Open main menu
Skip to top
Skip to bottom

Contents

Most recent archives
937, 938, 939, 940, 941, 942, 943, 944, 945, 946, 947, 948, 949, 950, 951, 952, 953, 954, 955, 956

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

How to nominate someone for an article?Edit

My deceased father is quite notable in his field for his research and contributions to Air Crew Coordination and Aviation human factors. He held a doctorate in experimental psychology, worked with the US Army and Navy, travelled the world as a guest speaker, was a teacher and author of a textbook still used at Embry-Riddle today. I wonder if he would meet the requirements to have an article written about him and how is this done? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stattales (talkcontribs) 20:49, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

@Stattales: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. It sounds like your father had an impressive career, I am sorry for your loss. Potential article subjects would merit a Wikipedia article if they are extensively written about in independent reliable sources that indicate how the subject meets Wikipedia's special definition of notability. You can request that others write such an article at Requested Articles, though there is a large backlog there. 331dot (talk) 00:46, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Welcome, @Stattales: your father sure sounds like a useful fellow, but there are rather strict rules (many people think too strict and weird) on subjects of articles. Wikipedia:Notability (academics) can give you some idea. Probably better not to try, but rather mention him in articles on fields in which he made important contributions. Go easy; if someone undoes your work, discuss it in the article's talk page. Jim.henderson (talk) 00:54, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi Stattales, you can get more topic-specific advice and assistance from WikiProject Aviation, simply post on the project's Talk page. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:34, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Stattales, a quick Google search can help you assess notability. You should be able to determine if he has sufficient coverage from reliable sources. I sometimes write pages from the list of Requested Articles and I usually choose items there that can be easily sourced. It is frustrating for a writer to create a page that will only be deleted or attract controversy due to lack of- or contentious sources. Also, it will be useful to those interested in helping if you have stated the name of your father. Darwin Naz (talk) 23:53, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

COI on Zbigniew BlazejeEdit

I am sorry but I have exactly no idea how to deal with your conflict of interest complaints about Zbigniew Blazeje, an article I proposed. I do run a label called Spool. I have pressed a CD of music by Terry Rusling. I put that article up many many years ago when I had no idea of there was any possibility of releasing a CD. About 2 years ago I tracked down his nephew who inherited his tapes. We got together and selected some material and I released a CD this year. When I put the article up I had only poor dubs from 2 of the studios he worked and very early material of not very high quality.

A few years ago I tracked down his nephew who inherited his tapes. We went through the tapes and eventually released a CD. We pressed 50 copies. There is little hope of ever recouping the costs let alone making a profit.

While researching Rusling we discovered a significant collaboration with visual artist Zbigniew Blazeje as well as poets Earle Birney, Bob Cobbing and Gwendolyn MacEwen as well study with Stockhausen and other European composers. There was information about him in the Rusling interviews on CBC and notices in Toronto papers and ArtsCanada (aka Canadian Art) magazine. So there is an indirect COI of posting an article on Blazeje, in that it might create interest in Rusling. Given the status of the Rusling article's it seems utterly unlikely that this project would generate a profit and will remain a financial loss, though I see it as a charitable act.

Since doing researching on Rusling we discovered much more notable activity by him but I suspect from Wikipedia's point of view the fact that neither entries will unlikely never generate some sort of profit would be an argument against COI, it swings the article into the area of lack of notability, a catch 22, as it were. Knowing we cannot win this argument I have no idea how to extricate myself from being persona non grata on Wikipedia.

I have not intended to break any rules and at best my conflict of interest is laughable for a project which I do think is historically important in tiny Canada's history of experimental music, an area which is in itself without note or significance to maybe a few hundred people. I understand you have requirements for your site and must do what you see as correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielkernohan (talkcontribs) 15:32, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Danielkernohan. A COI is not an insuperable problem: as long as you are open about the level of your involvement, and invite editors to view what you write critically, you can still edit. A lack of notability (in the special way that Wikipedia uses that word) is an insuperable problem. If you can find substantial reliably published material, wholly independent of the subject, then there can be an article; and with proper disclosure, and using the articles for creation process to get your draft reviewed, then ther is no reason why you shouldn't write it. But if these sources are lacking, then an article is impossible, however important he may have been. --ColinFine (talk) 17:41, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

EditingEdit

Hey can i start editing now — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editordee (talkcontribs) 16:11, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

@Editordee: Yes! Check out the tutorial at WP:TUTORIAL and the interactive learning game at WP:ADVENTURE, these will give you a good start. Come back here if you have more questions. RudolfRed (talk) 17:28, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

CSD A2Edit

Does A2 applies to Drafts? CptViraj (Talk) 17:21, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

@CptViraj: I wouldn't think so- it seems plausible that one could write a draft not in English to get the ideas down, then go back and translate it for article space. -A lainsane (Channel 2) 18:10, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Simply not being in English is not sufficient for WP:A2 anyway, even for an article. A2 is only for "articles not written in English that have essentially the same content as an article on another Wikimedia project" - so it must exist in essentially the same form on another language Wikipedia to be eligible. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:19, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
@A lad insane and Boing! said Zebedee: Gotcha! Thanks - CptViraj (Talk) 12:01, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Happy to help. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:04, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

PAGE DeletionEdit

Hello,

My name is John Allen Mollenhauer I have been working with a company to help us put a page on Wikipedia around the idea called "Performance Lifestyle." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performance_Lifestyle

We got this message: 15:06, 18 May 2019, MER-C (Talk/Contribs) Deleted Page Performance Lifestyle G5: Creation by Blocked or Banned user in violation of block or ban.

This is an idea I and my team have been working on developing for nearly 20 years and an emerging marketplace term/sector/ big idea. We worked carefully with what we hope was/is a reputable company to make sure we followed all Wikipedia guidelines and the page was approved even though it was changed from our original content. We thought "that where we needed to start" Now the page has been deleted.

Any chance you can please advise on what has happened? Was the company we worked with blocked or banned?

Note: We are registered users, learning how to use Wikipedia the best we can, and supporters.

Warm Regards, JohnAllenJAM (talk) 17:59, 20 May 2019 (UTC)John Allen Mollenhauer

Hello, JohnAllenJAM. It sounds as if you have the (unfortunately very common) misconception that Wikipedia has anything at all to do with telling the world about you, your big idea (or your company, your band, your non-profit, etc). It does not. If at some point Wikipedia has an article about one of these, it will not be your article, you will have no control whatever over its contents, and it should be almost entirely based on what people who have no connection with you have chosen to publish about the subject.
This specific deletion was not on any grounds to do with the content of the article, but because it had been created by a user who has been blocked or banned: I can't tell which user, or what they were blocked or banned for; but if you were "working with a company", my guess would be that that company had been breaking Wikipedia's policies in some way. Since promotion of any kind is forbidden in Wikipedia, many companies who offer their services for creating Wikipedia articles are either ignorantly or wilfully editing in a way that is dubious - and any company that represents to you that they can create a page to your liking is lying. (There are some companies who do offer the service in a responsible way, making the necessary disclosures; but they cannot guarantee that the page will be kept as their customer wants). For more information on the deletion, you will need to contact the admin who deleted it, MER-C.
As for the content: please read about notability and verifiability. If you and your associates have developed the idea of "Performance lifestyle", then nothing said or published by you and your associates can contribute to its notability (in Wikipedia's sense), and very little that you and your associates have said or published should go into an article about it. We require that most of the article be based on reliable published material by people who have no connection with you. --ColinFine (talk) 19:23, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
The company is banned for hard-core, highly abusive spamming and covert advertising. I explicitly refuse this request for undeletion. MER-C 19:27, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you both for your insights ColineFine and MER-C. This feedback is both important and appreciated. This was not set up as a promotion, at least as we saw it.

Whatever had been created by the Wikipedia "Expert" you are saying had been banned or blocked, had been edited by Wikipedia. Even after following guidelines to the best our awareness, it had been edited, substantially by apparently skilled Wikipedia admins prior to being published, so nothing led me to believe we were dealing with an unscrupulous company.

It looks like a Wikipedia "company" whom we spent 3 months with editing this, with a keen eye on what they were telling us were Wikipedia guidelines, had a history that led to being banned or blocked. We knew nothing about this.

I think Performance Lifestyle should be on Wikipedia, but it appears that because I have an interest in the idea, it can't be me who publishes it? Is that my take away? So, someone completely uninvolved with the idea would need to publish it? How then would they even know what Performance Lifestyle is if they don't have any experience in this emerging space or with this concept?

There are many pages for specific people, IE. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joel_Fuhrman, and specific concept or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Port and then ideas like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutrient_density. Performance Lifestyle is like "nutrient density," I have been developing the idea, for years, along with many others who are shaping the space. I provided links to the origin, other authors, etc. If we have gone about this wrong way, then we will accept that as learning and can't dispute your point.

What do you see as a course of action from here, to make this good?

Thank you for your feedback. John Allen Mollenhauer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnAllenJAM (talkcontribs) 20:22, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

JohnAllenJAM, when you say that the article "had been edited by Wikipedia", do you mean by Wikipedia editors not working for the company you paid? Wikipedia is writing and maintained by volunteer editors, not a paid staff. When you say "it had been edited, substantially by apparently skilled Wikipedia admins prior to being published", what are you basing that on? Did the company claim to be employing people who are Wikipedia administrators? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:46, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Cordless Larry, yes. I think I wish I had read this article before starting this whole process. https://www.legalmorning.com/rules-paying-someone-to-write-a-wikipedia-article/ I do mean Wikipedia editors. The company we were working with, whom we did pay (apparently that's not the way and now I know) because they were there to guide us, did submit original text, but that text was then edited by Wikipedia. Wikipedia Editors changed it dramatically.

Nothing in there was spammy, or rubbish. I tried to represent the space, but our fee-based guides kept cutting it down. So after we wrote up a description of Performance Lifestyle and provided links, (some of which the company edited out including language and links that referenced our own works as well, as apparently, we had bumped up against some Wikiboundares; we accepted that as we learned. So yes, the final article, was far different. In other words, no editors that were being paid by the company. These were Wikipedia Editors.

The newly edited page, linked into established Wikipedia pages on several fronts and was far from the original works. I'm certain there is no way that was done by the company we hired to guide us, and they stated that as such when I brought up the fact that Wikipedia Editors made changes. I was fine with that and liked the integration/influence that Wikipedia admins or editors had on the idea.

From that point, I was in email communication with our professional guides, only to ask how we could contribute to the page since there is so much about the concept and the emerging field of Performance Lifestyle that did not make it in the initial page. I do want to be a contributor to this page, among others. I would have started it myself If had had the Wikipedia confidence at that time. But hey, maybe this experience will change that as I am very much dialed in.

This page is very important.

I hope that answers your question. Thanks for weighing in.

