Open main menu
Skip to top
Skip to bottom

Contents

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

Possible plagiarism in an article with Portuguese references; I do not speak Portuguese.Edit

I was doing some simple editing in the article

= Gustavo Franco = . I noticed that the language seemed very scholarly and then I came across a section that appeared to be cut off and did not make sense. There are a number of reasons for this excluding plagiarism and if the references were in English I would start there. What would you advise? I am very willing to believe that I am worrying about nothing except some sentences that got forgotten in an edit. Thank you bobdog54 (talk) 20:24, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello, bobdog54. The best place to express your concerns is on the Talk page of the article in question.--Quisqualis (talk) 20:55, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the speedy reply. I will do that. bobdog54 (talk) 21:06, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
I speak Portuguese if you need someone. deisenbe (talk) 10:48, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Bobdog54, I also speak Portuguese --Bageense(disc.) 20:05, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Why are there so many rude, condescending people on here?Edit

Why is there so much rudeness? Aren't we all here for the sharing and gathering of knowledge? I expected more professional and polite attitudes from the most well-known encyclopedia on the internet. --Vigilante Girl (talk) 23:29, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Please sign your posts, like this one. People are expected to be civil, and rudeness has no place here. You can ignore those being rude, warn them later, and in severe instances, report them at WP:AIV. --LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 23:26, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
I apologize for not signing. I tend to forget. Thank you for the advice, I will do so. :) --Vigilante Girl (talk) 23:30, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Vigilante Girl. You freely chose a clearly controversial username, and you chose to write a mildly confrontational userpage, and you chose to involve yourself in highly controversial topic areas like the Kiev/Kyiv naming controversy, apparently without studying the extensive previous discussions about this issue. So, I am not sure who you are accusing of rudeness, but did you really expect to be greeted with flowers? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:33, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Vigilante Girl, I'm sorry to hear that you have encountered problems with some editors. Unfortunately, considering the number of people who volunteer on Wikipedia, I suppose it is inevitable that some would be unprofessional and/or impolite. On the other hand, I won't name names, but I think back to two editors whose encouragement kept me working on here when I all but gave up soon after I started. They patiently explained how to navigate difficulties that had frustrated me almost to the point of quitting. As a result, I am now in my fifth year of contributing in my small way to this work-in-progress encyclopedia. I have also found many useful comments in the Teahouse and Help pages that have aided my work. Please don't let some bad experiences turn you away from Wikipedia. Eddie Blick (talk) 01:38, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
The only rudeness I noticed on Talk:Kiev came from Vigilante Girl. I advise editing in good faith, sans emotion.--Quisqualis (talk) 04:05, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
@Vigilante Girl: Like you, I see no reason for rudeness when engaging with other editors here. Sometimes "tone of voice" is extremely hard to discern in another editor's post, and we all need to assume good faith, and not over-react. I fear that this diff of yours rather rather undermines your concerns and only serves to escalate issues. I'd have hoped you'd have seen that raising an issue that had been raised and dismissed many times before without showing any intent to read and understand those past discussions is almost inevitably going to elicit the firm but nevertheless polite response that you received. If you can meet what you perceive as rudeness with politeness of your own, you will be playing your part in keeping our editing environment 'safe and pleasant' for everyone. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 08:17, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
@Quisqualis:I do edit in good faith, and I was no ruder than the person being rude to me. --Vigilante Girl (talk) 09:49, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
@Cullen328:You are a perfect example of a horribly rude and condescending attitude. My username is not controversial and my userpage is not meant to be confrontational. I wanted to stop vandals like the guy who vandalized the Sea Otter page. Also, I'd rather not be greeted with rudeness. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers --Vigilante Girl (talk) 09:49, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
The word "vigilante" has the connotation of acting outside the law and may easily be seen as signifying a lack of respect for rules, regulations, and proper procedure. An impression that you seemed to confirm with the statement "why should I check edits from the past" when it was pointed out to you that this had already been discussed and decided against (many times, including one quite recent discussion). Your seeming unfamiliarity with move procedures ("And what do you mean by "non-formal requests"? Is my language somehow not formal enough for you?") also shows, at the very least, a lack of knowledge of the rules. --Khajidha (talk) 12:05, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
And it can also mean a server of justice who isn't law enforcement. Also, me not knowing stuff doesn't give anyone the right to be rude to me. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers --Vigilante Girl (talk) 15:34, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
And vigilantism is generally held to be illegal and vigilantes are looked upon as criminals. The term is not one that inspires confidence. And, as several others have mentioned, no one has been rude to you. Your user page injunction that "there's no need to explain to me what Wikipedia is. ", on the other hand, comes off as rather dismissive and shows an unwillingness to learn. An unwillingness that you continue to display here. Not to mention the fact that if you really know what you're doing, then you don't really fall under the category of newcomer and your constant quoting of "don't bite the newcomers" (with no evidence of any actual "biting") is inappropriate. You can't have it both ways.--Khajidha (talk) 15:46, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
So what? Vigilantes can also be heroes who help people. And yes they have been rude to me. And what I meant by that was no need to explain that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and all that. I'm not being anymore dismissive than you are. You and them are being rude to me and I will NOT stand for it. If Wikipedia really is filled with rude, condescending people, then I'll just quit. I will NOT accept your hypocritical hierarchy and I will NOT be bullied by people who always get off scot-free. I have enough crap to deal with in my life, I don't need more. --Vigilante Girl (talk) 18:18, 17 September 2019 (UTC)


