:45, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

How do I add citation to undocumented events on Wikipedia?Edit

Hi, I'm pretty new to editing on wikipedia, less than a month of experience in fact! Hopefully you can help me.

As the title says, how do I remove (citation needed) tags if the event in question is almost completely undocumented? I am currently editing Al Ahly SC and there is a (citation needed) tag, it is about the Sultan Hussein Cup and when they first participated in it. The competition itself stopped almost 100 years ago now, and some of the teams which participated in it where British military teams (when they occupied Egypt) and there is nothing about them anywhere. Al Ahly allegedly participated in 1918, and in that year even the runners up aren't known.

I really want this article to be one of the best, but I can't if there is no information about it in the whole world. Ammar Elbehery (talk) 23:32, 16 June 2019 (UTC) (edit conflict)

  • @Ammar Elbehery: - In short, you don't. The only appropriate time to remove a citation needed tag is when you have added an appropriate reference for the material. This poses a problem for your predicament with Al Ahly SC, where you have content that you feel is unverifiable. However, veracity verifiability is a core pillar of Wikipedia, and material must be sourced. Though CN tags appear ugly on an article, a sentence with no citation or CN tag is inferior to one which has a CN tag. If you cannot find a citation, you have two options - move on, leaving the CN tag, and hope someone else finds a reference (someone added this material, presumably with cause, so there must be some evidence to support the claim), or remove the unsourced material entirely. Hope this helps, Stormy clouds (talk) 23:57, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
@Ammar Elbehery: Stormy clouds incorrectly wrote "veracity" was a pillar of Wikipedia; when the actual pillar is verifiability (as the link says). See Wikipedia:But it's true!. TigraanClick here to contact me 10:12, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
@Tigraan: - that is correct, and I have changed the wording to reflect this. Apologies, Stormy clouds (talk) 10:33, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • @Stormy clouds: Thanks for the info! The same "fact" also appears in the cup's article itself, so I think it's legitimate. But you can't cite other wikipedia articles and there is no citation on the cup's article. So I think I'm just going to remove that "fact" itself (sorry for my bad English; I'm not a native speaker) Ammar Elbehery (talk) 14:24, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Question about first articleEdit

Hello, I submitted my first article about three weeks ago. While I know that articles can potentially be under review for much longer, I was wondering if there are any extra steps I can take in order to heighten the chances that it be reviewed and approved?

Draft:Emmett Till: How She Sent Him and How She Got Him Back

Thank you. --Bgoodrich52 (talk) 23:50, 16 June 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bgoodrich52 (talkcontribs) 23:47, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

*I took the liberty of tidying up the link to your draft article. Thanks, Stormy clouds (talk) 23:59, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi @Bgoodrich52: One thing I noticed is that most of the references are discussing another piece of art that already has a Wikipedia article Open Casket and only briefly mentioning this one. With art, critical response from multiple, independent sources is a good way to demonstrate notability WP:GNG. As you wait for a review of your draft, I'd recommend collecting and including more critical commentary that discusses this artwork specifically. This team can also provide you with art-specific advice and guidance: WP:WPVA. Orville1974 (talk) 00:14, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

First attempt rejected, unsure what changes are required...Edit

Hi all,

I put together: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Merivale_Group and it's been rejected for not being formal enough and sounding "promotional". I've cited all the info included - a mix of news articles and info gleaned from the company website. If anything, I was worried that what I'd written was overly critical so I'm really confused about what changes are needed.

Is the listing of the company's holdings an issue? I thought it looked awkward but wasn't sure how else to include this info...?

TIA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.255.174.74 (talk) 03:04, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi! I just edited your draft. I added all of your reference details (publisher, article title, etc.), removed the promotional tone, and cleaned up the brochure-like list of amenities at two of the holdings. Do their other holdings have their own Wikipedia articles? I found one for the Newport Arms and added the "Wikilink" to it. Please look it over and add any comments on the article's talk page (you can get there by clicking on the talk tab at the top of the article). Orville1974 (talk) 05:22, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Kindly approve this wiki articleEdit

I just published a wikipedia article of well known indian indore poet and writer Wikipedia:wajid Shaikh after several verification process under Wikipedia terms kindly approve this article and protect from any deletion,

Declaration All researchs are real about wajid Shaikh kindly approve this article

Thank you Naimatsid — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naimatsid (talkcontribs) 04:53, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Naimatsid: Your draft was declined, yet inexplicably moved to the main space with the declined notice removed. I've restored the declined notice. I do not see where anything can be done to help your article meet Wikipedia standards, but you can request more guidance from the ask us a question link on the declined submission notice. It appears articles about this same subject have been through this same process multiple times in the last 6 months (declined, then moved to the main space anyway). Please don't move declined articles to the main space, and please don't remove declined submission templates. Thank you! Orville1974 (talk) 05:31, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
@Orville1974: I suspect the WP:SPI on Iwajidshaikh along with its Archive should be considered during resolving issues with this article. --CiaPan (talk) 09:07, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
"Salt" this topic? David notMD (talk) 10:58, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi! David notMD and CiaPan. It was speedied with a SALT request shortly after my reply above; I wan't aware of the SPI, but I'll add input there. Orville1974 (talk) 12:50, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Selling women for sex is classed as 'entertainment'?Edit

Hi everyone,

I wonder if you could help me. I have found something I think should be changed on the Wikipedia page about Osaka, Japan. Here is the page url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka Under 'entertainment' it mentions 'Tobita - A red light district'.

As someone who volunteers to help trafficked women out of the sex trade, I'm horrified that in this day and age when we realise that selling people isn't acceptable, a red light district would be put under the heading of entertainment.

Is there any way of changing the classification to put it in a category which is slightly less offensive? Or just deleting it altogether. I get that women's bodies (and possibly men's too) have been sold in that particular region for a long time, making it of historical interest, but it's still classing the objectification of human beings as 'entertainment', no matter how long it's been going on.

I'm not a programmer, a wiki editor or anything else, but I'm hoping someone with a similar realisation of how crass this classification is will be able to do something about it and stand up for the rights of those forced to work in the sex industry, by at least not putting it alongside going for a meal or to a nightclub.

Thank you! Jo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.117.101.245 (talk) 07:36, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jo, and welcome to the Teahouse! Thank you for bringing this up. I agree with you that a red-light district does not belong in a listing of "entertainment", and in fact I don't think it should be listed in the "Tourist attractions" section at all. I've removed it from there. Maybe it should be mentioned elsewhere in the article, I'll have a look at it to see where it might belong. In general, the best place to discuss article content is on the article's talk page (Talk:Osaka, in this case), just so you know for the future - it's certainly not prohibited to bring up such questions here, it's just that editors who are interested in a particular article probably won't see questions about it in the Teahouse. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 07:44, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
@Bonadea: OTOH, editors interested in fixing this kind of problems may not notice the request at a specific town article's talk page, whilst the issue may affect more than that one article. So I think the good approach would be both starting a talk there and putting a short message to interested editors here. :) CiaPan (talk) 08:59, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Although, of course, I agree that prostitution shouldn't be listed as entertainment, I am unsure about not classifying Tobita Shinchi as a tourist attraction. This area is a point of interest also because of the old building there built from the Taisho era. The red light district label in my view does not only mean a place where you can currently procure sex but it also indicates an aspect of the city's culture and history. For instance, the Taiyoshi Hyaku Ban-building, was a former brothel that has been converted to a restaurant.[1] The building is now a municipal cultural property. Japan's culture also includes traditions related to prostitution or women and men serving as entertainers (e.g. geisha, courtesans). I do not oppose the deletion, however, I suggest that we should always be mindful of the contexts. Darwin Naz (talk) 04:21, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

.