I'm an administrator, JohnAllenJAM, so I can see the history of the deleted article. From that, I can tell you that only one editor made substantive edits to the content, and that was the now-blocked editor who created it. I think you might have been misled about other Wikipedia editors having worked on it. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:54, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Hello, JohnAllenJAM. I'm sorry you've had this experience. Unfortunately, something like this happens to most people who come here to promote (read: "tell the world about") something, rather than to participate in this wonderful project to create an encyclopaedia. The fact that you say "this page is very important" is an indication that that is your purpose: all Wikipedia articles are important. Why should your view prevail?
In attempting to write about your ideas, you would have a conflict of interest: this makes the already difficult task of writing a new article even harder for you; but though you are discouraged, you are not forbidden from trying. But what can make it impossible to write an acceptable article about the subject whoever writes it is if the subject does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. Since any article should be almost entirely based on reliably published material independent of anybody connected with the subject, it follows that if everything published about it is from you and your associates, then it is not yet notable in Wikipedia's sense, and no article will be accepted whoever writes it, and whatever they put in it.
If you do want to have a go at writing the article, please read your first article. But if you are truly interested in helping us improve Wikipedia, you will have a more rewarding experience, and probably add more value to Wikipedia, by working on articles that you do not have so much personally invested in. --ColinFine (talk) 21:59, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi JohnAllenJAM. Wikipedia has articles about topics that are notable in a special sense, already well-known as shown by significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. See WP:GNG. The references that can been seen in in Google's cache of the deleted page do not seem to satisfy this requirement:
  1. "Performance Lifestyle - Live Like a Pro". studentathlete2day.com. Retrieved 20 March 2019.
  2. "Getting fit not just for the Holidays - but for life". vegsource.com. Retrieved 20 March 2019.
  3. Airton, Dawn (10 November 2017). "Ten Top Tips to becoming a Performance Lifestyle Advisor". eis2win.co.uk. Retrieved 20 March 2019.
  4. O'Laughlin, Red (11 December 2016). "Review of John Allen Mollenhauer's 7-Day Water Only Diet". redolaughlin.com. Retrieved 20 March 2019.
  5. "Performance Lifestyle". eis2win.co.uk. 11 December 2016. Retrieved 20 March 2019.
  6. "Entertaining program prompts attendees to break free from "energy debt" and recharge". hbanet.org. Retrieved 20 March 2019.
  7. "Move Over Diet And Exercise It's Time For Regeneration". regenuscenter.com. Retrieved 20 March 2019.
  8. Schatell, Jackie (19 November 2010). "Former Livingston Football Captain, and Author, John-Allen Mollenhauer, to Hold Book Signing at Sams". patch.com. Retrieved 20 March 2019.
  9. "John Allen Mollenhauer: How To End Performance Anxiety-Ep.96". popenskyfitness.com. Retrieved 20 March 2019.
  10. "The Rise of a New Lifestyle Part 2". performancelifestyle.com. Retrieved 20 March 2019.
Significant means more than mentions or a link to your website. Independent means not written by you, not an interview with you, not a republishing of a press release. Have people not connected with you written about Performance Lifestyle? StarryGrandma (talk) 22:03, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Cordless Larry, StarryGrandma, and ColinFine, you are all clearly pro's and I, unfortunately, the greenhorn who meant well in every way, is coming up short here. I appreciate the ideals of who can write an article, but truth is, I am uncertain there will be an article on this any time soon as it takes a great deal of knowledge and awareness to pick up on this space this early in the game. I thought I was doing a good thing. That said, there are many people outside of me, that have written about performance lifestyle, many of those links which I originally submitted were cut out by our paid editor. I was genuinely representing the space, and if I could do that all over would do a much better job at it. I don't care if I'm in it at all, but I am involved in the space and have added many developments to the Performance Lifestyle space. I mean a healthy lifestyle has a page https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthy_lifestyle so why not a performance lifestyle? If that means we take everything related to me off of it, so be it. Unless someone else ads us in, and then perhaps one of you publish it, who are now aware of it, then who will do it? If not me, who? JohnAllenJAM (talk) 22:17, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

What I mean to say, is this: Can we start again and fully represent the space? I CAN, in fact, represent the space. I am committed to space, I don't need it linking to me. I just want it out there in a good genuine way. Any thoughts on that? JohnAllenJAM (talk) 22:27, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I am committed to Wikipedia, and it's ideals. That's why I am a supporter and link to it and learn from it often. The good thing about this experience is that it dialed me into Wikipedia from an operations point of view and into how the community works. I want this to be a great source of wisdom and not be compromised. I approached this wrong indeed. Just looking to see what can happen from here. JohnAllenJAM (talk) 00:59, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I cannot see how Performance Lifestyle gets to be an article, as it does not meet the Wikipedia criteria of notability, i.e., the ability to reference sources not written by people affiliated with the company. You, trying to "represent the space" have a basic conflict of interest. Unlike Healthy lifestyle (which, by the way, redirects to Self-care, a weak article) there does not appear to be any consensus on what a 'performance lifestyle' is, outside your NJ-based business. David notMD (talk) 02:50, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
JohnAllenJAM, could I ask you to forward any e-mails you have from the company to info-orangemoody@wikipedia.org? That address was set up to help with the investigation of paid editing scams and any information you have about the editors who promised to create an article for you would be gratefully received. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:19, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you all for contributing to this post thus far JohnAllenJAM (talk) 18:41, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Cordless Larry, yes, I can get you those emails. JohnAllenJAM (talk) 18:41, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

David notMD, there is no consensus on what a healthy lifestyle is either, as it's most "often associated with... but not defined specifically, and almost anything can pass for it;" actually most definitions are weak in the lifestyle area because they are not complete concepts, fully illuminated or mired down in interests. Who published the Healthy Lifestyle article? Even in Pages referenced above like "Nutrient Density", there is extreme disagreement on what makes a nutrient dense food, "nutrient dense," as I know first hand there are factions and they all war with each other. But to your point, there are notable references. I can provide those, and my company happens to be just one of them.

There are several people publishing on Performance Lifestyle (PL) now, we happen to be the leaders in it and we can fully define it and have it illustrated. It cost us over two decades and a lot of money to do it, but I could upload that graphic as part of our contribution to the idea which does illuminate how to live a healthy lifestyle successfully as it's contextually correct. Most of that content was cut from our work with the consultant who we simply hired to help us understand.

I agree an article on Performance Lifestyle must have notable references not published by our company?

I've always looked at Wikipedia as a progressive platform for established, and up and coming ideas. If we were willing idealists about how this should be published; I would like to find a way to do it. If that means someone else does the research and submits it great. But who's going to do that, if they don't even know the concept exists yet, or is in some way involved in the space; someone has to be first. I'm on the same page, and as a community member, I"m exploring how this can get done right, and not leave this open-ended with no solution. JohnAllenJAM (talk) 18:41, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

The thing is, JohnAllenJAM, that Wikipedia does not publish new, up-and-coming ideas. Wikipedia articles are based on existing publications that are independent of the subject. No original research, and no new ideas that have not yet been discussed by others. I understand that this is a bit frustrating, but it is one of the fundamental principles of Wikipedia. When you ask who would be able to write about this concept, since only those sho are involved in it know about it, you are pretty much confirming the fact that the concept lacks [[WP::N|notability]] according to Wikipedia's definition. --bonadea contributions talk 18:56, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Indeed Bonadea, it is frustrating, as I don't know how anyone can write a credible article who has no knowledge about the subject or who are not dialed in to notice this space. I've spent nearly my entire adult working life understanding this subject and the concept of lifestyle and thought it was a significant contribution to have it published on Wikipedia; especially, when I see all kinds of people who have profiles on Wikipedia, individual and company (about them and what they do) such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/APM_Automation_Solutions, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roto_North_America, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Rosellini, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LAMILUX_Heinrich_Strunz_Group for example. These must have all been paid for pages on Wikipedia.com. Are you saying a random third party just thought Roto North America was a good company to write about because the references were so significant? I ask that question with complete genuineness.

What I meant by "up and coming" ideas is that Healthy Lifestyle is by far not a completely understood idea for most people, it has just references. Why is it there, and who published it? Probably some person with some knowledge about what a healthy lifestyle is to start. no? I can make a much better case for Performance Lifestyle because it's defined in the context of human performance and that's cohesive. So who writes about what a Performance Lifestyle is, and brings together the notable references (which exist, beyond our alone), other than someone who's knowledgeable about the subject? Those references probably would include at least one reference to our own development (not for promotional purposes, but just because we are notable in this effort. I do hear you, but by your definition, there won't be an article on Performance Lifestyle for a long time to come, or until someone decides to notice all the emerging references in the space and decides to publish it. Correct?

Thank you in advance for answering my questions, as this keeps going back to Wikipedia ideals, and these questions are not being addressed. I would really like to know.

We had planned to originate the article because we are capable of producing the type of article with references that Wikipedia requires. I acknowledge that all these references to us were not the way this needs to be. But we had planned to have this page updated, further referenced and developing. It was not going to stay like that and it was going to cite ALL notable references on the subject. As stated there were more originally that just got cut by our paid editor.

It's still possible to do this right. How does it happen is all I'm asking. Other people know about Performance Lifestyle (PL), but while we are way out in front defining this, if a healthy lifestyle is still not fully understood by a general article writer, no doubt PL will not get published for a long time, until it hits mainstream understanding, or at least closer to it. So someone with an interest could publish an article a lot sooner. JohnAllenJAM (talk) 20:14, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

JAM - Wikipedia does have a mechanism to suggest articles that should be written, but honestly, it does not function well at all. If your company is "...way out in front defining this [Performance Lifestyle]" then people outside the company have not written about the concept, and it is too soon for the article. So your conclusion - PL will not get published for a long time - is likely true. David notMD (talk) 21:33, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Jam - In your sandbox or in draft, you can attempt to create an article "Performance lifestyle." Will need to declare a conflict-of-interest on your home page. Cannot use as reference anything from Performance Lifestyle (your company, including anything written by company website listed advisory panel). Submit to Articles for Creation. My guess is your effort will be declined based on insufficient referencing. Keep in mind that if such an article is ever accepted, it would be open to editing by all editors. David notMD (talk) 23:50, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

EditingEdit

If I have changes I would like to make, but while I think that the new content is important I don’t think I could write it as well as an official Wikipedia editor, what should I do?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmacat666 (talkcontribs)

@Emmatcat666: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Every article has an associated Talk page; it is meant for discussing changes or issues with the associated article. For example, the page George Washington has a talk page at Talk:George Washington. If you are using a computer, you can access the associated talk page by clicking the "Talk" tab at the top of the article. 331dot (talk) 19:41, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

PublishEdit

hey youll publish this page for me— Preceding unsigned comment added by Editordee (talkcontribs)

@Editordee: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If you are referring to Draft:RichBoi Streeter (rbs), you have resubmitted it, and it will be reviewed in due course, please be patient. Trying to 'jump the line' like this doesn't usually work. 331dot (talk) 19:38, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Talk pagesEdit

Hi, I have read that you can suggest corrections by posting to a "Talk" page and getting the opinions of other editors. How long does it usually take for someone to notice an item on "Talk"? Is there an appropriate way to attract the attention of editors to discuss an issue, or is it better to wait for someone who is interested to drop by the page?Urigfethera (talk) 19:50, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Urigfethera, how quickly someone will come to the page depends a lot on how many watchers there are on a particular page, which you can tell by click on 'page information' in the left column. If you have a particular change you want to make, you can simply make that change; if other editors object, they'll revert. At that point you can start a discussion at the talk page, and the other editor is expected to show up. --valereee (talk) 19:55, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
@Valereee: Thank you for the watcher information! That is very useful. I can see there are many watchers on the article I'm thinking about, so I will try to be patient.Urigfethera (talk) 20:05, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
@Urigfethera: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. It depends on the article involved. If it is an article about a highly visible or controversial subject(say, Donald Trump), it is likely a great many editors are following the article and its talk page. If it is a more obscure subject, it is possible that few editors are following it. There are ways to draw attention to your comments; you can tag one as a formal request for help by putting {{help me}} with your post(as you observe it on this page, not in the edit window where I have coding to prevent it from working here). 331dot (talk) 19:58, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
@331dot:Thank you for the "help me" code! The article I'm considering is semi-protected, so that kind of request (for an editor to make a change to a semi-protected page) perhaps will also draw the same attention. I cannot make those changes myself yet, obviously. However, that code will be useful on another page where I was considering adding to the Talk section.Urigfethera (talk) 20:05, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I need to remove a redirectEdit

I just completed "Sarre Brooch". Currently, Sarre Brooch redirects to Quoit brooch. I don't believe I have permission to do this myself. I would appreciate it if someone could delete the redirect so I can create the new Sarre Brooch article?

thx MauraWen (talk) 23:17, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi MauraWen. Click "Redirected from Sarre Brooch" at the top of Sarre Brooch to get to the redirect. If you want the page history of your draft to be moved to the article then you can replace the redirect with {{db-move|User:MauraWen/sandbox Sarre brooch|move draft to mainspace over redirect}}. You are the only contributor to User:MauraWen/sandbox Sarre brooch so you are also allowed to just copy the text to the redirect without giving attribution to the original page. With this solution the creator of the redirect will be registered as the creator of the page and the second edit will be your article. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:02, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

How do I know If my artist/musician biography is notable?Edit

Hello! I just wanted to know before I get started on an article for my biography, how do I know if I am notable enough to be on Wikipedia?