I you have experienced "so many" rude people here, I am very sorry. I've been around since 2008, logged in, and as an IP even before that. I cannot fairly say thet I think there are "so many" rude people. But there are indeed some. Nobody is supposed to get away with it. The ones who do are well-connected with others of the same ilk who will defend them no matter what they do. Consensus rules with no regard to justice, i.e. if a majority of such people hate you for some reason, you're in big trouble. Some even swoop in from other language projects, just to argue some pet peeve of theirs, in groups akin to packs of wolves. Others who get away with being rude are such sarcastically skilfull and hard-to-handle bullies that hardly anyone has the energy or guts to stand up to them. There are very few rude people here, in my opinion. The ones there are should always be reported when evidence of rudeness is crystal clear. More of them should get blocked than traditionally are. We all deserve an inspiring working envoronment. Best wishes, --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:09, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, "so many" was a hyperbole. Thank you for your advice and info. --Vigilante Girl (talk) 15:36, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Vigilante Girl I don't know if this parable will help, but fwiw, here ya go:

A traveler came upon an old farmer hoeing in his field beside the road. Eager to rest his feet, the wanderer hailed the countryman, who seemed happy enough to straighten his back and talk for a moment.

“What sort of people live in the next town?” asked the stranger.

“What were the people like where you’ve come from?” replied the farmer, answering the question with another question.

“They were a bad lot. Troublemakers all, and lazy too. The most selfish people in the world, and not a one of them to be trusted. I’m happy to be leaving the scoundrels.”

“Is that so?” replied the old farmer. “Well, I’m afraid that you’ll find the same sort in the next town.

Disappointed, the traveler trudged on his way, and the farmer returned to his work.

Some time later another stranger, coming from the same direction, hailed the farmer, and they stopped to talk. “What sort of people live in the next town?” he asked.

“What were the people like where you’ve come from?” replied the farmer once again.

“They were the best people in the world. Hard working, honest, and friendly. I’m sorry to be leaving them.”

“Fear not,” said the farmer. “You’ll find the same sort in the next town.”

Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 17:41, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Though I certainly recognize good intentions in this story, I cannot support a thought that looks like an excuse for unacceptable behavior, the excuse being that well-behaved people also exist. Good people should be encouraged and thanked. Incorrigibly bad ("rude, condescending people") should be blocked. No exceptions. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:00, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
I think you missed the entire point of the story. It isn't excusing unacceptable behavior at all. It is stating that your own nature/behavior is a major factor in how you perceive the behavior of others/how others behave towards you. If a person is a jerk, they will often find the world around them to be full of jerks. --Khajidha (talk) 13:52, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Draft Josip ZovkoEdit

I will take care of this. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:10, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello, you had informed me that the source information (IMDd) is not accepted. Although I have spotted this as a source (even as the only source) for many artists. This was accepted as such. Although I have deposited many and also good sources, you tell me that you do not accept them. I should translate the sources in English. I did that. However, you refuse to review my post and activate it. This is a contribution by an artist who has worked in Croatia in film, TV and theater. Thus, he has contributed much to the culture and development. The artist died in April 2019. Their behavior discriminates against the described person. Especially as they accept other artists with the specified sources of ONLY IMDd. Please consider whether this is objectivity.Moj Galeb (talk) 15:58, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