How can I upload article on any company/organisation?Edit

Hello there, I want to add an article regarding an IT company I visited. The purpose why I'm writing the article is I liked the work there and after searching online I didnt find any article related to the company so I decided to write it on my own for others who are seeking information about that company. kindly guide me the way out. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Out2Sol (talkcontribs) 10:30, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

@Out2Sol: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If you want to write about Out2Sol, you seem to have a conflict of interest in doing so; if you do, you will need to disclose that. Leaving that aside, successfully writing a new Wikipedia article is the most difficult task here. You would increase the odds of success if you spend a lot of time getting some experience under your belt editing existing articles in areas that interest you first, to get a feel for how Wikipedia works and what is being looked for. You should read Your First Article and use the new user tutorial to learn more about using Wikipedia. If you still want to attempt to write an article, you will need to use Articles for Creation.
Please note that Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about a company. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, where article subjects must be shown with independent reliable sources to meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability; for companies, that is written at WP:ORG. Not every company merits an article here, even within the same field. It depends on how much independent coverage there is- and that does not include press releases, staff interviews, the company website, or any other primary source. A good rule of thumb is that you should try to find three appropriate sources. 331dot (talk) 10:37, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
@Out2Sol: Regarding a description you gave to the initial version of Draft:Out2Sol (Detailed Profile of the company thank), please remember Wikipedia is NOT social media, it does not contain 'profiles'. Also, Wikipedia is NOT means of promotion, hence it is not interested what people, organizations, companies etc. want to say about themselves, but only what other – independent and reliable – sources say about them. --CiaPan (talk) 11:05, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
There is also a problem with your user name because it suggests that you represent the organisation. See WP:Usernames. Dbfirs 11:40, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

adding etymology to a page that doesn't currently have anyEdit

does this info go in the header block, the way foreign city names are listed

in (for example) pinyin, cantonese, and english?

or should there be a section near the end of the page titled etymology?

Longpinkytoes (talk) 10:57, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Longpinkytoes: The Wikipedia Manual of Style WP:MOS provides topic specific guidance on including etymology which differs depending on how relevant it is to the topic. Since I don't know the subject of the article you're asking about, I recommend looking there for more guidance. Orville1974 (talk) 13:00, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

New userEdit

Hello! I am a new editor here and had an interest in contributing to this encyclopedia. Although I created this account a few weeks back, I have not understood much about how can I contribute and similar details. Can you people help me with this? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hassan12345Asim (talkcontribs) 11:39, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Hassan12345Asim and welcome to the Teahouse. You have made one good contribution so far. You might like to try WP:The Wikipedia Adventure to get some practice. Ask again here if you need further guidance. We usually suggest that editors make some simple corrections to articles (as you have started doing), before trying to create a new article, but see WP:My first article when you are ready. Dbfirs 11:44, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Help:Introduction may also be of use. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:51, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Delaware's "Southern Status" Bigshawn75 (talk) 14:58, 17 June 2019 (UTC)Edit

Hello. As a Delaware Native who proudly considers himself a Yankee, as well as the vast majority of Delawareans, I find it frustrating that my home states regional status changes what seems like every 6 months. Within the past few months, Delaware's regional classification has once again been altered to classify it as a south region state. However, neighboring Maryland, which doesn't go as far north as Delaware, goes further south, and actually borders a former Confederate State (Virginia) is classified as a Mid Atlantic State. In fact, Delaware's official webpage describes it as a State in the Northeast region of the United states. Also, the tags at the bottom of the Delaware Wikipedia page are listed as "Northeast"/"Mid Atlantic"-no mention of the South region. With all due respect, this makes Wikipedia look disjointed and sloppy.


Could I please get assistance with updating this page?


Thanks in advance,

Bigshawn75 (talk) 14:58, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Bigshawn75, it seems we have the U. S. Census Bureau to blame for that designation. (It's footnoted in the article.) As you can see on this Census Bureau map, they include Delaware in the South Atlantic division of the South region. So our article on Delaware reflects its official designation. Schazjmd Talk 15:04, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Btw, you might also be interested in reading the discussion around Maryland's designation here. I haven't read through it yet, but it appears that the question generated a lot of passion. Schazjmd Talk 15:10, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

How to request to rename an article?Edit

How, my mate???


(PayBack 2, the letter B is not an official capitalisation) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoshuaReen (talkcontribs) 17:03, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

  • @JoshuaReen: - per this you are correct, so I have moved the page to the correctly spelling of the title as requested. Stormy clouds (talk) 17:44, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Awkward making changesEdit

I'm a little scared to correct content, out of fear of being wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.209.145.222 (talk) 18:11, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Can't break Wikipedia. If an editor disagrees with your changes, may get reversed. Step after that is to take it to the article's Talk page to start a discussion. Changes are tracked in View history, so nothing is lost - not what you changed, not your change, not the change back. (Okay, copying in copyright material is deleted from the article and from View history). Hope that helps you to be bold. David notMD (talk) 19:16, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
For example, I reverted both of your edits to Vertical farming because the content was covered in the references. David notMD (talk) 22:00, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Reliable sources for Evgeny ProkopenkoEdit

The subject is a well-known rock/pop drummer in Russia and moved to the US in 2016, so most of the sources are in Russian. I had to use Google translate to better understand them, then only used sources that I thought are good enough. However, the submission was declined for not using reliable sources. Most of the sources were old, passing the "time test," I guess, and many had his picture, and not just "casually" mentioning him. As you may know, bands are referred to in their band name, or the lead-singer gets quoted. Rarely, do we see drummers quoted or asked deep questions about their contribution. But that doesn't mean that they were an important contributor to the band's sound. In this case, with the demand and popularity of the drummer, there is something to be said about that. Should I list all the sources I a have been given, then someone can help me with which ones are reliable and which ones are not? I believe this is the URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kazmology/sandbox. Thank you for your help. I cannot wait to continue to contribute to the growth of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kazmology (talkcontribs)

Hello, Kazmology and welcome. I'm afraid music biographies are not my strong point, but as no one else has answered you, I'll try and give it a go for you! I do take your point about individual musicians not getting the same 'fame' as an entire band. Whilst you could use all the sources that you have been given (but see below), I fear he simply isn't going to make it under our WP:NMUSIC notability criteria. By way of example, it was only last year (after he had released a single on his own) that BTS band member Jungkook was eligible for an article here, and he's a darned sight better known than most foreign band members!
I am concerned you use the phrase "have been given" sources. This tends to suggest you have been given material to work from and are receiving payment for creating this article. Is this the case, or do you personally know this individual? If so, you inevitably have a Conflict of Interest which you should declare on your userpage, and you would also be obligated to declare under our policy (called Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure)) if someone is offering to pay you to create this article. (See the hyperlinks for these important policies). Other things that make me think you might have a direct connection with the subject are the plethora of wholly un-encyclopaedic and quite unacceptable peacock phrases like this one: "Evgeny became a well-known and very in demand session drummer. But his keen intellect and ability to make any song better with his creative musical interpretation landed him a place as drummer of Russian alternative rock band, Magnetic Anomaly in 2007[3]. Magnetic Anomaly were huge in Russia, and became the sound of an entire generation. So much so, that they were placed in the Russian rock history website". I would observe that Mr Prokopenko doesn't yet have an article about him on Russian Wikipedia, nor does the band he played in have a page here on English Wikipedia. Perhaps that would be the place to start? I'm sorry I can't be more positive about the likelihood of this draft article ever being accepted. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:49, 18 June 2019 (UTC)  

Requesting Feedback for Revised Article [help regarding notability and "advertisement" languageEdit

Hi! I recently drafted an article on a healthcare company named W Medical Strategy Group.

Upon review, there were two suggested issues: 1. that the topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for companies and organizations 2. that the article contains content that is written like an advertisement

I've made some revisions in both the content and citations that would address the things mentioned above.