My website is therealamilian.com and I have music in every store and profiles on every social site. I am very easy to find in Google search (TheRealAmilian or Amilian) and just wanted to see a biography about me as an artist on Wikipedia. I would even consider someone with your company to start the article. Please let me know what I should do and I highly appreciate any feedback you may have. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amilian6969 (talkcontribs) 23:25, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

@Amilian6969: First, a note about signatures; please follow comments on discussion pages (such as this one) with four tildes (these things --> ~). Second, this may not be what you would like to hear, but you, as the subject of the article you wish to author, you have an official conflict of interest. This isn't ideal, for many articles authored by their subjects turn out somewhat awfully; you have, however, taken the initiative to ask here, and that is excellent! The policy I linked above (on conflict of interest) is a great thing to read in order to not be blocked for conflict of interest, which unfortunately can happen sometimes.
Third, this may not be great news, but I'm not sure you meet the notability criteria for being a musician. Typically, you should have been talked about in-depth by independent sources- ie, not your Facebook. I didn't find any results from third-party sources for you on Google. Are there any off-line (ie, in newspapers or books)? -A lainsane (Channel 2) 23:53, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
@Amilian6969: I would add that you should review WP:AUTO, the policy on autobiographies. Writing an autobiography, while not forbidden, is highly discouraged. This is because people naturally write favorably about themselves, and Wikipedia strives to have a neutral point of view. Essentially, to be successful in writing about yourself, you would need to forget everything you know about yourself and only write based on what independent sources, sources not associated with you in any way, have chosen on their own to write about you. While technically possible, most people cannot do this. The best thing for you to do is probably nothing. If a independent editor takes note of your career and determines that you meet the notability criteria, they will eventually write about you. Also keep in mind that a Wikipedia article is not necessarily desirable; there are good reasons to not want one. 331dot (talk) 00:01, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Refrencing question for Draft Sinfonia LatinaEdit

Hello I have digital copies of original news articles covering a music concert. From 1976 The publication no longer exists. However I sourced these from the Library of Congress in the USA and the national library of Barranquilla Colombia. My question is how can I use these for reference on the Draft Sinfonia Latina article I've been working on? Any and all input is greatly appreciated-Deanna Coakley 23:31, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Citing sources. If you have the publication details, just use something like {{cite news}}. That the publication no longer exists is not really important, nor does the news article need to be available online. Give as much information as you can that would help a reader source the news article themself, should they wish to. From Wikipedia:Citing sources:"So long as you are confident that you read a true and accurate copy, it does not matter whether you read the material using an online service like Google Books; using preview options at a bookseller's website like Amazon; on an e-reader (except to the extent that this affects page numbering); through your library; via online paid databases of scanned publications, such as JSTOR; using reading machines; or any other method.". See also Wikipedia:Offline sources, which again suggests the use of {{cite news}}, adding "Use of the |quote= parameter within those citation templates provides some context for the reference. This is especially important when using the off-line source to support a fact that might be controversial or is likely to be challenged." -- Begoon 08:11, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Visual file markup queryEdit

I would much appreciate it if someone would look at Erie Canal#Parks and museums and tell me why the caption on the first picture doesn't display. I have looked at the help page for visual file markup and I can't figure it out. Thank you. deisenbe (talk) 02:14, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Deisenbe, You needed "|thumb". I've added it for you - I'll leave you to adjust the size etc... -- Begoon 02:48, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Create PageEdit

Why I am not create a new page in wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeecolors (talkcontribs) 03:44, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello @Zeecolors:, I see that you've created an account on 19th and you have made 13 edits, to create an article you need to have autoconfirmed rights, which you will get automatically on 23rd May. so after 23rd may you can create an article. though I would suggest going for Article for Creation or you can create Draft and then submit it for publishing in as Article in Mainspace. I hope this helps you. --Siddharth Talk To Me!! 06:54, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Who will watch the watchers?Edit

I'd like to voice a strong concern: it seems that an ensconced group of self-described skeptics (I would describe them as vandals) have established control over substantial areas of Wikipedia content pertaining to non-mainstream medical practice. Their editorial policies (using the term loosely) have led to significant censorship of content that I wish to see. They have abandoned any pretense of Neutral POV, asserting instead that because their views are right and proper that they have the right to delete any presentations of alternative viewpoints and the responsibility to attack people who argue for those viewpoints as quacks, charlatans, frauds, pseudo-scientists, and "fringe". While I would definitely not rush to the defense of every topic listed under Category:Alternative medicine, there are more than a few viewpoints and topics there that I believe should be accorded some degree of respect. And who am I? Some random dude? Well... no, not entirely. My formal education (from real, fully accredited institutions) includes 2 undergraduate degrees (one in Cell Biology, Molecular Biology, and Genetics) and a Medical Doctorate. I have completed postgraduate training in Internal Medicine and am board-certified in that specialty. While I certainly don't claim to have "average" or entirely mainstream views for a physician, my board scores (>95th percentile on the MCAT and 99th percentile on the USMLE Step 1) might suggest that I'm qualified to think and evaluate information for myself.

What am I asking for? Help. Help in removing special editorial privileges from overly dismissive "skeptics" who don't necessarily know what they're talking about but who are extremely quick to delete or criticize content that questions their authority. What can be done?

Ken Stone, MD Slowgenius (talk) 04:03, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

This is not what the teahouse is for. You can try WP:RSN. MarnetteD|Talk 04:06, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
@Slowgenius: or engage on the article talk page, and if you can’t make your case because of entrenched opposition, try WP:RFC to bring in some neutral editors. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 04:23, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi Slowgenius, and welcome to the Teahouse! Please take some time to read through our guide for expert editors, which explains that our articles are based on reliable sources and not original opinions. If you have a content dispute, the best way to resolve it is usually through a request for comment, as TimTempleton mentioned. Nobody owns an article to themselves, but articles must meet all of our core content policies, which are strictly enforced. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! — Newslinger talk 07:24, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) may be relevant here. Altmed is one of the more difficult areas on WP, and editing it without a good understanding of WP:s policies and guidelines will probably not accomplish much. To quote Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia's policies around this kind of thing are exactly spot-on and correct. If you can get your work published in respectable scientific journals - that is to say, if you can produce evidence through replicable scientific experiments, then Wikipedia will cover it appropriately. This does of course not mean that probably all articles on WP can be improved. Bring your best sources and suggest specific edits at talkpages (or be WP:BOLD), that may work, depending. Start small. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:16, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • To put it bluntly: Wikipedia covers every scientific topic (including medicine) from the point of view of mainstream science (see WP:RS). I would assume, based on that thread from five years ago, that you disagree. Your credentials are irrelevant: even in a content dispute, we get by what reliable sources say and not by what expert editors can deduce, but here, it is a policy dispute rather than a content one. If you want to get the policy changed, feel free to open a thread at WP:MEDRS or such, but your chances of succeeding are close to zero.
Notice that relying on scientific mainstream means (for instance) that if Wikipedia had existed in 1400, it would have said the Sun revolves around the Earth (arguably that is an anachronistic example since "science" as we know it is a 17th-18th century construct). That is by design: mainstream science is sometimes wrong, but there is no other source that is less wrong ("the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses."). TigraanClick here to contact me 10:00, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Slowgenius: What would help here is if you will identify specific articles that in your opinion are being 'controlled' by a cabal of editors. And mention whether you have raised the question of bias on the Talk pages of these articles. It appears that you joined signed on as a Wikipedia editor in 2008 but have done fewer than 30 edits since then. David notMD (talk) 12:45, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:RD1Edit

How to request RD1 on particular edits maybe in row 5 edits, I saw someone requesting RD1 the article I edited (not created). --Siddharth Talk To Me!! 06:35, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Siddharth, and welcome to the Teahouse! You can request RD1 redactions ("Blatant violations of the copyright policy") with the {{Copyvio-revdel}} template. The easiest way to do this is with the User:Enterprisey/cv-revdel user script, which lets you choose the exact edits you want to see redacted. You can also request a redaction manually through the {{Copyvio-revdel}} template, as described in the copyright violations policy. Please let me know if you have any questions, and thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! — Newslinger talk 07:16, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Hey, @Newslinger: thank you for a detailed introduction to RD1 I appreciate it <3, now I'm trying it when I see something copyrighted is being contributed. --Siddharth Talk To Me!! 07:23, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

No problem, Siddharth! You might also be interested in Earwig's Copyvio Detector, which is a tool that scans articles for copyright violations. There's a way to get to Earwig in one click from any article: just install the MoreMenu gadget by going to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets, scroll down to the "Appearance" section, check the box for "MoreMenu", and click "Save" at the bottom of the page. You can then access Earwig from any article by going to Page → Tools... → Copyright vio detector through the menu at the top of the article page. — Newslinger talk 07:35, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Hey, @Newslinger: I know about the Earwig's CopyVio but I used to do it via visiting direct link, thanks for that Direct gadget information :)) --Siddharth 🤙🏻 Talk To Me!! 07:43, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

About SockPuppetryEdit

Currently, I'm using Airtel Internet connection and now I'm getting better and faster speed so the IP will be changed, so Basically, I want to know that will I be considered as Sock of anyone who has used that IP before which I'll get in some time? I'm getting Hathway Broadband I have read at WP:SOCK Checkusers considers Sock if the same IP address is being used or ever used by two different users (not Specifically) but by reading it sounds like that only. I can share in Userpage my previous and Current(new) IP address when I'll get connection today in some time. --Siddharth 🤙🏻 Talk To Me!! 11:17, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

  • @SidPedian: OK, that's a lot of questions packed in one. In any case: you absolutely do not need to provide a list of your previous or current IP addresses, and I would even encourage you not to do it because people you know might then link you to the edits you make (cf WP:IRL).
On the technical aspect: some (most?) ISP rotate IP addresses between customers (see DHCP). Checkusers and admins involved in sockpuppetry investigations are well aware of this.
On the policy aspect: sockpuppetry is the use by a single person of multiple identifiers (accounts or IP addresses) with the intent to pretend to be a different person. Editing while logged out of your account is fine (as long as you do not claim to be a different person), same for having a changing IP address (you cannot control it, and we do not expect you to monitor it either).
On the enforcement aspect: admins/checkusers should never check an account's technical identifiers (IP address, user-agent) without previous evidence of sockpuppetry. Unless you know something I do not know after a quick look at your talk page, you (SidPedian) are not at risk of being investigated for sockpuppetry, even if you share your network or even your computer with someone who does sockpuppet. Most IP blocks do not prevent to log into an existing account from blocked IP addresses. TigraanClick here to contact me 13:53, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
If you look on my User Page, you will see the "disclosure" statement I made to solve this problem. Also, it's not a problem until someone says it's a problem. When someone says it's a problem, then you have a problem. Having a "disclosure" statement that predates the accusation will probably solve it. Mentioning your ISP & internet connection speed improvement will go a long way towards alleviating any concerns since you are providing credible details as to "why". However, if you work on highly contentious/controversial Articles, you could still have a problem. In my time here, I've noticed some Editors make "bad faith" accusations like this (as well as many others) in an effort to win content disputes. There's nothing you can do about that besides "roll with it" and do the best you can. The BEST thing you can do, IMO is remain consistently polite, and role-model good, polite, professional behavior no matter what the provocation, because should your situation come under Administrative review, how you've comported yourself in terms of online behavior carries great weight. The converse is also true. If another Editor is 1) making these types of accusations and 2) violating Wikipedia norms and standards for online conduct, frequently the initiated review, or investigation, can WP:OUCH. IMO, the best defense is to not be defensive. Keep Wikipedia foundational principles, policies and cultural norms at the top of your mind, and ignore all the interpersonal provocations. Also read the "Administrator's Notice Board" for some real-life examples of people that have crossed lines, made accusations and how Administrators have dealt with them. Sometimes, who gets the block or ban is a very dramatic SURPRISE. Very informative, and sometimes very entertaining.Tym Whittier (talk) 16:07, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
It's not a "surprise". Who gets blocked or banned is the bad actor. No advantage is granted to the "first mover" in a dispute. One doesn't win a dispute with someone because one was the first to "report" them to ANI. Indeed, generally admins are smart enough to recognize that the first person to report a dispute is trying to "win" by nefarious means, such as getting their opponent blocked by "tattling" on them. That's not how we work here. --Jayron32 16:12, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