@Moj Galeb: IMDB is user generated content - I could create a filmography for you there that is entirely fictional and try to create a Wikipedia article about you, but it would be blocked. If there are other poorly sourced articles that were written before the standards started being enforced, using just IMDB, that means they haven't been noticed and corrected yet, not that they are OK. Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. You need to focus on finding reliable third party sources - see also WP:RS. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 18:34, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I have told you that I have used reputable sources. As you can see in my given sources are none of IMDd. I understood and changed this approach. My sources are from reputable third parties. I have used renowned reports from HRT. This is the Croatian first television. In addition, renowned newspapers such as Slobodna Dalmacija, Vecernji List, 24 Sata. These are one of the most famous Croatian newspapers. I also translated these sources and added the author with date. Therefore, I have established an objectivity about the artist.In addition, I am the author of the article in German and Croatian language. This is not plagiarism. These are facts.Moj Galeb (talk) 19:26, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

As you can see, I uploaded licenses to the pictures. These can be viewed on Wikipedia Commons. Wikipedia Commons is the international platform for images and data. The pictures show the artist staging various world-famous acts. These images are vertified and confirm the genuineness of the artist. Several times I have convinced the authenticity and verification of the article and pictures. In addition, I wrote a German Wikipedia administrator who can verify my reports. He can also understand English and Croatian. It is up to you to contribute to credibility. I would like to honor with my contribution a killed man. With your passive and subjective opinions and behavior you do not make any positive contribution to objectivity. Wikipedia is actually a platform of participation, not segregation. I would therefore ask for your support and unlock the article. Moj Galeb (talk) 10:38, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

@Timtempleton::@Vanjagenije::@Praxidicae: I contacted the German administrator de:User:Aspiriniks(diskussion). He had checked my article in German and released. He gave me the hint that the English administrator en:User:Vanjagenije can read the Serbo-Croatian language. I wrote to en:User:Vanjagenije on her talk page and asked for help. The German administrator Aspiriniks can also be contacted and asked after my article if this corresponds to the truth. Moj Galeb (talk) 13:41, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

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

How to clear the flag issuesEdit

Hi, There are some flag issues shows such as errors for notability, citation and errors Although there are none.. Can you please help how to improve page and get submitted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Themediatalk (talkcontribs) 18:39, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Courtesy link for other editors - this appears to be about Draft:Haelyn Shastri, which may have been previously deleted. The tags are appropriate. (Please sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes like this: ~~~~.) TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 19:03, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict):Hi Themediatalk and welcome to the Teahouse. If this is about the draft and the article Haelyn Shastri then there are lots of issues. You might like to start by reading WP:Referencing for beginners. I expect an admin can delete the article, then you can work on the draft. The only correctly-formatted in-line reference seems to be about Hinal Bambhania. This needs explaining. Dbfirs 19:04, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
... later note ... The version in mainspace has now been improved, using some of the refs from the draft so all is well. Dbfirs 06:35, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

New Article Created Fly ProEdit

Dear Wiki Experts, please someone review this article and let me know if there is anything/content in this article which is not supposed to be in Wikipedia. This new is my first article and I am totally new.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fly_Pro — Preceding unsigned comment added by Achint2182 (talkcontribs) 04:56, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

@Achint2182: the only big mistake you've made is to cite wikipedia as a source (currently ref #8). You can wikilink within the article, but never use it as a reliable source. The article has got through New Page Patrol and you've done a nice, succinct job there. Well done. Very minor niggles include occasional use of capital letters on nouns which are not proper names ( e.g. Cargo aircraft) and a couple of places where 'the' was ommitted. But these are nothing to worry about. The one inconsistency I noted was the formatting of the name. Is it FlyPro, Fly-Pro, Fly Pro, or something else? Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 08:03, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Nick Moyes, I have removed citation of wikipedia page and changed name to Fly Pro everywhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Achint2182 (talkcontribs) 08:19, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