I am asking for feedback and recommendations on how I could better prove notability and stray from a promotional writing style. Please help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by User6045 (talkcontribs) 18:34, 17 June 2019 (UTC) User6045 (talk) 18:37, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

"Icon"Edit

Hi, dear people, the term icon is unfortunately only mentioned in the article on it as a religious term. But i need the modern "icon" (to be named in an article) - for instance "icons of architecture", of media etc. - do you have a suggestion how i could get this managed? Would i first have to write an article on the modern use of the word "icon" and then have a disambiguation page? Would be much work for such a small detail? --Gyanda (talk) 18:54, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

ha, i answer my question self :-), i found the disambiguation page and will take cultural icon :-)--Gyanda (talk) 18:55, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Help needed with formattingEdit

Hi, dear people, okay, i'm translating a german wiki-article for the english wikipedia and i need help with formatting a quote. It's a quite complicated article with strange formatting - at least for me it is. Could someone be so kind to be my help for this article? That would be really great! Thanks in advance, --Gyanda (talk) 19:26, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Gyanda, someone may be more willing to volunteer to help if you provide a link to the article in question, or more details about what the issue is. signed, Rosguill talk 22:44, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your answer. The article i want to translate is in german Architekturikone [de] - i already started with the work here: [in my space here on the english wikipedia] - it's just a bit complicated with the quotes and the list - i never had a list before in an article. So it would be kind to have someone as a backup, whom i could ask, if it doesn't work out. Kind regards, --Gyanda (talk) 23:12, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Gyanda, I went ahead and added the table that I assume you were having trouble with, and also left some instructions for how to edit it. Let me know if you need any more help. signed, Rosguill talk 23:20, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Fantastic! Thank you very much! I asumed, i had to do all on my own. Will work on it tomorrow. Oh, i always work with source-editing-mode, it helps me to understand. Okay, will work on it tomorrow and if i get stuck - thanks that i may ask you! Kind regards, --Gyanda (talk) 00:32, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

How to change an article's class?Edit

Hello. I know that every article on the mainspace is assigned a rating (Featured article, B-class, stub, etc.). I have created an article some time ago, and I was wondering when/how the ratings will change as I add more content (of good quality, of course). Do I need to request to have my article (re-)evaluated? Do users or bots constantly go around updating an article's class as the article changes? Thank you! William2001(talk) 22:00, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

William2001 It's done by editors, and can be carried out more easily with this script. Classes stub-through-B can be assigned freely by any editor, although B-class has specific criteria that need to be evaluated against before it should be assigned. Getting articles to Good or Featured status requires a submission to the WP:GA or WP:FA process. For more information, see WP:QUALITY. signed, Rosguill talk 22:05, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
I see. Thank you! William2001(talk) 22:43, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

IP userEdit

Hi, this IP user User:118.136.114.253 seems on a solo mission to make all the food articles in South East Asia region to looks like it originated from Indonesia and remove anything that says otherwise. I am not sure where to go to report it or if an admin should intervene or not. There are a lot of articles in the contribution list and I cant look at them all to see if all of them are malicious editing. Help, please. Froswo (talk) 22:20, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Froswo, WP:AIV is the place to report vandalism. I see that you also left a warning on their talk page, which is the correct procedure, although it probably won't accomplish much in this case. In the meantime, I would suggest reverting the changes that are clearly inappropriate. If they continue to make these edits without responding to your attempts to engage them, it'll be a more clear-cut case for the admins. If the problem persists, you may want to consider requesting page protections for the affected pages, although given the wide breadth of topics affected, this may not be the best solution. signed, Rosguill talk 22:26, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is vandalism as I'm not sure if the facts are (deliberately) false. I have posted to the incidents noticeboard. William2001(talk) 22:54, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Rosguill William2001 I've seen the IP had been blocked. Thank you both for the advice and help. Froswo (talk) 02:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

PlagiarismEdit

New England Historic Genealogical Society is largely plagiarized from its website. It is very low on citations and reads as a bit verbose/flowery/promotional.
1. I was thinking revise/cite/revise (removing what I couldn't cite), but I would like to know how experienced Wikipedians would approach it.
2. Is it preferable to put a "citation needed" tag if I can't find something, or is it OK to remove the claim if I have made a good effort to find it?
3. Should claims about the site's popularity be taken from an independent source? Because I'm thinking it may just come from its website.
Thanks.--DiamondRemley39 (talk) 23:46, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi @DiamondRemley39: I'm sorry to say that the history and Great Migration sections had to be wiped since they were a copyright violation in their present form, and no amount of tweaking would have helped. The rest of the article needs the exact tweaks you mentioned, though. I usually go through an article, trying to find sources for what I can, and leaving {{cn}} tags for the rest (unless it's a biography of a living person, in which case I'm much more stringent on what remains behind). If there are a lot of citations needed when I'm done, I usually add the inline citations needed template to the top of the article, too. Orville1974 (talk) 00:25, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that, @Orville1974: I will get to work shortly. It'll take me some time to go through and rephrase everything that should be to make it a decent article. One more question... if other sentences are lifted from other sources verbatim, or nearly so, should those be removed immediately, as you have done with those two sections, or should it be tagged that a rewrite is needed, or simply wait for rewrite? If tagged, is there a "rewrite this copyrighted content" tag I can use? Thanks for giving this your attention--the Teahouse is great for relative newbies like me!--DiamondRemley39 (talk) 01:08, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Also, as for the site's popularity question, the statistics should not come from a primary source (them). If the website really is the most widely used genealogical resource in the country (which would surprise me--Ancestry .com?), I'm sure there are independent sources talking about it. Orville1974 (talk) 00:57, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Good to know. Yes, Ancestry.com, Familysearch.com, findagrave.com, etc. are all almost certainly much more visited.--DiamondRemley39 (talk) 01:08, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi again @DiamondRemley39: I'm glad we've been able to help! Preferably, those sentences should be rewritten by you as you discover them in an appropriate form (paraphrase/summarize in your own words), if at all possible. Otherwise, they should be removed as well. Orville1974 (talk) 01:21, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Editing a Page on Behalf of an Individual or Finding Someone to Edit/Add InformationEdit

Hi -- I am inquiring about how to edit/update information on behalf of an individual I am working with.

Please also let me know if there are people who I can submit information to for updates.

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knastro (talkcontribs) 00:33, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

@Knastro: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If you are editing on someone's behalf, you should review the conflict of interest policy; if you are being compensated in any way(not just money) you need to review the paid editing policy.
You will need to suggest any changes you feel are needed using edit requests on the article talk page. 331dot (talk) 00:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Weirdly formatted articleEdit

  Helped

I stumbled across the article for Will Hudson today. It is formatted rather oddly. The page has a notice about this. I started editing it today but a lot more work is needed. There are many lists, quite a bit of trivia info, and even a section for abbreviations within the article. Should certain things just go? What would you suggest? Thank you, Teahouse hosts!--DiamondRemley39 (talk) 01:17, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello, DiamondRemley39. Welcome to the Teahouse, and sorry for the long wait for a reply. Yes, it is rather weirdly constructed and needs to have a lot of trivia and uncited content cleared out to make it a more readable, encyclopaedic article. The lead could be shortened and references moved into the body, and all the tangential information deleted. By way of example:
Singers with the Will Hudson Orchestra
Hudson led his own band from 1939 to about 1941. Singers included:
  • Kay Kenny
  • Elisse Cooper (née Mabel Elisse Cooper; 1914–19620), who, in 1944 married saxophonist Joseph Gabriel "Gabe" Gelinas (1910–1949)
  • Jayne Dover (née Jane Rappaport), while signing with Van Alexander Orchestra, the she married Martin Melcher, who had been doing publicity for the band[2]
  • Ruth Gaylor
could be reduced to
Singers with the Will Hudson Orchestra
Hudson led his own band from 1939 to about 1941. Singers included: Kay Kenny, Elisse Cooper, Jayne Dover,[2] and Ruth Gaylor.
But I do wonder whether even this level of detail of non-notable names is actually that relevant at all?. I would also turn the bloated discography section into a single line per song etc. I note a discrepancy in his stated birth year - is it 1908 or 1909? Some of his early life content is scattered elsewhere in the article, so I'd collate that together. I wasn't aware that World War 2 started in 1941, so I'd think of either removing those three sub-section headings entirely, or choosing better names for them. To me, the referencing system and layout is a mess, but I am aware there are other ways of constructing articles with different referencing systems from the inline citation systems that I and most other editors use. I'll be honest and say that I've still not summoned up the mental courage to come to properly understand them, so I'm a little wary of saying 'change the referencing system' as we always give priority to what was first used in the article. Others here might wish to comment on that. Personally, I'm not hugely interested in most biographies here, but others certainly are. So you could try seeking input at Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians. Good luck! Nick Moyes (talk) 23:05, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.japan-experience.com/city-osaka/tobita-shinchi
  2. ^ a b From Harlem to Hollywood: My Life in Music, by Van Alexander, BearManor Media (2009); OCLC 501820074
Thanks, Nick Moyes! I took it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians as you suggested and though they have not yet replied, a couple of people have edited the article, and someone added an infobox, so it's already looking much better. Here's to a better article! DiamondRemley39 (talk) 14:39, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