IBANEdit

What is 'IBAN'? Please explain in simple. Thanks! CptViraj (Talk) 11:57, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

See WP:IBAN - basically, it's a prohibition on users from interacting with each other, or (in the unusual case of a one-way IBAN), from a particular user from interacting with another user. It's a way of trying to stop disruption between users who have a history of not getting along well. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 12:07, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
You need to specify context. In banking terms see IBAN. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 12:16, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
@CptViraj: IBAN is also an International Bank Account Number. --CiaPan (talk) 12:15, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
@CiaPan and Martin of Sheffield: Thanks 😃 - CptViraj (Talk) 12:24, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Is there anything like a 'Not to be confused with...' template for articles?Edit

Hi - I got a bit confused when looking at Maria of Enghien and Mary of Enghien, who have nearly identical names, and who were both born in the 1360s - at first, I thought it was two articles about the same person. Is here any sort of 'Not to be confused with...' template, that could be put at the top of the page, in case someone trying to research one of them ended up at the wrong page? CheersGirthSummit (blether) 12:11, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: See {{Distinguish}}. :) CiaPan (talk) 12:13, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
There are also various redirects (see a LIST) with {{Not to be confused with}} and {{Did you mean}} among them. --CiaPan (talk) 12:24, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Lovely - that'll do nicely! Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 12:53, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Draft submission from a user pageEdit

Can anyone help me out. I have a draft article in a user page (not in the sandbox) and I wanst to submit it. I have read the instructions on the help page, but they are no help.TheDoDahMan (talk) 14:13, 21 May 2019 (UTC) Never mind. I did something right. I don't know what but the article was picked up. TheDoDahMan (talk) 14:25, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi TheDoDahMan I have moved it to draftspace and reviewed it. Please see the review text for advice on how to improve it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:29, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Hello and thanks.TheDoDahMan (talk) 23:07, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Editing Kindie Rock pageEdit

Hey folks!

I'm a radio DJ for kids with interest & expertise in properly representing & theorizing about independent kids' music, AKA "kindie." I'd like to completely overhaul Wikipedia's "Kindie Rock" page, because as of now it's just a series of advertisements for bands, & that just stinks. I just want to make sure that the extensive deletions & edits that I will make won't be flagged as vandalism or anything of that sort. :-) Here's the relevant page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kindie_rock

Thanx! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.193.253 (talk) 15:03, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I suggest you start it in Sandbox and then submit it. If you need more assistance let me know --XTMontana (talk) 17:47, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
OK cool, I will do so! This will be the 1st page I've edited, so I'm not sure what exactly is the best way to go about as of yet. Thanx for your help!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.250.240.100 (talk) 19:08, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
If you need assistance, let me know IP user --XTMontana (talk) 15:14, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Yay! Thank you! It might take me a week or two to put it together to satisfaction. P.S. Sorry I keep switching IP addresses--I used a different computer & I still need to create a good login. :-)

No problem. Since you keep switching IP, Would you mind leaving a link to the draft? --XTMontana (talk) 16:13, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I just re-activated a login. Here's the very tentative Sandbox page I made. :-) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wizard_Derk/sandbox I plan to expand the existing article into historical and (perhaps) genre sections, as well as kindie-related media such as radio shows, blogs and podcasts (I will not mention my own radio show--I'll leave that to other people if they think it's notable). Wizard Derk (talk) 17:16, 22 May 2019 (UTC) P.S. Just noticed that the citations are messed up, because I copied & pasted the original article text into my Sandbox. I will fix that soon!

Okay thanks, if you want I can help "clean it up" so to speak. like just some small edits --XTMontana (talk) 18:02, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Dude, I really appreciate your support!! I don't want to ask for too much help, though. :-) I'd also like to plot out the rest of the page before I start fine-tuning & editing it. If you have any immediate suggestions, I'm all ears! This page isn't a very important page in the grand scheme of Wikipedia, but it's important to me and the kindie community.

It isn't a problem, I need something to do anyways! I can understand the importance! --XTMontana (talk) 15:07, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Edits disppearEdit

I made edits to the Christopher Wood(Biology) page. However the page is back with the original format. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nadellsr (talkcontribs) 16:18, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello Nadellsr. The reason it was taken off is as follows: Your addition to Christopher Wood (biologist) has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. Material is copied from: https://www.zoology.ubc.ca/~woodcm/Woodblog/wood-bio/ Wikipelli Talk 22:18, 20 May 2019 (UTC) --XTMontana (talk) 17:23, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Confused whether the source is acceptable to refer the informationEdit

Hello,

I cam across an article on dailymail.co.uk discussing about the issues of limerence and a solution to that. A guy researched on this topic and provided some valuable information. So, can I update the Wikipedia page with the recent research made by him by supporting it with online references like: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-6383473/Married-father-two-earns-thousands-dollars-ex-coach.html or any research journal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ali Dharani (talkcontribs) 16:36, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Can you explain what article you want to add to, and what you want to say that you would support with this ref? We would probably want other references to support it as well, the Daily Mail isn't regarded as a reliable source for most things. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 17:16, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Ali Dharani. Please read WP:DAILYMAIL. The consensus is that the Daily Mail is not a reliable source. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:28, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

my second articleEdit

Hey, I have recently created my second article on Wikipedia can someone review it and update class in WikiProject on its talk page? or if the article is notable or not? I'm sure it's notable enough because I have found the reference for every information I had on the subject and I have cited it. all are reliable and Passes WP:RS so here is the article Manish Goswami --Siddharth 🤙🏻 Talk To Me!! 18:57, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Creating a pageEdit

Hi - I recently created a page for the Comedian Sarge. I uploaded his bio which I wrote. You did see it on his website because I wrote it for him and had him post on his website. You have my permission to use this bio here. Please let me know if there is anything else you need from me. Thanks Wendy WendyzPR (talk) 20:04, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

You should follow instructions on WP:DONATETEXT. Ruslik_Zero 20:23, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
WendyzPR If you are his PR person, you must read and comply with WP:COI and WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 20:30, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Good faith misunderstandingsEdit

Hi Teahouse.

I've had a rough week starting out. There are a lot of WP policies... but they all seem to be flexible... so I have received conflicting advice about edits on a particular page, and ongoing discussions about the issue have resulted in people insulting my competency when I'm really only trying to clarify things.

I am confused, stressed, and sad. I was enjoying the process of editing until this came up. Now it just feels like I can't question anything without being accused of bad faith. I have already decided to take an editing break, but I'm here to ask: could someone out there who is incredibly patient and experienced talk things over with me (somewhere more private than here)? Someone who can operate on the assumption that I am truly trying to understand this, and I'm not trying to be disruptive?)

Maybe someone can point me in the right direction.

Thanks so much. --Anomalapropos (talk) 21:09, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Anomalapropos, I will come to your talk page. --valereee (talk) 21:14, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Urgent help pleaseEdit

Can anybody help me with reference "7" in article George Beauchamp (RMS Titanic)?. Thanks a lot. --LLcentury (talk) 21:53, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

  • It's been kindly solved by another Wikipedian. Sorry for the rush. --LLcentury (talk) 21:55, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  Resolved

Inserting an article section into an existing articleEdit

I have edited an update consisting of several sections that I need to insert into an existing article. Will the references resolve themselves automagically or do I need to do certain things before I just do a copy/pasta? Thanks in advance.TheDoDahMan (talk) 23:47, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi TheDoDahMan. The references should just work once they are copied in. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:54, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Hello and thanks. I will proceed.TheDoDahMan (talk) 23:59, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

deleting message about 'no source or citation' in a wikipedia pageEdit

Hi I'm only a one-time text provider to one particular page at wikipedia (henry carbine), not a regular editor, so have actually no idea what's what. Someone invited me to come here - I guess that's to ask how to delete the message in the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_carbine

Info and sources are self-explanatory, so I don't know what else to ask, or what additional info to provide.

Thanks MagicRifleResearch — Preceding unsigned comment added by MagicRifleResearch (talkcontribs) 00:10, May 22, 2019 (UTC)

Henry carbine was tagged as having no references because it contained no references. To remove the tag it would be necessary to provide reliable sources (see WP:RS) to support the material. In this case it seems moot as the article has now been redirected to Henry rifle since it was a completely untsourced article about fictional gun. There is no evidence this is notable.. Meters (talk) 00:54, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
MagicRifleResearch, your contributions were there in the history and I put them back. The references now show at the bottom. Meters, this is not just any fictional universe, this is Karl May, also known as Karl May: the best German writer you've never heard of. It has no relation beyond the name to the Henry rifle. We have an entire Category:Fictional weapons with subcategories so Wikipedia does include these things. StarryGrandma (talk) 01:38, 22 May 2019 (UTC) Fix ping
No need to ping me. I didn't redirect it Talk to the editor who did., Meters (talk) 18:33, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello StarryGrandma (if the name doesn't turn colour I don't know how to do it) - thanks for knowing Karl May. And for putting back the 'Magic' Rifle page. I still don't know about inserting the picture, see below this thread, the next thread is also mine (which I shouldn't have opened, shouldn't have made a new post?) Anyway, I'm not putting up the image of the Henrystutzen until I know wikipedia won't slap my wrists for doing so. MagicRifleResearch (talk)

image and copyrightEdit

Hello - again, I have no idea what's what and how it is done. For the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_carbine I have an image. It is an artist's impression of the 'Henry Carbine' as described by Karl May. I own the copyright to the image, but the person who collaborated with me in creating the gun image (a firearms expert) owns the copyright to the gun design. I have the gun designer's permission to use the image as and when for all things Karl May, Karl May literature, or Karl May related things in the broadest sense. But I'm not sure how wikipedia sees this because the image contains the by-line gun design copyright (name deleted - no names here), who is the firearm designer. - Thank you - MagicRifleResearch — Preceding unsigned comment added by MagicRifleResearch (talkcontribs) 00:41, May 22, 2019 (UTC)

Hello for the third time - just as I went back to the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_carbine page, it redirected to the Henry Rifle - they are not the same thing. How unfortunate. One whole day's work down the drain. Thanks wikipedia.
Addition - I just read someone's reply - I have no idea what it all means, so I guess I'll take my leave from wikipedia.
One more question - how do I delete my account now? Thanks MagicRifleResearch (I best leave because I have no idea what all the tabs and squiggles mean - something about signing MagicRifleResearch (talk) 01:05, 22 May 2019 (UTC) ?)
Please don't create new thread with each post.
Please sign your posts with four tildes.
You cannot delete your account. Just stop using it.
You say that you own the copyright on the image. Did you draw it, or are you saying this because the other party has given you permission to use it? If the latter, the actual copyright owner would have tot release the drawing to Wikipedia, not you.. And, asd you point out, s above, this seems moot since the article has already been redirected. Meters (talk) 01:08, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I checked one last time and saw that the page was back - I do apologise for being a wikipedia greenhorn - I'm far too old to actually understand much of the technology (yes grammaw age) or how forums work - they scare me ... and I fuddle my way through things ...

The picture - I created the picture. So I own the copyright to the picture, but I must put 'design: name deleted' as the gun design is his (and I'll do it very gladly). So that's why I'm not sure what wikipedia will do to me if I put up the picture as from me (which it is), and it has the words 'gun design copyright: name deleted' on it.