@Achint2182: Thanks. One other little thing: (Please sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes like this: ~~~~.) Nick Moyes (talk) 10:19, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes Nick Moyes (talk), now I know how to sign off :) thanks Achint2182 (talk) 10:57, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Everyone, I have made some changes as suggested by Nick Moyes. Please review now and suggest to make it better, this is my first article. Achint2182 (talk) 05:26, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Need Help with Rejected Draft of Notable PersonEdit

Hello,

I am looking for more information about how I could have the following article accepted:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Antonios_Karatzis

I would like to ask:

1) Some sources in the said article are from materials produced by the creator (eg Reference number 2, which is the official site of the Karatzis Group of Companies, and referes to the company itself). Is this a red flag, and must be avoided at all costs? Or for cases, like the one I mentioned, it's ok to include said References?

2) In some Reference cases, like Reference number 20-25, the References are only in Online form, and from public sites (not owned by the creator though). Cases like these are included because there are no written sources available to ascertain these facts, aside from local newspapers and magazines which do not have online forms available to reference, since they refer to local events not covered in major media. Ar these references a red flag in the publishment of drafts? Shall I remove them altogether?

3) Could you give me some hints on which parts of my draft I should focus my attention on?

Any help will be greatly appreciated!

Thanks in advance, -George Antonakakis

Courtesy: The draft has been rejected six times. However, Antonakakis has only been editing after the fifth rejected. Question to Antonakakis: What is your connection to Karatzis? Asked because this is the only article you have edited, so need to know if your connection is paid or in some way a personal connection to Karatzis. David notMD (talk) 14:44, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

@David notMD: I think that you and the OP may have intended to say "declined", rather than "rejected"; the latter, if I understand it, is an action which has been introduced relatively recently and which has a degree of finality to it. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:52, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes, "Declined." I would still like a response from Antonakakis as to and WP:PAID or WP:COI related to becoming an editor on this draft. David notMD (talk) 15:33, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Hello again, and thank you for your responses. Yes, I am WP:COI related, as I know Mr. Karatzis Antonis. I am sorry I failed to mention it, I am new to wikipedia. And yes, I meant declined, not rejected. @David notMD thank you for your help with the edit! I will wait a bit before resubmitting, in case another helpful editor chimes in with more suggestions, since it takes a long time between submissions. Thank you very much nevertheless! George Antonakakis (talk) 13:06, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

SandboxEdit

I developed my first article (page) in my UsedID:Sandbox. When I finished drafting and editing, and was ready for publishing on Wikipedia, I then moved it into the Wikipedia drafts area. Since then, the moderators have approved the article, and it is now “live”.

I have two questions:

1. All I have in my UserId:Sandbox is

  1. REDIRECT Anne Puckridge


  • From a page move: This is a redirect from a page that has been moved (renamed). This page was kept as a redirect to avoid breaking links, both internal and external, that may have been made to the old page name.

I now want to develop a new article (page). Do I delete the redirect statement, now the article is live?

2. Can I develop more than one page at a time in my UserId:Sandbox?

Thank you!

What a great encyclopedia..

The Retiree — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Retiree (talkcontribs) 17:02, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

1 Yes, you can remove the redirect from your sandbox, and/or replace it by anything else.
2 You can have as many user subpages as you like; you can create User:The Retiree/sandbox2, User:The Retiree/whatever new title you like, or whatever. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:11, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much for such a quick response - very helpful — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Retiree (talkcontribs) 17:28, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Just for clarification, it isn't quite true that you moved your sandbox into the draft area and that the "moderators" have approved the article, and it is now "live". You moved the sandbox version yourself mistakenly to Wikipedia project space at Wikipedia:The Retiree/sandbox, and from there another editor (seeing that it didn't belong there) moved it to mainspace. In parallel you copied a separate version to draft space (at Draft:Anne Puckridge) and submitted it for AFC review. I assume that when a reviewer gets round to looking at it they will say that the mainspace article already exists, so they will decline the review of the draft. --David Biddulph (talk) 21:39, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Is BehindTheVoiceActors a legitimate source?Edit

I'd like to add data for voice actors on media entries, and i'd like to use it as a source? Is it acceptable for me to use the site? They've a rigorous sourcing process which only allows in-work credits or sources from the production, rather than from IMDb or here directly. Starbeam2 (talk) 17:02, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Starbeam2. This website was discussed at Reliable sources noticeboard in 2013, and there was agreement at that time that the site is reliable when referencing a profile with a green check mark, which indicates that particular listing has been vetted. I am not familiar with the website myself. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:59, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

automatic acquiring certain informationEdit

Can you direct me to a place where Wikipedia would acquire some information automatically from another site? For example, the version and release-number of a program ....