The page on how to promote an article to current events makes no senseEdit

Given a lack of media attention to the recent unrest in Sudan, I think the article's section on the year 2019 should be promoted to the front page current events. A military dictatorship is passing power to an undemocratic successor.and soldiers are firing on crowds. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudan I don't understand how to suggest this. From this page I gather Im supposed to insert some code but Im not sure where.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates

Slme help understanding the above page would be welcome. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.66.218.94 (talk) 03:10, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse, 64.66.218.94.
If this is your first time, I can see where it might be unclear on what to do. As with many things on Wikipedia, one of the best ways to figure out how to do something is to look at what others have done before. If click on the "edit" button next to a date with existing entries, you can see what an earlier editor has added to the section in order to nominate a page for inclusion.
<!-- All news items below this line -->
;Armed conflicts and attacks
*[[Boko Haram]]
**Three [[Boko Haram]] suicide bombers [[2019 Borno bombings|detonate their devices]] among a group of football fans, killing 30 people and wounding 40 others, in [[Konduga]], [[Nigeria]]. [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-48660150 (BBC)]
So you find the place where you want to insert your suggestion, and place the wiki link (double square brackets) to the page after a single asterisk.
After that, you insert suggested text for the news blurb and reasons for including it, starting with a double asterisk.
Other editors may comment on whether or not your suggestion should be included and you can respond with further explanations if you think that will help. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 03:35, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Welcome to the Teahouse, 64.66.218.94. Everything jmcgnh has said above is correctly. As a regular editor at WP:ITN/C, I can hopefully provide insight into your specific idea for a nomination. The first thing to note is that this rationale (Given a lack of media attention to the recent unrest in Sudan) is not a valid reason to post an item at ITN. In The News serves to provide rapid access to high quality articles which readers will be searching for as they are, well, in the news. It does not seek to right great wrongs, and has to be diplomatic regarding point of view. Now, as far as a nomination, you would need a well sourced standalone article for the unrest, rather than nominating Sudan as a whole - this article, perhaps.
  • However, the odds of success for such a nomination are low, for the reason you alluded to - a lack of media coverage. This means you will struggle to find appropriate citations from reliable sources, and it also means that there is an argument that the story itself is not in the news, disqualifying it entirely. I personally have seen minimal coverage of the event, and the article linked above has no major update regarding your claim, meaning there is no blurb. An Ongoing nomination is also a possibility, but it is unclear if the article is receiving sufficiently substantive updates to merit such a listing. Thus, unfortunately, I see it as unlikely that the item can be posted through ITN/C. However, don't allow me to deter you - anyone can nominate at ITN/C, using the template given below:
==== Nomination header ====
{{ITN candidate
| article       = <!-- Do not wikilink -->
| article2      = <!-- Do not wikilink - leave blank if nominating only one article -->
| image         = <!-- Name of image only; do not link. Please crop the image before adding, if necessary. -->
| blurb         = <!-- Add your suggestion of the blurb; should be written in simple present tense. -->
| recent deaths = no <!-- (yes/no); instead of specifying a blurb the nomination can be for the "Recent deaths" line -->
| ongoing       = no <!-- (add/rem/no); instead of specifying a blurb the nomination can be for the "Ongoing" line -->
| altblurb      = <!-- An alternative blurb. Leave blank if not needed -->
| altblurb2     = <!-- A second alternative blurb. Leave blank if not needed -->
| altblurb3     = <!-- A third alternative blurb. Leave blank if not needed -->
| altblurb4     = <!-- A fourth alternative blurb. Leave blank if not needed -->
| sources       = <!-- Include one or more references from verifiable, reliable sources. -->
| updated       = <!-- (yes/no); Leave blank if you aren't sure -->
| updated2      = <!-- (yes/no); only if there's a second article and article2 is filled in! Leave blank if unsure -->
| nominator     = {{subst:REVISIONUSER}} <!-- Do NOT change this -->
| creator       = <!-- Username of the editor who created the article -->
| updater       = <!-- Username of an editor who significantly updated the article -->
| updater2      = <!-- if more than one updater -->
| updater3      = <!-- if more than two updaters -->
| ITNR          = no <!-- 'No' by default. Only put in 'yes' if the event is listed at WP:ITNR -->
| nom cmt       = <!-- Add the reason for nominating the item and/or any problems. -->
| sign          = ~~~~ <!-- Do NOT change this -->
}}
  • You can create a nomination by going to the correct date, and filling in the template above. Hope this helps, do not hesitate to ask any further questions, Stormy clouds (talk) 10:18, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Fair use photo of missing personsEdit

I am struggling with uploading images of a missing person for an article. Photos are on FBI and National Center for Missing and exploited children , so I feel they would fall under fair use rules. Cannot seem to get them to go through in upload wizard, can someone point me in the right direction? --Jewelsmc (talk) 03:20, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jewelsmc. All image files are subject to Wikipedia:Image use policy, but there are additional restriction placed upon non-free files. The concept of fair use and Wikipedia's concept of non-free content are slightly different things as explained in Wikipedia:Non-free content#Background. Copyrighted content is allowed to be uploaded and used on Wikipedia, but each use is required to satisfy Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, and there are ten individual criteria which need to be satisfied for a use to be considered to policy compliant.
Generally, a non-free picture of an individual is only allowed when the subject is deceased and there is no reasonable expectation that a free equivalent image (either public domain or freely licensed) can be either created or found. It doesn't have to be a free version of the exact image, just a free image which is capable of serving the pretty much the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free one. Fo reference, non-free pictures of still-living persons are almost never allowed except in certain circumstances like those given in item 1 of Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images_2. A non-free image of a "missing person" might be allowed even if they are still considered to be living, if it can be reasonably demonstrated that a free equivalent can neither be found nor created; however, this would only be likely when the image is being used for primary indentification purposes at the top of or in the main infobox of a stand-alone Wikiepdia article about the individual in question, and other types of non-free uses or uses in other types of articles is going to be much harder to justify.
I apologize for being a bit general in my response, but it's hard to provide you with any more specific information without knowing what the actual file is, how it's going to be used and which article(s) it's intended to be used. You can also most likely get a more specific response either at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions or perhaps even at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content criteria. Uploading a non-free file is not a very technically complicated thing to do, but it's probaby best to figure out whether the intended use(s) are going to be policy compliant first. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. The images, there are 2, would be used in the infobox only. One image of the missing person at the time of her disappearance and an age progression photo from the NCMEC website. This is new to me and I have the rest of the article figured out, the uploading and approving of images read like ikea instructions to me. Again, thank you for pointing me in the right direction. I very much want to get her information in a place where so many can see it and perhaps offer information.
Jewelsmc (talk) 02:51, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi again Jewelsmc. I think it might be a good idea for you to take a look at Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause, Wikipedia:Tendentious editing#Righting great wrongs, Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything, Wikipedia:Ownership of content and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion because it kind of sounds like you might misunderstanding what Wikipedia is all about. A Wikipedia:Article is only intended to be written about subject deemed to be Wikipedia notable, and the content of a Wikipedia article is only intended to reflect content found in reliable sources which can be verified through citations. An article is not intended to be a free web host for gathering information or serve as a noticeboard/forum where people can post things which might help lead to finding a missing person. I'm afraid if you tried to create such an article that it would end up getting deleted rather quickly as not being in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. You might be better off trying a website such a Wikia or even Facebook if you hoping to create a place where people can post information which might help in finding this person. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:26, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Personal attacksEdit

On the Talk:Pallava dynasty page a user called "LovSLif" has been making racist comments on me. This isn't the first time he's doing it. I'd sufficiently intimated him to not do so. But he's done it now plenty of times violating good faith. Who can take action against him? Where can I complain? Please help me. I am a new user, and I am sick and tired of such remarks. Please do something about it, I beseech you. Also I'd proposed the inclusion of some data with apt citations which had existed on the Wikipedia page previously. The same user has removed it a few months ago. Nobody reverted. But I did. So now the page has been protected since the past 4 days. When I responded to arguments, deliberately to delay the changes to be made on the page, he's threatened to take it to the Dispute Noticeboard. Also, assuming me to be of a particular ethnic stripe, he's been attacking me. That's quite racist. Please take a look. Thank you!