Thanks MagicRifleResearch (talk) 01:37, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

MagicRifleResearch, I'm not an expert at images. You will need to license the image at Commons with a free license allowing reuse even for commercial purposes. Are you sure you want to do that? More information is at c:Commons:Licensing. Both of you will need to send email to c:Commons:OTRS (which takes some time to respond), following the procedures at c:Commons:Email templates. It's complicated so you can ask for help at c:Commons:Help desk. You also need to provide more references for the article. It is not enough to write about what you know. What the books say can be referenced to the books, but interpretation has to come from a published source. There is quite a bit written about Karl May and his works in English, as well as in German. StarryGrandma (talk) 03:46, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello StarryGrandma (I copied the brackets around above name, hopefully it'll make the name blue) - ... but 'if in doubt, leave out'. I'll link to other wikipedia pages (in German) that have modern depictions of the 'magic' rifle. I'm a one time text provider and that'll be it for me. Nice to know that there are other English speaking people who know Karl May. Cheers MagicRifleResearch (talk) 05:09, 22 May 2019 (UTC)


ADDENDUM - WOULD YOU BELIEVE IT - THE PAGE OF THE HENRYSTUTZEN/HENRY CARBINE IS AGAIN GOING TO THE HENRY RIFLE. THAT'LL DO ME. I looked at History, and found this, but haven't the foggiest what it means. v 04:53, 22 May 2019‎ Seraphimblade talk contribs‎ 25 bytes -12,188‎ Reinstatement of fictional works -requires- out of universe sources, but feel free to select a different target. Do not reinstate without substantial OOU sources. undothank Tag: New redirect .... BYEMagicRifleResearch (talk) 05:13, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

BTW - http://karl-may-wiki.de/index.php/Henrystutzen

Is this any good for whatever is required? I won't risk fiddling with the text now - I'm not confident enough with wikipedia trickery (I don't know what 'out of universe' actually means) ........ https://centerofthewest.org/2018/06/29/karl-may-henry-carbine-myth/ ............. MagicRifleResearch (talk) 03:53, 23 May 2019 (UTC) (Handing it over to the universe).

Name ChangesEdit

How can i change my user name ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordan Mclemont (talkcontribs) 02:39, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello, to change your username globally you need a confirmed email address, if you have the confirmed email address you can simply submit your request here Request Username Change let me know if this works --Siddharth 🤙🏻 Talk To Me!! 07:16, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Camille Paglia's "Feminist" label being policed by biased Activist. Please intervene.Edit

Camille Paglia's "Feminist" label being policed by biased Activist, FreeKnowledgeCreator, who actively reverts this label every time it is added to her page. The editor has disingenuously claimed that the label is unnecessary, as the term 'social critic' suffices. This logic however does not apply to any number of well-known feminists. The problem here is that FreeKnowledgeCreator has a political motive. Many so-called 'left-wing' feminists who oppose Paglia's views aim to undermine and belittle her position by refusing to acknowledge her as a feminist. Denying Paglia is a feminist is ridiculuous - like saying George Clooney is not an actor. The burden of evidence must be on this biased activist to prove Paglia is not a feminist. How does Wikipedia police this kind of contentious vandalism? It appears that FreeKnowledgeCreator has no life outside of biased editing in an effort to have Wikipedia reflect his or her worldview. This is a clear case of political interference by a rogue editor and should be monitored by someone with the power to do something about it. Mangonorth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mangonorth (talkcontribs) 05:21, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Mangonorth appears to believe that he can "win" an editing dispute with me by making insults and accusations in response to his edits being reverted, as witness his comments above ("FreeKnowledgeCreator has no life outside of biased editing"). If this user wants to go on insulting me, making outright personal attacks, and labeling edits he disagrees with "vandalism", he is asking for a block on WP:NPA grounds. There's not much else to be said, really. Mangonorth, please consider that you are not going to magically get an editing dispute resolved in your favor by saying mean things about someone you disagree with; it doesn't work that way here. Wikipedia is not meant to be a playground. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:40, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
As an uninvolved editor, with no opinion on the content, I offer a couple of suggestions. First, this conversation belongs on the Talk page of that article, not at the TeaHouse. Secondly, your personal opinions should not have any bearing - instead, the discussion should be based on what the best independent sources have to say. Thirdly, keep it civil - personal insults and threats do not help to reach a consensus. Focus on the issue, which is NOT whether she is actually a feminist, it is to summarize what the sources say about that matter.--Gronk Oz (talk) 07:41, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Also as a courtesy you should have posted a link to the Article. If you wanted people to read this, and then go there, you should have had the presence of mind to include a convenient link. I defer to anyone else as to whether or not this post is appropriate. It's probably not. Also, I read this, went there, and threw in my 2 cents for what it was worth. I see problems all the way around, from the dysfunction of the Editors involved and it's direct reflection on a poorly written Article, particularly the "Feminist" section. Suggest the Editors find some way to step back from the Article and look at it, not from their perspectives, but from Wikipedia's perspective, as well as the potentially interested Reader. You folks seem to think it's all about "you, you, you" (aka "Marsha, Marsha, Marsha"). It's not. It's someone else's encyclopedia, and someone else is doing the reading. Those are the two things you should all keep in mind, instead of the very small and relatively unimportant universe of a group of dysfunctional Editors. It's a "big pond", and you are all "small fish". A healthy sense of humility would go a long way, IMO.Tym Whittier (talk) 16:16, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

WikipediaEdit

We don't have to pay anything as such to access Google from a web browser , yet google has offices around the world and thousands of paid employees .How ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.191.16.212 (talkcontribs) 07:08, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Thank you for the question but this is not quora :p, anyways I'll answer your question! you said you're not paying to access google from browser right? well you're paying to search on Google from the browser because the Internet is not free, and Google provides Advertising brands, business or an Individual can buy ads from google to show them on google home page and video ads in YouTube videos, that's where Google is earning from, Google is a Multinational company, there are a lot of ways google is making money and thats why they can afford office :D hope this answered your question at somewhere. cheers <3 --Siddharth 🤙🏻 Talk To Me!! 07:22, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Hello. This page is for asking questions about how to edit articles on Wikipedia, not for speuclating about corporate finance. You can find some information on that at Google#Finance.--Gronk Oz (talk) 07:32, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
The place for questions like this is the Wikipedia:Reference desk. But see Google#Products_and_services. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:46, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
This question would have been more relevant to the Teahouse had it asked how Wikipedia manages to offer free encyclopaedic information in multiple languages to the whole world, without selling any advertising space to third parties. The answer would then have been that we rely entirely on volunteers to collate the content, and purely on donations from people like you (see how to DONATE HERE) to maintain the infrastructure and outreach services. Nick Moyes (talk) 08:30, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Removed infoEdit

I added some correct information on the Red Velvet Wikipedia(group) page, though it later got removed for no reason. I’m wondering, what did I do wrong? Is there something that needs to be added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LingLingRocket (talkcontribs) 08:18, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

A few technical points:
  • Please sign all edits in talk space by adding four tildes (~~~~) after your contribution.
  • Your user page is a bit extravagant in its claims, and you should not put your email address there. Every spam merchant, troll and vandal in the world can read it.
  • Your user page implies you are also editing as "Fasse King The Weeb". I can't see that username, perhaps you'd clarify if this is a real world or Wiki pseudonym?
Moving on to Red Velvet (group). I can't see any record of you having edited there in the past. It would have been helpful if you explained what "some correct information" was, then other editors stand a chance of understanding your complaint. Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 08:34, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
LingLing added * RBB - The 5th Mini Album (2018) without signing in, so appeared as a contribution by an IP. The right place to ask is on the Talk page of the article. And yes, remove your email address from your User page. David notMD (talk) 10:17, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @LingLingRocket: If, as I suspect, you were editing Red Velvet (group) whilst not logged in, and made this edit in an attempt to remove R&B from the list of genres, then you did it rather carelessly. As well as failing to leave an 'edit summary to explain why you/The IP editor believed it was OK to change the genre list, that edit accidentally destroyed the page structure, and ruined its appearance. Had it not been spotted and reverted 45 minutes later, it would have made the page look like this. In future, whether or not you are logged in, please take care 'Preview' your edit, using the button next to the 'Publish changes' button. Or at the very least, go back and check that your edit looks OK. We get a lot of minor vandalism done by IP editors, and the way to avoid being accused of being one of them is to provide an edit summary and to check your edit either before, or immediately after, it is published. If you need to self-revert, just go to the View History tab, find your edit, and click the 'Undo' link. I would agree with Martin of Sheffield that publishing your email address is a bad idea and that the claim on your userpage that "LingLingRocket is the greatest user of Wikipedia to ever live. He has years of experience helping to make Wikipedia the great website it is today." is just a little bit of an exaggeration, don't you think? Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:29, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

@Martin of Sheffield: @Nick Moyes: oh, sorry I really didn’t think it through before editing, and made some bad changes. Though, what is said about me attempting to remove R&B from the list of genres on this edit is strange, since I didn’t want to do that. Well, I’m new to this so hopefully this won’t happen again.

Problem with data sort valueEdit

Hi,

I am currently half way through the process of adding data-sort-values to List of Formula One polesitters#By driver however I have come across a problem with the last pole entry for Kimi Räikkönen. Currently when you sort by last pole it puts him at the bottom whereas he should be second bottom (I haven't added sort values for Bottas or Leclerc yet). I've had a look and a play with the code but can't work it out it. Any help would be appriecated, thanks in advance, SSSB (talk) 11:18, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Maybe it's treating "2018-14" as a "date" which it can't understand. You could try sort-data values like "201814" and "201901" which might work better - the numbers will still be in the right sequence. No promises, but it's the first thing that crossed my mind. -- Begoon 11:37, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
@Begoon:, Thanks, it worked. Although I don't understand why it would only consider that one a date (if that what it did) because there were ones were they were xxxx-15 and higher which worked fine. Maybe this is a problem which should be flagged somewhere (not sure where this should be done though) SSSB (talk) 11:51, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────If you look at Help:Table#Sortable tables, you can use things like:

! scope="col" | Alphabetic
! scope="col" | Numeric
! scope="col" | Date
! scope="col" class="unsortable" | Unsortable 

to control the sorting method(s). That might help. -- Begoon 11:54, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

@SSSB: The sorting apparently interpreted 2018-14 as a date 2 months after 2018-12, so it became 2019-02. The sort keys are race numbers and not dates (except the year part) so the proper solution is to write data-sort-type="text" in the column heading per Help:Sorting#Forcing a column to have a particular data type.[1] PrimeHunter (talk) 13:11, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Community portalEdit

How do I treat a wiki page as if it is a talk page?--Blue7850 (talk) 11:44, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Blue7850, welcome to the Teahouse. I don't know what you mean by treat as if it is a talk page. Please say what you specifically want. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:44, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
User:PrimeHunter- I want an article on my wiki to have the topic buttons.--Blue7850 (talk) 14:19, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Blue7850: if you mean an article on a Wiki other than Wikipedia, this is really not the place to ask. If it's a Wiki that uses the MediaWiki software, then try mw:Help. Otherwise you'll need to ask at that Wiki.
If you mean something within Wikipedia, then you'll have to be clearer what you are talking about. --ColinFine (talk) 15:24, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
@Blue7850: "the topic buttons" is still vague. Are you referring to talk pages looking like mw:Project:Support desk? It uses mw:Extension:StructuredDiscussions (previously called Flow). I haven't tried configuring it but mw:Extension:StructuredDiscussions#Enabling or disabling StructuredDiscussions says: "To enable it on a single page, use Special:EnableStructuredDiscussions. This requires the flow-create-board right". StructuredDiscussions is not installed at the English Wikipedia so Special:EnableStructuredDiscussions is not recognized here. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:32, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

About editingEdit

  • Please check the Stowaways on the Ark and The Magic Voyage articles I've edited. In their "home video" section, I've put releases for a lot of territories. Is whatever I've put there necessary, or I need to only wirte about the better-known ones (UK, France etc.)???
  • Can I put the conductor's name on "artist" on the album infobox and on "music by" on the film infobox?
  • If a film spawns a video game, and there's not much info about it, can we put its contents (infobox, reception etc.) on the article for the film, instead of making a new page?

NickBlamp (talk) 12:07, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Editor—without discussion—merged another article into a sub-section I edit, then reverted my edit of merged textEdit

The section title pretty much says it all; I don't think I should name the article here. I'm pretty sure that totally eliminating the article that was merged in, without any prior discussion on the merged-in article's Talk page (which still exists) is a violation of some Wikipedia rule.

My continuing problem is that the merged-in article was IMHO a mess, containing obsolete statements buttressed by a few 2011 references that turn out to be from authors who were obviously marketing software products that no longer exist. Yet the other editor insists on keeping the text basically as merged-in; he/she just reverted 5 hours of work I did revising that sub-section.