Take a look Wikipedia:Wikidata RudolfRed (talk) 18:17, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Sandy HookEdit

Why is the perpetrator's motivation "inconclusive" when many articles cite that he was constantly threatened by his mother about hospitalization and feared that? Source — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.27.178.170 (talk) 18:48, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. This page is a place for new users to ask questions about using Wikipedia. If you have a question or concern about a specific article, you should address it to that article's talk page. When you view the article, there should be a tab at the top that says "talk". Click that to access the talk page. 331dot (talk) 18:52, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes, the proper place to discuss this is Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:54, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
The issue of why a motive is not given is addressed in the "frequently asked questions" section of Talk:Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting. Fabrickator (talk) 19:07, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

WYZZ-TVEdit

The box summary on the right side of the page incorrectly identifies channel 43.2 as GET-TV. The correct answer should show 43.2 as cool TV and channel 43.3 as GET-TV. Although 43.2 is actually not on the air because cool TV is bankrupt? I have tried to contact WYZZ for clarification, but have gotten no answer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.18.138.62 (talk) 18:58, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello there! The actual channel has nothing to do with the wikipedia article which is maintained by volunteer editors like me, and you. We update the article based on what is published on reliable sources. Although I haven't checked the sources in this one, I changed it to 43.3 as you suggested because that's also what it says in the article body, and the infobox is supposed to be a summary of the article. Let's wait and see if the regular contributors to the article thank us or revert it back. Usedtobecool TALK  10:34, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Translating a page from Russian to EnglishEdit

Hello,I'm a librarian and received a question from a faculty member in the Russian language department. This faculty person is interested in creating a Wikipedia article about Maxim Amelin (sometimes spelled Maksim Amelin). She attempted to create an article in the past, but it was deleted because the topic was not considered notable enough. There are multiple wikipedia pages about Maxim Amelin in other languages, and so she said she would also be willing to translate an existing page into English. We have read through some of the translation information pages, but they are a little confusing. Is there someone who would be willing to put the next steps into layman's terms? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZoeannaMayhook (talkcontribs) 20:00, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

The first step is to address the question of notability. The fact that articles exist in other languages doesn't necessarily mean that the subject would satisfy the notability requirements in the English Wikipedia (as each language's Wikipedia is independent and self-governing), but it is obviously worth looking at the sources used in other languages to see whether they would be suitable for the English version. The basic advice is at WP:Translation. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:13, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
It would obviously be interesting to see any previous discussion about his notability here on enwiki, but on a quick search I can't see any evidence of such an article having existed and being deleted. Can you give us a link? --David Biddulph (talk) 20:20, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
I now see that a draft exists at Draft:Maxim Albertovich Amelin. It hasn't been deleted, but was declined at AFC review. It would obviously make sense to address the points raised during that review. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:25, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you all so much for the information! I'm happy to see that the draft still exists. We were concerned that it was deleted. We will look into the review comments, and see if we can improve the article. - ZoeannaMayhook

Live Wikipedia PageEdit

This page went live today, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Puckridge

but now it is showing this message:

This article is an orphan, as no other articles link to it. Please introduce links to this page from related articles; try the Find link tool for suggestions. (September 2019)

What has happened, and how can i fix it?

Thanks

Nigel — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Retiree (talkcontribs) 21:17, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