Regards,

Destroyer27 (talk) 13:22, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi Destroyer27 Greetings. I have a quick read at the talk page provided and see no WP:PERSONALATTACK from User:LovSLif but content dispute , reliable source, what should be added and size of the info added. Pls bring this issue to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard and state your case. Thank you CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:40, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Dear User:CASSIOPEIA,
Please read it carefully. The final comments made by User:LovSLif were racist. Assuming that I'm of a particular ethnic stripe, he's been attacking me, this violating good faith. Also other than that he's made several more awful comments, rather than addressing the issue.
Hi Destroyer27 Pls provide section and what was exact comment were made.Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:50, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pallava_dynasty?markasread=164974632&markasreadwiki=enwiki#Origins_section
Here, right at the bottom. For instance, he says 'why not include' when the points he feels contented with tamil zeal, simply shooting in air with lucid statement which themselves either contradict with his own perceptions/other comments with no head and tail, the same newspaper article states '42% of Tamilnadu is telugu people' will you still feel news articles better. just bcz it doesnt satisfy your zeal, and so on.
Destroyer27 (talk) 13:22, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi Destroyer27 Thank you for the info above. Personal attack would include legal threat, physical harm, "Abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases based on race, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, age, religious or political beliefs, disabilities, ethnicity, nationality" and etc. To state a person " 'Tamil zeal" is not a personal attack (not a racist attack) nor statements you included above. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:20, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
I see. Thanks for the clarification. I was afraid I can't respond to that. To say the least, it would be a violation of good faith. He was suggesting that I am making those edits on the page motivated by my ethnic fervour, which is certainly not true. I fail to understand why he sees this issue as a conflict of languages though. Would you recommend someone who can mediate our conversation even-handedly?


Destroyer27 (talk) 13:22, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  • @Destroyer27: - having perused the talk page you linked to, I agree with CASSIOPEIA that there are been no racist personal attacks made against you. Remember to assume good faith while editing. I would also note that is worth considering WP:BOOMERANG when making such claims which are likely to be inflammatory (courtesy ping for @LovSLif:. Irrespective of my reading of the talk page, the Teahouse is not the appropriate avenue to make such allegations of personal attacks, or to air such grievances. What is notable from the talk page, and edit history, however, is that you are engaged in an edit war, which led Abecedare to protect the page. Please read WP:WAR, and take appropriate steps to remove yourself from the edit war. As CASSIOPEIA mentioned, trying to resolve the dispute at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard is a good idea, and will hopefully prevent escalation. Hope this helps, Stormy clouds (talk) 09:50, 18 June 2019 (UTC). (Also, a minor point regarding signatures. Please sign posts with four tildes (~~~~), rather than pasting a previous signature, as it makes the timestamp incorrect (or else you are stuck in a frozen time vortex a few hours in the future). Thanks)
Thanks CASSIOPEIA and Stormy clouds for clarifying on the same to Destroyer27.
As you said my concern is only with 'reliable content'/'size of the content'/'WP:NPOV' and 'to safegaurd righteous data' with righteous order of emphasis. I took considerable time explaining point by point over all the speculations considering Destroyer27 being new user. I even ignored the derogatory comments made by the user. His comments may rather fall under 'personal attacks'. Below are a few such comments made by the user. Please have a look.
-'On a serious note, you must change your username from "LovSLif" to "HateSLif'
-'That said this guy is absolutely bigoted, and obviously he has never been to school, and I urge you to somehow placate his ethnic fervour'
-'After all, when one rummages through a dung heap even a plastic bead glimmers like pearl'
-'If you have some sense of shame, do not engage with me'.


By LovSLif (talk) 15:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)


Hi LovSLif. As Teahouse is not the platform for the above matter, I do suggest you (1) for dispute on content added, fill at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard to end this issue as it seems no consensus agreement resulted in the talk page discussion from both of you but on going warring and (2) as the comments made by Destoryer while not considered personal attack as per Wikipedia's guidelines but rather a put-down, sarcasm, uncivil, insult and disrespectful comments, if you wish, you would report Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard for admins intervention to end this uncivil communication.
(courtesy ping to @Destroyer27:), Destoryer27, the above is WP:BOOMERANG inflammatory effect which per Stormy clouds stated. Always address/comment on the edits but not the editors and always be [Wikipedia:Civility|civil]] as this civility and respect is one of the cores Wikipedia's code of conduct and it is one of five pillars of Wikipedia. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 03:31, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Chef Dante BoccuzziEdit

Hi...

Where should I go to format my article correctly? For example, when I go to Chef Michael Symon's wiki- everything has a title and is separated out by categories. Where is that template?

My content for the body is ready to go, I am hoping it gets approved this time... — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClevelandDante (talkcontribs) 11:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi @ClevelandDante: Courtesy Link: User:ClevelandDante/sandbox. - The formatting of the article is not the issue. The reviewer has commented on the article's lack of third-party, independent sources that lend the subject notability. You'll need to provide sources that cover the subject in detail per our notability guidelines: WP:GNG. Otherwise, your article will not meet Wikipedia standards for publication. This other draft on the same subject has been declined for the same reason: Draft:Dante Boccuzzi. Once you are able to find and add the appropriate sources, to add the headings you're asking about, you can select the appropriate heading level in the visual editor, or add "=" signs around the headings you want to create. This page will give you more guidance on how that works: MOS:HEAD. Orville1974 (talk) 11:43, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

When will my article be publishedEdit

Dear Teahouse team, I am pleased to e-meet with you and be able to ask direct questions. I wrote an article about Zadig Abraha, former spokesperson and Minister of Media and Communication Delivery Unit to PM Minister Hailemariam Desalegn and PM Abiy Ahmed of Ethiopia. I was under the impression that it'd be published online after 96 hours (needed for Wikipedia to do the necessary fact and notability checks etc before it's published). I see that it is not published. So I thought I'd ask you why you think that might be the case. I read about having to make ten edits. Does it mean I have to make ten edits to this same article or do you mean editing as in writing ten other articles of this kind before being acknowledged as a Wikipedia writer? I am sure I will write hundreds in the future, but at this time I am writing a dissertation, so I might not be able to write ten such researched articles right now.

I look forward to hearing from you. Best, ZeBiographer — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZeBiographer (talkcontribs) 12:55, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

@ZeBiographer: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You have edited your user page, which is not article space and is not meant for developing a draft article. User pages are not indexed by search engines. I assume that is what you mean by "published"; the page is "published" in the sense that it is present on your user page, but it is not formally part of the encyclopedia. You will need to submit your draft for review using Articles for Creation, but you should not do so yet, as it has no independent reliable sources to support its content(no sources at all, actually). Wikipedia is only interested in what independent sources state about article subjects, so you will need to add these to your draft. You can find information on how to do this at WP:CITE. You may also find it helpful to read Your First Article
I notice that your username has "biographer" in it; do you work for Zadig Abraha? If so, you will also need to review and comply with the conflict of interest and paid editing policies. 331dot (talk) 13:03, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
@ZeBiographer: I do see that a copy was moved to Draft:Zadig Abraha; I can add the appropriate information to allow you to submit it for review, but again, you should not do so yet as it will be rejected. 331dot (talk) 13:07, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hello @ZeBiographer: and welcome to the Teahouse. As a first step I have moved your draft article to Draft:Zadig Abraha from your user page. Your user page is intended for brief information about yourself, as relevant to your editing activities - it is absolutely not required that you disclose any personal details at all, but if you want to do that, your user page is the place for it. See WP:USERPAGE for more information. As for the article you started, it has not been reviewed since it wasn't submitted for review. When you would like to submit it, please place the template code {{subst:submit}} on the article; this will flag it for review by one of the volunteer reviewers. It will probably take a lot more than 96 hours, though. Before you submit the article for review, please have a look at this information; currently, the article has no list of references, which is required. There are some external links in the article text, which is not appropriate - if those are in fact the sources for the article, you'll need to convert them into references (again, plenty of information about that on the page I linked just above). Also make sure that the article is written in a neutral tone. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 13:07, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Another thing: you asked I read about having to make ten edits. Does it mean I have to make ten edits to this same article or do you mean editing as in writing ten other articles of this kind before being acknowledged as a Wikipedia writer?. It refers to making ten edits to any article - it doesn't mean creating new articles, just editing a few times to learn how the encyclopedia works, basically. Wikipedia editing is much more about improving, developing, and maintaining existing articles, than creating new ones, and as a new editor it's a good idea not to start creating brand new articles straight off, since that's one of the most difficult things to do here. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 13:39, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