How do I go about complaining about this to someone who can restrain and/or punish the other editor? I don't want to get into a reversion war; I just want the sub-section to remain in the valid shape I left it. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 13:25, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

You should start by discussing the merge with the merging editor on their talk page, explaining why you think it was a poor idea. Maproom (talk) 13:58, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

New name change moved to draftEdit

Good day my wikipedia name was Jordan Mclemont however i decided to change it to my Artist name Mento ,i would like to move Mento Dah Hermit from drafts to public page A.S.A.P Its a bit complicated to do — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordan Mclemont (talkcontribs) 13:36, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

@Jordan Mclemont: welcome to the Teahouse! It looks like you are talking about two different things here, and mixing them up a little. Your user name is Jordan Mclemont, and if you want to change that you need to go to the page Wikipedia:Changing username and read the instructions there. User names are different from Wikipedia article names; you created a draft page at Draft:Mento Dah Hermit and then you moved it to User:Mento Dah Hermit which is a user page intended for information about that user's activities at Wikipedia and maybe some brief personal info. Since there is no such registered user, that page was removed. If you change your user name to "Mento Dah Hermit" you can create a new user page there, but note that you can't use your Wikipedia user page to promote yourself as an artist - it is not a "profile page" like those you can create at social networking sites. Please also note that you should not create a Wikipedia article about yourself, since you have a conflict of interest, and autobiographies are strongly discouraged (much more information about these things on the linked pages). Hope this makes sense. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 13:50, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

From Draft to Main space before reviewEdit

Hello everyone!

I recently submitted my draft page for a review. I rewrote the page with the help of one of admins/editors and submitted for a review almost a month ago.

Is it against the rules to put it into the main page before a review? I wouldn't do that if I weren't already advised on the article by another knowledgable Wiki editor, but since I was and I rewrote/removed all the parts that might not pass on a review, I think I might do this.

That's my first article and I want to continue with writing other articles but I'm a bit afraid I'll do it in vain. So, it would be great to move this thing forward. Of course, if I'm allowed to do so! I don't want to risk being banned or unable to contribute further to Wikipedia.

Please advice me on this! Thank you! Supraphonic (talk) 15:26, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Worst that could happen is that it appears on main space and is nominated for deletion. While being considered for deletion, you would have time to fix what was described as deeply flawed. However, given this is your first article, the general advice is to be patient. The draft Draft:Anita Andreis will be reviewed, and either approved, or declined, with reasons given. If the latter, you can then address the shortfalls and resubmit. David notMD (talk) 16:35, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

"thank" from user Requita8684, unable to find?Edit

I got a "thanked you" in my "Notices" from "Requita8684", but they don't appear to be a User that I've found ... ? X1\ (talk) 16:42, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello, X1\. That user does exist (see Special:Log/Requita8684), but doesn't have a user page and has never made an edit, which is perhaps why you are struggling to find them. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:51, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
(ec) @X1\: The user Requita8684 actually thanked you – see the log.
But what do you mean by „a User that I've found“...? --CiaPan (talk) 16:52, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Wow! Ok. Thank you Cordless Larry and CiaPan. X1\ (talk) 17:09, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Created their Talk page and added a Template:WelcomeMenu. X1\ (talk) 17:16, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Need help formatting a templateEdit

With Template:Academic ranks, would someone who knows how please create two sub-boxes under North American system. It's beyond me to do. Thank you. deisenbe (talk) 18:04, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I looked at this again, and I think I had not saved something, which made this request possibly confusing. I’ve fixed that now. deisenbe (talk) 08:54, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Do quotes on portals require a citation?Edit

Hello there, Teahouse. I'm by no means a new editor, as I've been active on this site for over three years now, but I recently came across a conundrum for which I found no proper forum to address it (if I'm mistaken, please redirect me): Do quotations on WP:Portals require a citation?

The Portal:Democratic Republic of the Congo has a "Selected quote" section, which currently cycles through three quotes, all of which are said to have come from people who have been long dead (one of them is a re-appropriated folk saying). Though these quotes are "attributed" to people, there is no citation for any of them to confirm this. WP:Portal#Portals and the core content policies says "Portals are subject to the Wikipedia's five pillars and must comply with Wikipedia's core content policies (neutral point of view, no original research, verifiability, etc.)." MOS:QUOTE says "The reader must be able to determine the source of any quotation, at the very least via a footnote." So per requirements of verifiability, must quotes be cited to a reliable source? (For a BLP question this seems to be an obvious yes, but that is not the case here—yet.) If so, how do we embed such citations in a portal(as formal ref tags probably won't mesh with the formatting very well)?

Please ping me in your response. Thank you for your help. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:50, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

The page that generates that list predates Siegenthaler; what you're looking at is a relic of Early Wikipedia, which has survived because portals serve no useful purpose so nobody's ever noticed the issue before. (This portal averages a mighty 20 views per day.) My inclination would be to remove the "quote" section altogether since I can't imagine any reader ever finding it useful; User:BrownHairedGirl might have thoughts. ‑ Iridescent 19:56, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Indy beetle, Here is how I solved it for a quote that I thought was just terrible, but that survived an AfD. Vexations (talk) 20:08, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
(ec)Indy beetle, I agree with Iridescent: this is a relic of early Wikipedia, preserved in the neglected portal pages. Portals serve no useful purpose, and most of them have been rotting for years, which is why I and others have been busy running the worst of them through MFD for the last two-and-a-half months.
Nearly all the pre-2018 portals are built using subpages, some times many hundreds of subpages per portal, and they mostly consist of very old unsourced content-forks. Some of those I have found have been utter nonsense, such as this hijack[2] of portal on a Chinese city which went uncorrected for two years, presumably because nobody reads the portals (they have a median daily pageview rate of only 13, and in most cases the head article receives between 100 and 2000 times more views.
The quotes sections which I have seen have all been unreferenced. Any such material should simply be removed. The simplest way to do this is simply to blank the quotes page, noting something like "removed unsourced" ... but it would be best to edit the main portal page, and remove the transclusion of the quotes page. I will do that now. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
@Iridescent:@Vexations:@BrownHairedGirl: Thank you for the advice, and it does seem indeed to be the best course of action to remove the unsourced quotes. The observation about it predating the Siegenthaler incident makes a good point. I'm personally quite apathetic to the fate of Portals on Wikipedia, and if anything I think they can be a distraction from our generation of proper article content. I was actually going to consider the Congo portal for deletion, but saw that it had those "mighty" page view stats (which quite frankly is much better than most DRC content) so I thought I might as well clean it up to a standard where it is not an outright embarrassment or—in this instance—a probable policy violation. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:39, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
@Indy beetle: Glad that helped, but what "mighty" stats? (unless your are being ironic).
In Jan–Feb 2019, the portal got 20 pageviews per day, but the head article got 6,669 per day. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:49, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
@BrownHairedGirl: Yes, I'm absolutely using verbal irony to point out that when compared to other Congo articles, 20 views per day isn't all that bad. Jean Bolikango, an important Congolese nationalist (and a FA) gets 11 per day; Albert Kalonji, a tribal and secessionist leader of the 1960s, gets 15; Marcel Lihau, a jurist who had his hand in writing two constitutions for the country, served as the Supreme Court's first president, and co-founded an important political party (and once again a FA) gets a mere 9; Abeti Masikini, an important female singer, fetches 6; Antoine-Roger Bolamba, one of the country's first writers, a government official, and an influential journalist, also gets 6; Constitution of the Democratic Republic of the Congo garners 29; Moambe chicken, supposedly the country's oft-dubbed "national dish", gets 22. Welcome to Africa topics. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:18, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
@Indy beetle To be fair, DRC is a nation which almost entirely avoided both British colonialism and American neocolonialism and probably has one of the lowest proportions of English speakers of anywhere in the world, so I wouldn't expect most articles to generate much interest other than those on people like Christian Benteke who have become famous in English-speaking nations. For a comparably-sized but English-speaking African nation like Nigeria, the stats are much healthier: Chinua Achebe (probably Nigeria's most popular author) consistently gets around 1000 views per day, Constitution of Nigeria averages 630 views per day, popular singer Don Jazzy hovers around the 200 mark, Jollof rice around 500, and even the revolting Moin moin gets about 80-90 views per day. I imagine if you pop over to French Wikipedia the numbers will be roughly reversed. ‑ Iridescent 21:43, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

A new draft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Terry_Marks-Tarlow,_Ph._D.Edit

I inserted all pertinent information into a new draft of an article about a prominent person in the field of psychology. I do not have the time to figure out the formatting requirements. Can the subject of the article become involved in the editing and finalizing of the article if I were to send her a link and if she is so inclined? I thought this would be easier than it is. Thanks for your help. Susan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swarshow (talkcontribs) 20:14, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

@Swarshow: The draft is here: Draft:Terry_Marks-Tarlow,_Ph._D.. Please read WP:YFA for guidance on how to create an article. RudolfRed (talk) 20:18, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

As I said, I do not have time to finalize the article. Can the subject of the article be involved in creating the formatting? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swarshow (talkcontribs) 20:24, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Too late! Draft deleted. David notMD (talk) 00:28, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
@Swarshow: In answer to your question, they can but it doesn't mean that they should. We highly discourage anyone from getting involved in the creation or updating of an article about themselves, do to the obvious conflict of interest (COI) that it poses.
If you have a personal or professional relationship with Terry_Marks-Tarlow, then you also have a COI. While it's not prohibited outright, COI editing is problematic for a number of reasons (hard to maintain the required neutral point of view, using unpublished original research, etc.). That's why we discourage it... if he is truly notable, then someone who is not connected with him will eventually write about him. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:31, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

hello I need helpEdit

i love one artist and he has no Wikipedia page so as a fan i want to make his Wikipedia. How can i make it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.194.183.238 (talk) 20:51, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse! Start with taking the time to read Wikipedia:Notability (music). If you conclude "Yep, I have those sources, no problem", continue with Wikipedia:Your first article. If not, edit something else. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:48, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I need Help for creating a pageEdit

i try to make a page of one of my favorite actor but it gets delete all the time. Kindly Help me to creating the page. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shan Baig (actor) (talkcontribs) 21:11, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse! Start with taking the time to read Wikipedia:Notability (people). If you conclude "Yep, I have those sources, no problem", continue with Wikipedia:Your first article. If not, edit something else. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:50, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
From your Talk page, appears you are trying to write about yourself. Autobiography articles are rarely accepted. David notMD (talk) 00:32, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Timelines???Edit

Weird, so i checked a band here and i saw that they have a timeline so i went to check the timelines but they are blank. I checked some others and they are also blank, so i tried editing to fix it so that anyone can see it but idk how, everytime i check on the preview it works but on the real thing it doesnt. (i use a phone btw) --FromFrankTalk♬ 22:26, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

FromFrank: Hmm, timelines appear for me in desktop mode (e.g., [3]) but not mobile (e.g., [4]). Probably something for WP:VP/T. Eman235/talk 22:33, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

How Do I Create a Wikipedia PageEdit

Hi, I want to create a wikipedia page on myself. How can I attain this / go about doing this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seemoretutors (talkcontribs) 01:31, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

See the autobiography policy and don't do it. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:10, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
If someone else wanted to do one, they would need "reliable sources" to cite.WP:RS Also, if you were notable enough to merit an Article, there would probably already be one.WP:N Also don't try to get someone else to do it. [puppet], or try to do it yourself under another name/account WP:SOCK. And they can always delete it for various reasons [deletion]Tym Whittier (talk) 03:21, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not social media. "Notability" means being famous enough that other people have published articles about you. David notMD (talk) 04:35, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Your username is also against Wikipedia policy. You cannot name your account after your business or use Wikipedia for any promotional purpose. Please submit a change of username as your account may be blocked for this reason. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:12, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

My Question was Archived, in 3 days, I got no notice of answers or archivingEdit

My question "Is there an "Official" Dictionary for Wikipedia?" got archived. I've asked questions here before, was always informed there was an answer and got a message when it was archived. This time I got none of that. I've been wondering and waiting for answers and just now learned it was archived. I thought the time period was like 5 days. Did I forget to click a button, or something?Tym Whittier (talk) 03:15, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