@The Retiree: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Nothing has "happened" other than the fact that no other articles link to the article you created. This makes the article an "orphan". If you add links to the article you made where they seem pertinent in other articles, the Orphan tag can be removed. 331dot (talk) 21:20, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
@331dot: Would you mind looking at Draft:Anne Puckridge? I'm not sure why a draft for the article was created, particularly since the article already existed when the draft was created. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:37, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Please remove the draft - I moved my article from Sandbox to draft, thinking that was what I was supposed to doThe Retiree (talk) 23:21, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
The blue words in the notice are wikilinks to further information. In particular, you will find an explanation at WP:orphan. --David Biddulph (talk) 21:23, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Perfect - thank you so much - I have linked the article, and the message has gone away....isn't technology wonderful... — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Retiree (talkcontribs) 21:33, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
@The Retiree: Perhaps you can clarify why you created a draft for this subject after you had already created the article about this subject? Usually, things are done the other way around. It's not going to break Wikipedia, but I don't think a "draft" is needed at this point. If you want to work on improvements to the article, you can use your user sandbox instead for practice or simply edit the article directly. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:37, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
@The Retiree: The message hasn't "gone away". You deleted the orphan tag although the article is still an orphan. I have restored the tag. --David Biddulph (talk) 21:43, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Now I am getting really confused, because the page now has multiple issues:
This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages)
This biography of a living person needs additional citations for verification. (September 2019)
This article is an orphan, as no other articles link to it. Please introduce links to this page from related articles; try the Find link tool for suggestions. (September 2019) — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Retiree (talkcontribs) 21:49, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
I have linked the article frozen state pension with the page Anne Puckridge, and I am guessing this is where you want the The Retiree (talk) 22:03, 19 September 2019 (UTC)?
Hi again The Retiree. The article you created has lots of sources (though perhaps too many as explained in WP:BOMBARD; for example, you don't really need 16 sources to support the fact that she was interviewed by media outlets in the UK and Canada.), but all of them are related to the "pension" matter, and there are none for the biographical information in the previous section. If you're going to add content about her background, education, etc. then you need to provide sources for them as well per WP:BLPSOURCES; otherwise, the unsourced content can be removed at anytime. Even if you know the content is true, citations are still needed for verification purposes. Also, you might want to read WP:COISELF and WP:BLPCOI as well as Wikipedia:Ownership of content. While I'm sure your intentions were noble in creating this article, if you're connected to Puckridge in some kind of personal or professional way, then you would be considered to have a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and need to understand that the article shouldn't be used to promote her or her cause(s). Neither she nor anyone else associated with her has any final editorial control over the article's content; so, anything not in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines has a good chance of being removed.
Finally, you should check the file you uploaded to Wikimedia Commons because it has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please read c:Commons:OTRS for more information on what you need to do to resolve that problem. For reference, Commons and Wikipedia are separate projects which means you will need to resolve the file issues over at Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:08, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
@The Retiree: A possible way for you to WP:DE-ORPHAN the Puckridge article might be to add relevant sourced content about her and her challenge to Frozen pension#Challenges. Perhaps a short paragraph describing her case, the outcome, etc. would work as long as it's supported by citation to reliable sources. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:19, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
I see that The Retiree has created both Anne Puckridge and Draft:Anne Puckridge, and the presence of two versions is creating confusion, particularly for The Retiree themself. I have often seen inexperienced editors create two or more versions of the same article, and it usually creates confusion, for the person responsible, for reviewers, for editors who nominate one of the versions for deletion, and for editors who improve one of the versions. Maproom (talk) 22:10, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
I developed the page Anne Puckridge in my Sandbox, When I was happy with it, I moved it to Wikipedia Drafts, and from there I thought that the moderators then moved it to what I call "live" (is this called Mainspace?}. When I moved it, there was a Redirect placed in my Sandbox. Is this not the correct procedure?
The Retiree (talk) 22:20, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
The redirect was created automatically, just in case you forgot where you had moved the article to. You can safely delete it now. Just click on the "redirected from" link, then edit the sandbox to delete the contents so that you can start again. Dbfirs 06:33, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Whats WP:EEML ???Edit

what is that I saw some one bring that Up? I don't under stand itJack90s15 (talk) 21:51, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

As you'll see if you put WP:EEML into the Wikipedia search box, WP:EEML is a redirect to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list. --David Biddulph (talk) 21:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
(ec)add Welcome to the Teahouse, Jack90s15. That acronym refers to a ten year old controversy about coordinated editing related to Eastern Europe, which led to special restrictions called discretionary sanctions being imposed on that topic area. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list for the whole mess. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:58, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Response to "Notability requirement" (16 September 2019)Edit

I was able to find a number of sources for writer and minster, Albert Capwell Wyckoff. Perhaps the original poster, Gr8fultom, might find these of use in creating a basic article on the topic.