VandalismEdit

What happens if you attempt to vandalise a Wikipedia article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.2.17.57 (talk) 13:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Your vandalism is quickly reverted, and you get a warning. Repeated vandalism results in a block. Dbfirs 13:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
And if you then are still vandalising, the blocks will get longer and probably affect others in your network. Jannik Schwaß (talk) 19:38, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

3RREdit

  Helped

Does 3RR rule affect Rollbackers? -- CptViraj (📧) 13:26, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, CptViraj it would indeed if applied to anything other than reverting clear vandalism. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:31, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes: Ooh, Thanks! -- CptViraj (📧) 13:35, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Why was my page deletedEdit

Hello, yesterday I created a page that was deleted, but I really do not understand why, because I think it followed all the rules given above: Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone—subject to certain terms and conditions.

And also I have seen pages like what I have created.

Is it possible that someone explains to me why was it deleted? thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rusudan Panozishvili (talkcontribs) 13:56, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Rusudan Panozishvili: There's a notice on your talk page here: User talk:Rusudan Panozishvili with the rationale for deletion (it appeared to be a very promotional article containing unambiguous advertising). You can follow the link on the notice to get more details or request restoration of the article to your sandbox, from the deleting administrator. Orville1974 (talk) 14:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
@Rusudan Panozishvili: As an administrator I can view deleted pages, and I can confirm the draft was promotional in nature. It did little more than tell about the organization and was sourced to nothing other than associated websites. Wikipedia is only interested in what independent reliable sources state about article subjects. Primary sources like the organization's own website do not establish that this organization meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable organization, written at WP:ORG(Please review).
Beware in citing other articles you see; as this is a volunteer project, it is possible for inappropriate pages to exist here, sometimes for years. If you are aware of other inappropriate articles, feel free to point them out so they can be addressed. 331dot (talk) 14:09, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for explanation, here's something that I want to understand: the name of this page was "green alternative" and if you look for this name with wiki you will see at least 20 same type of pages on wikipedia of organizations, working in various fields, that are arranged exactly the same way I did: they introduce one specific organization (political, social, etc - mine was environmental) and include very brief info about it. So was mine - I actually took other pages as an example and if you search I believe there are hundreds, if not thousands, of wiki pages about organizations (particularly the organization I created the page for was about the 1 of only 2 environmental organizations, non-profit, working in the country of Georgia and people would really really be searching them through wiki). So with all the explanation I do not understand why this is defined as a promotion solely and others are not. And the 2nd issue: In that page references I had included 2 sources - 1 website and 1 from other international organization (Bankwatch), so I don't believe what you wrote about citing only own website is accurate... However, I could add lot more sources of course if you noted it to me. I thought they were enough. So can you please explain if what shows it to you promotional is only concerning to the sources and if not, what else? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rusudan Panozishvili (talkcontribs) 14:33, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
The others might very well be promotional too, I have not examined them all and do not have time to do so at present. This is why each article or draft is judged on its own merits. Two sources, when one is the organization's own website, do not establish notability as I state above. Wikipedia is only interested in what independent sources state. I regret that I do not have more time at present to go into detail about this, but there are many other good users here who can and will. 331dot (talk) 14:37, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

NATO Defense College Foundation ReviewEdit

I'm Federica Lollo, and I wrote an article about the NATO Defense College Foundation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Federica_Lollo/sandbox). After a first review by the user "KVNG," my piece was rejected. As requested, I added in the secondary sources required for page verification. I would like to request a second review to see if the page can be published. Thanks in advance.

Kind Regards,

Federica — Preceding unsigned comment added by Federica Lollo (talkcontribs) 14:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Federica Lollo If you are referring to Draft:NATO Defense College Foundation, you can simply resubmit it by clicking the blue "Resubmit" button in the notice at the top of the draft. 331dot (talk) 14:16, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
331dot Thank you very much!

Unreliable sources?Edit

Hello, I have created an academic profile and it was declined with the main issue being that my sources are unreliable. Can anyone please elaborate more? I am trying to create a profile like these ones: Prof. Daskalakis and Prof. Papadrakakis. I cannot see these carrying more reliable sources than mine. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.80.232.20 (talk) 14:28, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. It is difficult to provide specific help without you linking to the draft involved as I don't see it in the edit history of your IP address(if you have an account, remember to log in before editing). However, you use of the term "profile" suggests to me that you don't understand the purpose of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a place to merely tell about someone or something. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is only interested in what independent reliable sources with significant coverage state about article subjects that meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability(for people, that is written at WP:BIO, please review). Those sources must be independent of the subject and have a reputation of editorial control and fact checking. Social media or personal websites are not acceptable for establishing notability.
The articles that you cite seem equally unacceptable, as they also lack sources. Beware in citing other articles to support the existence of your own; other similar articles existing does not automatically mean that yours can too. Each is judged on its own merits. 331dot (talk) 14:34, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Question about an Articles for Deletion pageEdit

I came across Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ring (programming language), and I'm a bit confused. There doesn't seem to be any consensus reached in the page, but it was closed as "keep", citing WP:SNOW, which doesn't seem to apply. Why was this? Merlin04 (talk) 15:53, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

In addition, the edit to the AfD page was the user's first edit. Merlin04 (talk) 15:54, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
A different user just deleted the AfD box on the article page, is that OK since the discussion was closed? Merlin04 (talk) 16:00, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Never mind, it turned out that it shouldn't have been closed and User:Praxidicae re-opened it. Merlin04 (talk) 16:15, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Clueless Newbie's First PageEdit

I have accessed your helpful page with instructions for creating and editing a page, but my question is asking for advice. My boss has asked me to create a page for our new business, and I would like to do it correctly from the start. I searched our business' name, and it doesn't exist on Wikipedia, so I believe I'm good to go. Are there any pitfalls I should be aware of before beginning? Advice is most appreciated! — Preceding unsigned comment added by James Thies (talkcontribs) 20:47, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Before creating any article you ought to read the advice at WP:Your first article, and about a company the notability criteria at WP:NCORP, but for your business you need to read about conflict of interest and paid editing. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:54, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
@James Thies: (edit conflict) Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The best thing I can suggest to you is that you not attempt to write an article(not just "page") about your business. You seem to have a fundamental misconception about what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a forum to merely tell about a business. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is only interested in what independent reliable sources state about article subjects that meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability; in the case of a business, that is written at WP:ORG. (please review). Wikipedia is not interested in what a business wants to say about itself.
Furthermore, successfully creating a new article is difficult for most editors, but more so for those with a conflict of interest. You are also a paid editor since you are here at the direction of your boss. You are required by Wikipedia's Terms of Use to comply with that policy. As you have a conflict of interest, you should not directly edit about your business. There are indirect ways to do so- but only if your business meets the criteria(again, WP:ORG). The fact that you state that the business is new is also problematic, as Wikipedia is not for spreading the word about new businesses. Businesses must already be notable to merit articles here. Not every business merits an article here, even within the same field. It all depends on the coverage in independent sources. Sources like the company website, staff interviews, press releases, routine announcements, and other primary sources do not establish notability.
I know this is a lot of information, and I apologize- but again, in short, you should not attempt to write about your business. Feel free to show this message to your boss if it helps you. 331dot (talk) 20:56, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, James Thies. Here is a slightly different view. Your boss has given you an assignment that, while not impossible, is exceptionally difficult and fraught with peril. The very first thing that you must do is comply completely and fully with the mandatory Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. Then, read the guideline Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and follow it closely. Your next step is to read and study Your first article. I suggest that you read it in full several times. Also study the Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Wikipedia is not a platform for advertising, marketing or promotion. As a paid editor, you are not permitted to place the article directly into the encylopedia. Instead, you need to write a draft article and use the Articles for Creation process, where uninvolved editors review your draft, and either approve it or decline it.
Begin by assembling a list of significant coverage of your company in reliable, independent sources. Being independent is very important. That rules out your company website and anything that results from press releases or your company's promotional and marketing activities. Write a draft that neutrally summarizes what these reliable independent sources say about your company and submit it for review. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:19, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
James Thies, I just noticed that you described the company as "new". Unless your new company has received exceptionally significant coverage in major business media outlets, it is simply not possible to write an acceptable Wikipedia article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:24, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Can any of you help me on my article?Edit