There were a couple of replies within four hours of your question. See [5]. The archiving bot seems to have been busier than usual. Dbfirs 08:17, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
It does seem that Munninbot's notifications of archival stopped working since May 17. As far as I know, this is a bug. I will try to find time to investigate this weekend, but no promises. TigraanClick here to contact me 11:17, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for all of that. Glad to know I didn't do something wrong and get prematurely archived for that reason. So what do I do now? "Unarchive" the question? Post a duplicate (and waste the answers that were given)? I didn't get notifications for these answers either.Tym Whittier (talk) 16:40, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Do not unarchive the question, but you can post a new thread to ask for clarification, complements etc. if you want. It is normal that you do not get notifications for reply - we Teahouse answerers try to WP:PING new users when replying, but we do not always do it. TigraanClick here to contact me 19:59, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
I also find it odd that the notifications quit working at the same time that the archiving started working faster. Are they the same 'bot?Tym Whittier (talk) 16:41, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
No. The archival process on the Teahouse and on many, many other pages is handled by Lowercase sigmabot III. After it does its thing, Muninnbot comes up, sniffing the Teahouse's page history, and tries to notify every thread initiator of where the archive is stored. I am the maintainer of the latter (Muninnbot), which is a much smaller project than Lowercase sigmabot III by far. I think I fixed the bug, which had nothing to do with the archival process. The next paragraph gives the details of the bug for the interested reader, but you can skip it safely if you do not care.
Muninnbot runs tests of its subroutines before doing the actual run, in order to ensure nothing broke, and stops if any of the tests failed (I think it would not be wise to run unsupervised a bot that writes to user talk pages without such a "dead bot's switch"). One of the subroutines is a check of whether a user is blocked (per WP:DENY, Muninnbot will not post to the talk pages of blocked users); the associated test had a hardcoded IP that was WP:INDEF-blocked, but it just got unblocked, which caused the test to break and all the notification process with it. TigraanClick here to contact me 19:59, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
FYI I did not get notified of this post. Was I supposed to?Tym Whittier (talk) 22:22, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Help searching textEdit

I need help searching the text for an update to an article. The text is just so overwhelming. I am looking for a string "<ref></ref>" that is giving me an error message when I insert it into the article. Oddly enough this doesn't happen in the draft. Is there any thing like coloured markup code or grep that we can use to make our lives easier? Any help is appreciated. The text is at User:TheDoDahMan/draft2. Thanks in advance. TheDoDahMan (talk) 08:06, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

It would be more helpful if you included a link to the page you are talking about. I've also added nowiki tags around your example, it was generating an error here! Martin of Sheffield (talk) 08:56, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • What Martin said ^, plus, you can copy and paste the text of any draft or article from the edit-source window into any text editor or word processor/spreadsheet and use whatever search tools you prefer - or, even, save the text file and actually use grep!... You don't have to do that - most browsers let you search the text in a page, so if you do that in edit-source mode it should be enough. But yes, show us what you are actually looking for and it will be much easier to help. -- Begoon 09:10, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
    Thanks, I never thought of that! I found the offending tags BTW.TheDoDahMan (talk) 09:34, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
    • You're welcome. You mentioned "coloured markup code", so to be complete I guess I should mention Wikipedia:Syntax highlighting. When you are in the 'edit-source' window you should see an icon like this:   in your toolbar (not to be confused with the pencil icon on the far right, which will switch you to the visual editing mode). Clicking that icon will toggle coloured syntax highlighting of wiki-code on/off. If you don't see that icon in your ordinary or advanced toolbar you're probably in "new-wikitext" mode, in which case it'll be available from the menu icon:  . -- Begoon 10:51, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Begoon, I'll try that. I installed Notepad++ which has a nice grep-like function. I will try using that in future when I have a problem.TheDoDahMan (talk) 11:27, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
A fine choice. Notepad++ is an excellent text editor which I use constantly. It would have been my recommendation had you asked. -- Begoon 11:37, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi again. I can't figure out how to get the syntax highlighting in Notepad++. I went into settings->style configurator and changed it to HTML but no highlighting happens and when I restart it, it reverts to gloabal override. Any tips? I got the highlighting to work on the WP editor by the way.TheDoDahMan (talk) 12:36, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I think that confused me way back when... Language-H-HTML from the menu is what you want. Language-XML is almost the same, and quicker. It doesn't do a great deal for most wikitext. settings->style configurator is an advanced thing for fiddling around with what gets highlighted and how - you could use that to create your own 'wiki' highlighting style - but that's quite advanced and I've never felt the need - I stick with plain text usually. -- Begoon 12:50, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks again! Yes XML highlighting works but its not as good as the WP editor, I think I will stick to the WP editor for now, unless its a really big file.At least I have the Find function :-)TheDoDahMan (talk) 13:11, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Page deletionEdit

Hi,

My Page (Ooty flower show - link added by CiaPan (talk)) was deteled and the message states:

This page has been deleted. The deletion, protection, and move log for the page are provided below for reference.

  • 15:21, 22 May 2019 Boing! said Zebedee talk contribs deleted page Ooty flower show (G8: Page dependent on a deleted or nonexistent page) (thank)
  • 18:03, 20 May 2019 Derek R Bullamore talk contribs moved page Ooty flower show to Ooty Flower Show (Capitalisation of name) (revert) (thank)

Please help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Streamingriver (talkcontribs)

@Streamingriver: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You may want to directly ask the administrator who deleted it, but it appears that the article in question was deleted as promotional. This is probably because it had no independent reliable sources with significant coverage of this event that show how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable event, written at WP:NEVENT. The sources it had are the website of the event and routine event announcements, which do not establish notability. 331dot (talk) 10:08, 23 May 2019 (UTC)


my page Rehab Yoga was deleted, I am new to wiki and not sure why it got deleted. how can I recover the deleted page. Please help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Streamingriver (talkcontribs)

@Streamingriver: It was deleted for the same issues as your other article; it did not indicate how it meets our definition of notability. I am wondering if you work for a PR firm or other business that edits for clients? 331dot (talk) 11:37, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't work for any PR firm just doing it out of interest. Kindly guide me as to how to recover these page so I could correct my mistake. Thanks in advance ( Streamingriver (talk) 12:17, 23 May 2019 (UTC) ).

My article is ready for submissionEdit

Hello Teahouse residents!

Please I would like experienced wiki editors to review my work in my sandbox and make corrections were necessary, do well to inform me of your corrections in my talk page so I can take note. I would appreciate my work to be accepted.

Thank yo guys!

Ohanwe Emmanuel .I. (talk) 12:36, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

His sandbox: User:Ohanwe Emmanuel .I./sandbox David notMD (talk) 13:37, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
@CptViraj: Erm, no. Did you not check for copyright violations? This draft is stuffed full of copy/pasted content from non-free sources which breaches our guidelines. It is also far too detailed, and reads more like a promotional cv than an encyclopaedia article. It could do with a lead paragraph to summarise who he is and why he's notable. (See this page on notability.) The article should refer to him directly by his name, and not all that HR Eng. stuff which means nothing to me or other readers. We don't need to know if he's happily married - just that he's married. @Ohanwe Emmanuel .I.: If you can cut down the draft by around half its length and rewrite key content in your own words, then your draft might well stand a chance of being accepted. Not a bad effort for a first draft. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:18, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you User:CptViraj

Ohanwe Emmanuel .I. (talk) 18:38, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Nick Moyes, I would reduce the draft and change my dictions. Pls do you think there's anything wrong with my references?

Ohanwe Emmanuel .I. (talk) 18:38, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

@Ohanwe Emmanuel .I.: You asked on my talk page about which pages you copy/pasted text from. I'm surprised you can't remember, but you might find [@Ohanwe Emmanuel .I.: this tool] useful. Text in pink indicates that which has been copied from other sources. You also asked (below) about sources. I would ask you to investigate the 'Cite' tool which you can find in both of our editing tools and to ensure you complete all the fields it offers you. This is the way to make really good citations - the absolute life-blood of Wikipedia, and by no means an irrelevancy. If you can avoid repeating the same citation, that would be really helpful, too. There's more information on how to use the 'ref name =' function on this page, and I've demonstrated how you can do that that with one of your sources. The real benefit for you is that you don't have to retype all the same content, but just call up a shortcut name every time you need to re-use it. Some of your source links don't help users prove that what you say is correct - e.g. the link to Otis Engineering isn't to a page which actually states he was the founder and chairman. Another suggestion is to remove some of the 'redlinks' such as 'Engineering Practice' and 'Public Utility Regulation' which I doubt will ever be created. You also have a number of links to disambiguation pages such as shell, when I think you mean the oil corporation. You can change your 'Preferences' so that these disambiguation pages how up as orange text which I find very helpful when cleaning up new pages. I hope this feedback is of some help. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:04, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello guys! I have done the corrections, can you please help me review it one more time? Thanks for your time teahouse. Ohanwe Emmanuel .I. (talk) 22:59, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Definition TemplateEdit

Is there in definition template? Which will show definition of the word? (Not 'Need definition'). CptViraj (Talk)

There is no template to do so, but you can always link the term to the appropriate article. WelpThatWorked (talk) 15:13, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism ReportEdit

Hi. I have found an instance of obvious vandalism by an IP address. The page is Nina Kosterina. I am reporting it here because I am new and I haven't figured out the vandalism reporting yet. Any advice would be appreciated. TheDoDahMan (talk) 14:41, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

TheDoDahMan, The best way to deal with It is to hit the little "undo" button next to the offending edit on the history of said page. WelpThatWorked (talk) 15:11, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
It seems to have been dealt with. If you want to read more about responding to vandalism, take a look at WP:VANDALISM. If you see an edit that you are certain could not have been made in good faith, you are welcome to simply revert it - if in any doubt, leave an edit summary explaining what you think is wrong with it. Escalating warning notices are usually put on vandals' talk pages, to inform them that they risk having their account/IP blocked, and to let other patrollers know easily that they are dealing with a 'repeat offender'. If a user continues vadalising repeatedly dispite warnings, you can report them to WP:AIV. Note - warning and reporting are much easier if you use WP:Twinkle. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 15:13, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi. Yes it was fixed very quickly. I tried to undo it, but I got an error message saying there was an edit conflict or something. That was why I posted this message. How do I find a talk page for an IP user, I don't think they have one?TheDoDahMan (talk) 15:46, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
TheDoDahMan Greetings. Click "talk" next to the IP address on the the "history page" of the article. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 15:53, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I will do that in future as required.TheDoDahMan (talk) 15:58, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

To whom it may concern...Edit

My name is Maad Maad Al-Gabban (a.k.a Maudi Algabban) and I would like to express my sincere apology for the previous message I have sent. Due to my condition which is autism, I have the gendency to express myself in a socially unacceptable manner. Therefore, I ask you and I beg you to ignore my previous message and accept my apology. And I assure you that this will not happen again.