Online Sources

Morality in Literature—The Legacy of Columbia Author Albert Capwell Wyckoff, by Peder Johnson, Columbia Magazine, http://www.columbiamagazine.com/index.php?sid=10730

Albert Capwell Wyckoff, by Ed Waggener, Columbia Magazine, http://www.columbiamagazine.com/index.php?sid=10040

Capell Wyckoff's Mystery Hunters, by Frank W. Quillen, Newsboy, Volume 34, July-August 2001, Pages 13—20, The Horatio Alger Society, http://www.horatioalgersociety.net/newsboys/newsboys2000-2009/nb2001-07jul-aug.pdf [PDF]

Capwell Wyckoff (1903-1953), by Terence E. Hanley, Tellers of Weird Tales, 10 September 2011, https://tellersofweirdtales.blogspot.com/2011/09/capwell-wyckoff.html

Offline Sources

Obituary, The Lebanon Enterprise, 16 January 1953, (This obituary was reprinted at Find A Grave: https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/55733383/albert-capwell-wyckoff As Find A Grave is not a WP Reliable Source, someone with access to Newspapers.com archives would need to pull up the original to confirm.)

Libraries/University Libraries/Historical Assocations (according to WorldCat)

Wyckoff's Stories of Adventure, by Fred Woodworth, The Mystery and Adventure Series Review, Summer 1982

Reminiscences of Albert Capwell Wyckoff, by D. Cambell Wyckoff, The Wyckoff House and Association Bulletin, 5.29, 841-34

I hope this is of use to the person who wanted to create the article. Carl Henderson (talk) 22:29, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I've moved your message from the top of the page to the bottom where it belongs. It is always useful to provide a wikilink to a previous thread where relevant; in this case presumably WP:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1015#Notability requirement? --David Biddulph (talk) 22:38, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
I apologize for the misplacement of my post. I would swear that the text said "top" of page. I remember thinking at the time that that sounded kind of strange as the default is bottom of page for most stuff in WP. I guess I should not post when my AC is not working and it is Texas. Do you think it would also be appropriate to post this to the userpage of the person who asked the original question? Carl Henderson (talk) 04:21, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi Carl Henderson. New questions used to be posted at the top of the page, but this was changed not too long ago to bring the Teahouse more in step with the way other talk pages/noticeboards work.
As for your question, if the article they are intended to be used in already exists, then you can add them as citations yourself if you think they meet WP:RS and WP:RSCONTEXT; if not, then maybe they could be added as part of a WP:FURTHERREADING or WP:EL section. You can also add them to the article's talk page using Template:Refideas. If the article doesn't already exist but is a draft, then you can pretty much do the same but you might want to just let the draft's creator know first as a courtesy. If there's no article and no draft, then perhaps simply listing the sources on the other person's user talk page should be fine. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:03, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
It is an article that Gr8fultom wanted to see (I am not sure if he meant to create it). He was told there were no decent sources on Teahouse but my Google Fu is strong and I found some. Thank you. Carl Henderson (talk) 05:52, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

How do you create a user talk page?Edit

I noticed that some edit summary’s show what’s called “talk” how do you make the title called “User talk: “persons username” without making the title called “talk”? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Japan Airlines Flight 123 (talkcontribs) 00:20, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

You already have a user talk page and instead of worrying about how to remove the word "talk" from it, you probably should be more concerned about whether your choice of username is appropriate per WP:IU. Japan Airlines Flight 123 was a horrible tragedy (which I'm assuming you know and which might be why you choose that as your username), and your choice to use it as your username might be seen by some as disruptive or offensive. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:22, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Posts to user talk pages will have "User talk:" in the edit summary because they are edits to talk pages in the user space. Posts that show as "Talk:" are those made to talk pages in article space. --Khajidha (talk) 15:25, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Just want to point out an error. (Can't figure out editing.)Edit

Is this where I'm supposed to write?

I happened, in looking up an anatomical term, to peruse a Wiki article called "Anatomical Terms of Location". I noticed a minor error and wanted to correct it, but I am from the 1950s (b.'46) and only have a PhD, so I can't understand the editing instructions. Learning computerese continues to be gruelling (Canadian spelling) and I have other things to do, so I thought maybe I could just point out what I believe to be an error in the hope that some computer-/Wiki-literate person could correct it.