I’m making an article, but I’m using mobile so I can’t make an infobox or table. Mind if you can help out a little but? Maybe add an infobox? Thanks 2600:387:1:813:0:0:0:B3 (talk) 21:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello IP editor, and welcome to the Teahouse. Over the last year I've had to do much of my editing from a mobile phone, but I always ensure I'm editing in 'desktop' view, and never in 'mobile view'. You can find a tiny link at the bottom of the page to make the switch. It might be a little bit fiddlier with a small screen, but adding infoboxes in source editor, and simple tables via [[W{:VE|Visual Editor]] is still pretty easy to do from a phone. Sorry I can't offer to help out with the article, itself. I don't know how many US natural disasters there were in 2018, but don't forget you might wish to edit List of natural disasters in the United States instead, or add content to this section of Geography of the United States. It's important that you don't try to duplicate existing articles. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:13, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm going to add to what Nick said - there don't seem to be any annual disaster lists in the US. I did see 2017–18 North American cold wave but nothing that suggests the average reader is going to be looking for a subset of 2018 disasters. The material could be put into individual articles more effectively. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 23:30, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Mobile view editing isn't really a problem for me, unless it's editing more than one section or a page with a large amount of prose which lags my phone. I probably do 95% of my editing on mobile view. CoolSkittle (talk) 14:50, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Page deletionEdit

Hi! I created a page called Wordbee a little while ago and it has been deleted. It's a company page and I stated on my user talk page that I am paid to set it up. I tried keeping the page as objective and non-promotional as possible and yet it was still deleted. I'd really appreciate any feedback as to why this happened and what I have to do in order to avoid deletion again. Thanks! TMFalkner (talk) 02:47, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

TMFalkner Good day. The article has been deleted as it fails corporation notability requirement - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wordbee. Since the company doesn't meet WP:CORPDEPTH notability criteria, no amount of editing would make the subject merit a page in Wikipedia mainspace. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 03:03, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
CASSIOPEIA I understand the reason was notability. But can you then explain to me how very similar companies have articles on Wikipedia, see XTM International , Memsource, Smartling. I don't see how they are any more notable than the article I created. Thanks. - TMF
TMFalkner, looking at those articles in particular, XTM International appears to have been approved by an editor who was later banned for violation of policies, Memsource appears to have been created before new article patrols were a thing on Wikipedia, and Smartling actually has decent sources provided. That having been said, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not the strongest of arguments on Wikipedia, because at the end of the day, we're all volunteers and we make mistakes, and Wikipedia is huge. I'm willing to bet that for any given policy or guideline on Wikipedia, you could dig up at least five articles that blatantly ignore it. That's not a justification for further infractions, however, and if you feel so inclined, you can nominate XTM International or Memsource for deletion (or Smartling, although that one will probably be kept). signed, Rosguill talk 03:25, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Hello, TMFalkner. Wikipedia has almost six million articles and probably over a million of them are of poor quality. Experienced volunteer editors are working 24 hours a day worldwide to either improve them or delete them. I have personally been involved with the deletion of thousands of poor quality articles and improvement of hundreds of others. You seem to be implying that we should accept a poor quality article that you wrote because there are other poor quality articles on Wikipedia. That is an argument that simply will not fly here. Consider the three other articles you mentioned. The first has 19 references and the third has 13. Your article had five references. One was a press release - worthless. Two were to the company's own website - worthless. One was a routine directory listing - of little value. I have not checked all the references in the other articles but several in the third article were to major business publications. As for the second article, it has only two references but at least one of them is a major side-by-side software review. You are a paid editor on a volunteer project. Do your paid job right and do not waste the time of busy volunteer editors who understand notability much better than you do. Do your homework in advance and submit only the highest quality content to Wikipedia. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:41, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Rosguill Thanks for the clarification. I didn't mean to use it as an argument, I was literally curious what I was missing that they had already figured out. So that means if we had better sources we might have a chance of getting an article published? I know you're all volunteers and I appreciate your support!!
Cullen328 I'm not implying at all that my article should get published just because these others are published too - rather I feel like I pointed them out to you so you as an editor can do something about the existence of these. They might have many sources listed but take a closer look and you see what I mean, nothing notable about those either. (Except Smartling, I agree they have some reliable sources listed). The content I submitted was 100% non-promotional so I just don't see the issue. But I'll keep working on better sources. Thanks for the feedback.TMFalkner (talk) 03:58, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
TMFalkner, it is impossible to overestimate the importance of the quality of the sources that you cite. They are like gold. If you cite five or six high quality reliable independent sources that devote significant coverage to the topic, then you are 99% of the way to success. Any competent editor can summarize those sources and format that content into an acceptable Wikipedia article. Without such sources, not even the most skilled editor can spin straw into gold. And when you rely on citing the company's own website and press releases to try to establish notability, well, that just gets volunteer editors upset. Don't do that again. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:21, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
TMFalkner, you wrote "The content I submitted was 100% non-promotional so I just don't see the issue." That implies that you think that any content that isn't overtly promotional is somehow acceptable on Wikipedia. Nothing can be further from the truth. The topic must be notable and in the case of a software company or any other business or organization, it must meet the standards at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Neutral, non-promotional articles are not allowed about any type of company that lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources. It makes no difference whether it is a local pizzeria, a dentist's office, a trucking company, a cabinet shop or a medium sized privately held manufacturer. Or a software company. The quality of the coverage in independent, reliable sources is what determines the outcome. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:37, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
(unident) I just PRODded Memsource and sent XTM International to AFD. Thanks for drawing attention to these low-quality articles. shoy (reactions) 14:40, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Quoting from ones own published workEdit

Hi there! I am a retired newspaper journalist whose beat was history and travel. As you can imagine I interviewed many people over the years. What I would like to know is:

1) Say for instance I wrote an article 1 000 words long but because of space considerations in the newspaper, it was cut down to 800 words. The facts in the discarded 200 words are as accurate as the other 800 words. The article was published and now other people are allowed, according to your rules, to quote me. I would like to know if I can add the discarded facts to Wikipedia and quote the person interviewed even though the quote does not appear in the original article?

2) Am I allowed to quote myself if my work has been published?

Kaboodilski (talk) 07:22, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Kaboodilski - regarding your first question, no, you wouldn't be able to cite material that hasn't been published, and adding it without a published citation would be original research. Regarding the second point, per WP:SELFCITE, you can reference your own work, but you need to be careful not to step over the line into self promotion. Hope this helps GirthSummit (blether) 07:41, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Greetings, Kaboodilski, and welcome to the Teahouse. I am sure you have many interesting stories to tell!
  • For question #1, the only way you would be able to use any discarded facts is if they were published somewhere else. One of the core tenets of Wikipedia is that of verifiability, which means that someone should be able to verify any fact in any article using only published reliable sources. If the facts you obtained through your interviews remain only in your notes, from Wikipedia's point of view, they were never discovered.
  • For question #2, the answer is technically yes, but to be on the safe side, you might consider making an edit request on the article's talk page and allow other editors to add it for you. Make sure to include the published source in your edit request! CThomas3 (talk) 07:49, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

(blether) 07:41, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for the prompt response.