Sincerely yours, Maad Maad Al-Gabban (a.k.a Maudi Algabban) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maad Maad Al-Gabban (talkcontribs) 2019-05-23T16:26:51 (UTC)

Hello, Maad Maad Al-Gabban, and welcome to the Teahouse. Thank you for your apology: I can't find any previous message from you, so I don't know what you are apologising for. Don't worry about making mistakes: As long as you observe principles for interaction such as CIVIL and Assume good faith, I don't think anybody will hold it against you.
By the way, on discussion pages like this (not on articles!) please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~), and the software will insert your account name, with the time, and links to your user and talk pages (I have added the signature to your posting above). --ColinFine (talk) 16:01, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Disappearing user subpageEdit

Hi, I wrote a draft article on user:TheDoDahMan/draft and submitted it for review. For some reason the page is gone. Help! TheDoDahMan (talk) 16:08, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Resolved.TheDoDahMan (talk) 17:09, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Two name merged on Wikipedia page singer Rajeshwari Datta and singer Rajeshwari DuttaEdit

Rajeshwari Datta is an actress https://www.imdb.com/name/nm9673055/bio?mode=desktop&ref_=m_ft_dsk

1. This Rajeshwari Datta has worked in serials Tujhse Hai Raabta for Zee tv http://www.tellychakkar.com/tv/tv-news/rajeshwari-datta-opens-her-role-tujhse-hai-raabta-181202

2. Jamai raja tv series season I & II

https://www.tvguide.com/tvshows/jamai-raja/cast/681007/

Rajeshwari Datta actress name is there in cast of the serial

  but photo has been used of Actress Rajeshwari Datta in wikipedia page of singer Rajeshwari Datta. Please separate both actress and singer. Actress Rajeshwari Datta and Singer Rajeshwari Datta

Actress Rajeshwari Datta photo has been used wrongly on singer Rajeshwari Datta wikipedia page link: https://www.google.com/search?newwindow=1&ei=z8fmXNn0Dvzcz7sPmvSTsAM&q=Rajeshwari+Datta+&oq=Rajeshwari+Datta+&gs_l=mobile-gws-wiz-serp.3..35i39l3j0i22i30j0i22i10i30l2.243464.244106..245130...0.0..0.422.1347.0j2j1j1j1....1..0....1.rIF25Zaj7_0


Please separate both the person with their profession.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ Rajeshwaridattaactor (talkcontribs) 2019-05-23T17:26:03 (UTC)

Hello, Rajeshwaridattaactor. Wikipedia has only an article on the singer Rajeshwari Datta. Somebody tried, inappropriately, to hijack the article and make it about the actor, but that is not the way to do it: if Rajeshwari Datta the actor meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability, then we can have an article on her, which will be separate from the article on the singer. (If you are Rajeshwari Datta, as your username implies, then you should not create this article, as autobiography is strongly discouraged).
The Wikipedia article Rajeshwari Datta does not have a photograph, and never has had, as far as I can tell. Google takes its information from various sources, including Wikipedia; but when Google mistakenly merges information about different people, that is Google's problem, and Wikipedia cannot do anything about it. (Standard message follows:)

  Are you by any chance referring to a photo or text shown to the right of a Google search? Google's Knowledge Graph uses a wide variety of sources. There may be a text paragraph ending with "Wikipedia" to indicate that particular text was copied from Wikipedia. An image and other text before or after the Wikipedia excerpt may be from sources completely unrelated to Wikipedia. We have no control over how Google presents our information, but Google's Knowledge Graph has a "Feedback" link where anyone can mark a field as wrong.. --ColinFine (talk) 18:57, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

hskEdit

Sheikh Abdul Muhammad Haseeb Shafiq Khan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haseebskhan24 (talkcontribs) 18:00, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Haseebskhan24, and welcome to the Teahouse. What is your question about editing Wikipedia? --ColinFine (talk) 18:58, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
@Haseebskhan24: The teahouse is for asking questions about Wikipedia from experienced editors, not really for experimenting. If you would like to experiment, please feel free to edit in the sandbox, this isn't the place to do so.Eclipsefc (talk) 23:59, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Trying to Add a picture to a PageEdit

I am trying to add a picture to an athletes page. I have posted a picture that keeps getting deleted. I know the athlete and he has been sending me photos he wants published on his wiki page. he owns the copyright on the pictures and I am just posting it for them. How can I post the picture? I keep getting user accounts flagging the picture and then the picture gets deleted. I am just doing this for the athlete and would like to get it done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soccerfiend11 (talkcontribs) 18:13, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Soccerfiend11 . If you are not the copyright holder, then you cannot upload the photos. It isn't allowed. The most straightforward solution is for the copyright holder to upload the photos. That person is the only one who has the legal ability to release the rights under an acceptable Creative Commons license. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:21, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi Soccerfiend11. In addition to what Cullen328 posted above, I'm just going to point out that Wikimedia Commons (or Commons for short) and Wikipedia are technically separate project. They both are part of the same Wikimedia Foundation family so to speak, but they each have their own respective policies and guidelines. Common bascially handles file uploads and is more concerned with how content uploaded to it is licensed than how it is going to be used in Wikipedia articles. Commons is also a global project which act as a file (i.e. image) repository for the various other members of the Wikimedia Foundation family; so, files uploaded to Commons need to be able to be used on any of these other Wikipedia project pages without any concern about violating someone else's copyright. For this reason, Commons is pretty strict when it comes to the types of files it will accept as explained in c:Commons:Licensing and pretty much only will accept files which either (1) been clearly released under a free license or (2) are clearly within the public domain. Since copyright law, etc. can vary from country to country (sometimes even quite a bit), Commons will often require some sort of formal verification by Wikimedia OTRS whenever there are concerns about a file's licensing. Moreover, Commons will also delete files per its precautionary principle whenever there are serious concerns about a file's licensing. So, if you're the copyright holder of the file(s) you uploaded, please take a look at c:COM:OTRS#Licensing images: when do I contact OTRS?; if, on the other hand, you're not, please look at c:COM:OTRS#If you are NOT the copyright holder. Just for general reference, most content is going to be assumed to be protected by copyright unless it can be clearly demonstrated not to be; furthermore, the copyright holder is generally considered to be the creator of the work, not the subject of the work or the possesser of the work (e.g. the photographer who takes a photo, not the subject of the photo or a person who has the photo in their possession). In most cases, if you7re not the person who actually created the work, you are not going to be considered the own the copyright over the work.
Finally, if the article you wanted to add the photo is Brendan Hines-Ike and you're a friend of his, then you're most likely going to be considered to have a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest with respect to anything written about him anywhere on Wikipedia. Wikipedia doesn't expressly prohibit conflict-of-interest editing, but it does highly discourage it and expect editors with a conflict of interest to follow certain guidelines. I've added a template to your user talk page which contains links to various Wikipedia pages related to conflict of interest, but you might also want to look at Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide, Wikipedia:Ownership of content, and even perhaps Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing for additional reference. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:36, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

HORRENDOUS AND UNACCEPTABLE DELETION AND EDITING FROM OTHER EDITORS!!!Edit

I, Mrandrew16 start to understand why people lose trust and credit in wikipedia!!! I have been editing for couple of years and I have always problem in my special area - the tennis historical figures and stats. Bytheway, I am a tennis historian, I corrected ATP site, providing missing sheets to Tennis Hall of Fame museum, attending all kind of tennis event (ITF, ATP, WTA etc) running the most comprehensive Grand Slam database and MY EDITS WERE DELETED permanently without any notifications? What is going here at wikipedia? They apply the censorship like facebook who and which journalists can post articles and/or edit sites??? This discriminative behavior made me utmost upset and as I mentioned not only myself is affected, however I heard these kind of stories from other editors either! I start to understand how wikipedia censorship is going now... If wikipedia excpects more voluntary editors and request any donation, why I am not surprised if more and more people are leaving wikipedia and do not give any credibility. The level and standards are going down this way... I demand explanation why wikipedia deleted my edits without any notifications especial in the expertise of tennis!!! I am working Hall of Fame journalists and I know personally every high-regarded media member of the tennis world. None of them work for wikipedia!!! You do not respect knowledge, preparedness, commitment and the time and energy which I ( and other people) invested to elevate the level of the wikipedia. I experienced (not the first time) professional jealousy and exclusion from the editing. If I do not receive any explanation from you and this situation won't change, I mean, I will experience the same kind of issues in the future, I will join the people who already left wikipedia and I will instigate others too! Mrandrew16 (talk) 19:48, 23 May 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrandrew16 (talkcontribs) 20:39, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Mrandrew16. Have you asked the editor who reverted your edits to explain why they did so? That should be your first course of action, rather than shouting at the volunteers here, who likely had nothing to do with the reverts. By the way, very few edits are ever permanently deleted - they are usually there in the page's edit history. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:47, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Dear Cordless Larry. Sorry for this 'shouting', however I am utmost disappointed and frustrated! The editors deleted even my editing history since May 12! How it happened? I know exactly which sites I made edits (Steffi Graf, Natasha Zvereva etc.) and I am not able to find any of my edits, not even my user name in view history? Furthermore, I did another edit on May 20, and the total excel (which last line I added a stat) is disappeared...There is any logical explanation? I appreciate your time and your kindness to try to solve the problem!Mrandrew16 (talk) 19:56, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

The last edits you made from your account before today were on 12 May (see Special:Contributions/Mrandrew16). Perhaps you accidentally edited while logged out? I'd suggest checking the individual article histories to see if you can find the edits that way. If you made them while logged out, they'll be listed against your IP address rather than username. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:00, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Cordless Larry. I have already checked those individual sites and that's my problem: I did not find any of my edits on that either! And I was logged in and I always checked my completed edits on the public sites! Furthermore, that referenced excel (wins vs No.1 players) which listed all of the matches of Nadal which he won against No.1 players, is disappeared! Mysterious!Mrandrew16 (talk) 20:08, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Cordless Larry, Mrandrew16 Mrandrew16's contributions begin on 20 December 2014. He did indeed make a number of edits to Steffi Graf, in early March 2015. Vexations (talk) 20:12, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Articles, especially those on well-known living persons, change over time. It is the nature of this project that they do so. If you want to know why a change was made, you should ask on the relevant article's talk page, and maybe try to be a little calmer when doing so. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:16, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Beeblebrox I understand your standpoint of the change for well-known living persons' bio,however, please understand my frustration too when you tried to make wikipedia better, more informative and when you just realize that everything was thrown out of the window without any notification. In that event, nobody can sit and smile. Thank you!22:31, 23 May 2019 (UTC)Mrandrew16 (talk)
There were no edits between 12 Mar and today on Natasha Zvereva. There were no edits between 28 Apr and today on Steffi Graf. Explanations are lacking, but very unlikely to be problems with Wikipedia or its logs. Shenme (talk) 20:41, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Shenme I appreciate your assistance of checking the referenced sites, however I did edit on there definitely. I did it again, and we'll see how the things work out.

Shenme I checked again the referenced sites, and I found the edits I did, however I do not understand why these edits are displayed under IP address and not under my username. I was logged in that time. It is possible if I collect those edits in a list you would switch that IP address to my user name?


How can I delete a submissionEdit

How can I delete a submission for good. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emma.Sydney.aus (talkcontribs)

The short answer is that you, personally, cannot delete anything. Only administrators can delete pages. In order to get a particualr page deleted you need to have a good reason why it should be deleted, and there are several processes for making your case. The most obviously unfit articles will qualify for speedy deletion, uncontroversial deletions unlikely to be objected to can be handled through proposed deletion (although if anyone at all does object they can simply decline the nomination) and for everything else you will need to use the articles for deletion process which involves a one-week discussion of the article in question. It can be a bit daunting if you have never done it before but any experienced user can help you through it and/or you can use WP:TWINKLE to facilitate any of the above processes. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:22, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Emma.Sydney.aus, if you want to delete this AfC submission, you can add {{db-u1}} to it, and an administrator should delete it shortly. Eman235/talk 21:13, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Edited draft ready for submissionEdit

I appreciate Teahouse for being responsive and friendly. I have an article ready for submission, I have effected some recommendations made hwre, please help me check the final copy before I submit for approval. Thanks. Here is my sandbox User:Ohanwe Emmanuel .I./sandbox Ohanwe Emmanuel .I. (talk) 20:56, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

@Ohanwe Emmanuel .I.: It doesn't help to keep asking the same questions in different places. Please ask and reply at Wikipedia:Teahouse#My_article_is_ready_for_submission. We are all volunteers here, and it helps to be patient. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:38, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Sorry if I duplicated my questions, I just finished effecting the corrections you made to my work and I decided to open a new thread to ask for further review. I would go back to the previous thread and continue the question. Thanks @Nick Moyes.

Ohanwe Emmanuel .I. (talk) 22:40, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Interwiki linksEdit

Hello, trying to correct some links written as [[:fr:Word]] into proper code through pages on other WP {{ill|Word|fr}}. However, when the word doesn't match the target (to make it shorter or simpler), how should it be written? Such as: {{ill|target link=Cat cabal|text written on the article=Best cabal ever|fr}}? Not sure it's clear... Regards, --Bédévore [knock knock] 22:17, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Hi Bédévore you add the word in the native language as the last parameter, so it would be for example {{ill|Hello|fr|Bonjour}} which would link to the French page Bonjour. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:22, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Is there some sort of tutorial video?Edit

Is there some sort of tutorial video?