Thanks for clearing up the first point.

With regard to the second point, I would like to emphasize that my intention is definitely not to promote myself but rather to add quality content to Wikipedia. It's awful knowing that you have information which will improve an article but which you are not allowed to include.

Kaboodilski (talk) 07:57, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

CThomas3

I just had another thought.

What if the original article was republished in full on the internet on my own website? Would that be acceptable if taken to edit request?

Kaboodilski (talk) 08:11, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Kaboodilski I'm afraid that wouldn't help, since your personal website unlikely to be considered a reliable source. GirthSummit (blether) 08:18, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
I've written hundreds of history articles for my town's weekly newspaper but I do not cite my own work. Main reason is small town papers have minimal editing and no fact checking capacity. I also do not cite my own blog. Instead, I cite the published sources I found. In my circumstances, I do not cite or take quotes from interview articles I wrote. David notMD (talk) 13:58, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Changing the title of an articleEdit

I would like to change the name of the article 'Jack De Garis' to 'C. J. De Garis'. I am aware that there is a Wikipedia policy of using familiar names ('Bill Clinton' not 'William...' is one example given), and so on, but I am very certain that this individual was known as 'C. J. De Garis' in his lifetime and indeed the newspapers, etc and even De Garis himself used 'C. J.' over 'Jack'. Assuming that I can show (to whom?) that this is a valid change to make, can it be done? Or would it be necessary to build an entirely new page for 'C. J. De Garis'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidnicholsknowsbest (talkcontribs) 08:39, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Davidnicholsknowsbest. You change the title of a page by moving it: the option is available to any but the newest users. See the link for how to use it. --ColinFine (talk) 08:55, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Turn off notificationsEdit

Hi, because I created the page Brexit withdrawal agreement, every time someone creates a link to it, I get a notification saying "A link was made from <page> to Brexit withdrawal agreement." Many people do this, and it has become annoying. How do I turn it off (for this specific page only)? ― Heb the best (talk) 08:49, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

@Heb the best: there's an option in your preferences that controls that. I don't think you can toggle it per article, but you can disable it. See Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-echo. It's the option to alert you on a "page link". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:54, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Publishing a previously deleted DraftEdit

I'd like to create a page for Catz 'n Dogz, and have been putting it together in my sandbox. On creating the draft, I was notified that Draft:Catz 'n Dogz has previously been deleted, and that I should contact the user who performed the action. I was wondering whether I need to do this before publishing my draft or after? And what kind of information do I need to get from the user who deleted the page ? Thanks! Littletishtash (talk) 09:51, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

You should probably drop them a line before publishing the article, to ask why the page was originally deleted, and whether there is any reason why your new page should not be published (e.g. a previous determination that the subject isn't notable - see WP:NMUSIC for discussion of notability in musicians). I see that you have a COI notice regarding this subject on your userpage - if you are connected to the subject in any way, you should submit the draft for review via AfC rather than publishing it directly. GirthSummit (blether) 10:39, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
@Girth Summit: Thanks for the useful information! Littletishtash (talk) 12:55, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Page is denied for seeming like advertisement and referencing issues, requesting a friend to give an exampleEdit

Hello, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Rahul_M._Jindal this page is denied twice now because it sounds like an advertisement. I was wondering if anyone could just give an example of what I'm doing wrong? Everything is referenced and everything is a fact, and I removed anything that didn't seem necessary. Is it how I'm listing things in the history section? I think the top is ok, is that correct? I really have tried to remove anything that reads like an "ad" so I'm just unclear and at my wits end. any help is so very appreciated. Tuuzi (talk) 15:34, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

@Tuuzi: There have been some improvements made. Sourcing is still questionable - at least fill out the bare refs so others can more easily review. This is the simple format I like to use for citing web pages: <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.webaddress.com |title=Web page title |date=yyyy-mm-dd |accessdate=2019-06-19}}</ref> where accessdate is whatever that day's date is. More info is at the Template:Cite web page. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 17:18, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Timtempleton I removed tons of content that I couldn't reference well and added the Guyana references. I am at a loss if this doesn't work. I think it is simply too difficult because Guyana's news source isn't that reliable or reputable, and the US news coverage wasn't enough. India and Guyana covered it, so I put those links in.Tuuzi (talk) 17:25, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Tuuzi. You are a paid editor and you are submitting a draft with references consisting of bare URLs? What the heck! Step up your game and do your paid work correctly. Format those references with complete bibliographic details like unpaid volunteers do. Study Referencing for beginners. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:30, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Ugh, I'm seeing now what I'm missing, jeez I was just confused. No need to insult me Cullen328. Thanks so much for the help Timtempleton, I just needed to understand that as I read some old wiki referencing help page where I thought all I needed was the ref info.Tuuzi (talk) 17:42, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

The bottom line is that experienced volunteer editors expect excellence instead of mediocrity from paid editors. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:46, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Good that you've got what seems like a wide range of sources, Tuuzi. As for the issue with Guyana's press coverage - I remember a similar issue a while back on the Teahouse, where an editor had a very similar problem - the only sources available were accurate, but biased ones. It was resolved in a way that there was some way for the author of the article to mention the inherent bias in the sources they had, but I'm paraphrasing heavily - nonetheless, I'd ask around if that crops up as a problem again.
Also, don't be discouraged - we do have a don't bite the newbies policy. Understandable if Cullen328 did not realise this, but always good to keep in mind. It's true that paid editors should probably know what they're doing, but in all honesty, do we have policy on this? Paid editors should disclose their paid status as per the terms of use, but there's no requirement for them to be experienced.
Please don't bite the newbies, and be conscious that the person you're talking to - who may seem like a complete loon using citation formats for hamster bedding - could just be someone really unfamiliar with how Wikipedia has changed over the years. Things have changed a lot, so while it can be frustrating to see someone not understand that yes, you have to shove your URLs through the Cite plugin, you have to be patient. Experienced editors should respond to newbie mistakes with understanding, because we were all at that point once. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 17:57, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Ineffablebookkeeper, I am extremely patient and helpful with new unpaid volunteer editors but I have to be honest with you. In my ten years of editing, a large majority of the paid editors I have encountered have caused serious problems and wasted enormous amounts of volunteer time. When I wrote my very first article Dirk van Erp back in 2009, I formatted my references properly from the very beginning. Paid editors have financial incentives that are almost always at least partly contrary to the best interests of the encyclopedia. It is entirely appropriate, in my opinion, to be more firm and direct with them than with unpaid volunteers, and I will continue to do so. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:24, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
I for one, Cullen328, did not think that your notice was in any way out of order - I was about to say as much to Ineffablebookkeeper but we edit conflicted. When someone is being paid to come here and write, and we have provided things like the TUTORIAL and ADVENTURE, I don't think it's excessive to encourage them to do the background reading rather than using (and thereby profiting from) volunteers' time.GirthSummit (blether) 18:33, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

For the record this person just paid me to be nice as I begged him to put him on wiki. Tim helped, and I'm making adjustments based on his note. I just missed that part of editing the references as I thought it was automatic. No need to be rude and keep going on about this! I definitely don't think my tiny compensation is worth being so jealous over. Put your own ads online and get paid for your hard work if you want to. Otherwise, you chose to edit for free and should not take it out on me just for trying to help out on wiki and getting a couple bucks. Take care. Tuuzi (talk) 18:49, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Main articlesEdit

Hello fellow Wikipedians. I want to add a new section to the Junkers Ju 87 page, regarding its successor, the Junkers Ju 187. The 187 already has a seperate page, so I'd like to take some text from there and put it on the Ju 87 page. I will make the 187 page the main article. Is this allowed on Wikipedia? I'm new here, and I want to make sure I don't break any rules. Thanks in advance.

Achtungpanzer44 (talk) 18:05, 19 June 2019 (UTC)