In the second illustration in this article a 4-legged animal is referred to as a "quadriped", and although I was certain it should have been "quadruped", I did my due diligence or whatever you call it and consulted numerous dictionaries of high repute: this endeavour supported my strong suspicion that there is no such word as "quadriped". Thass all, folks. Thanks for whatever you can do to correct this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zephyroob (talkcontribs) 03:19, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Zephyroob. You can be WP:BOLD and correct the error yourself. You can also be WP:CAUTIOUS and point out the error on the article's talk page and see what others think. You don't need to be an WP:EXPERT in order to edit the article, but you should at least make sure to leave an edit summary explaining why you made the change if you do decide to be BOLD. This will let others know why you're making the change. If, by chance, another editor disagrees with the change and WP:REVERTs it, just follow Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and discuss things on the article talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:10, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi Zephyroob, and welcome to the Teahouse. The error is in the illustration, not in the text. Latin is a different language, but the only example I can find of the spelling to which you object is in an ancient document where it might be a misprint. Wikitionary does have an entry for wikt:quadripedal, perhaps because a few modern authors mis-use the word, but it seems to be a very marginal variant. We need to contact the uploader of the image, or change it ourselves. Thank you for pointing out the error. Dbfirs 07:18, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
... later note ... The illustration was from a text book by Tom (LT) who is a prolific expert editor here and who has kindly contributed the illustrations from his own book. Thus I was hesitant to make any changes, and I hope I haven't offended him by uploading a temporary modification of the image. I am quite happy if he deletes my version and updates to the modern standard spelling himself. Dbfirs 07:58, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Wow, thanks for the wonderful compliments! I just want to clarify @Dbfirs, I haven't written any books and therefore would be happy whatever happens here :). --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:42, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Did you not upload the pictures from a text book claiming own work? Perhaps the text book is an old one and out of copyright? That would explain the strange spelling. Dbfirs 06:38, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

as i am new hereEdit

hi to the seniors over here, i have a question that i am new here so if i make an article directly from article wizard after getting autoconfirmed will it be deleted cuz i am new ?Ganeshayanamaha (talk) 06:12, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ganeshayanamaha and welcome to the Teahouse. Writing a new article from scratch is one of the most difficult tasks here, so it is not surprising that many new articles get deleted. If this happens, it is not because the editor is new but because they do not understand what is required for a Wikipedia article. We usually advise that new editors gain some practice at editing existing articles, as you have already started doing. Try adding a reference because this is one of the trickier tasks. You might like to try WP:The Wikipedia Adventure to get some practice, and make sure that you have understood WP:Your first article and WP:Referencing for beginners before starting on an article. Dbfirs 06:28, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hello, Ganeshayanamaha, and welcome to the Teahouse. If you make an article using the Article Wizard, it will be a draft, which you can submit for review when it is ready. It will not be deleted or declined because you are new; but writing an acceptable article is one of the hardest tasks on Wikipedia, and people who try it before they have some experience of editing other articles often find it a frustrating experience. Have you read your first article?
My personal take is that, for most new editors, they can contribute much much much much much more value to the encyclopaedia by improving some of our six million articles (many of which are in dire need of improvement) than plunging straight into the often frustrating project of creating a new article from scratch. --ColinFine (talk) 06:33, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination (Help me)Edit

A tag has been placed on User:Chai Bisket, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia

Can someone help me why its rejected? i created page for my company — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chandumx (talkcontribs)

Hi Chandumx. The page was deleted by an administrator named Fastily per speedy deletion criterion U2. Apparently, you took the content you were working on at Draft:Sandbox and mistakenly added it to the user page of a non-existent account. That's not really the way to go about creating an article. You can either start a draft or a userspace draft and then work on creating an article.
Before you do that, however, please carefully read through Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure, Wikipedia:Ownership of content, Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything, Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. There's a lot of information contained on those pages for sure, but it reading through might actually save you time in the end. Unless you're able to establish that your company is Wikipedia notable enough for an article to be written, you're unlikely going to ever have much luck getting such an article improved; moreover, even if you're successful in creating an article, you'll pretty much have no editorial control over it's content and won't be able to use it to promote your company in anyway. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:21, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Content currently at User:Chandumx/sandbox.

Was at. David notMD (talk) 14:28, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Banned From EditingEdit

If you are banned from editing, can you edit your own Wikipedia User Page? I would really like to know. So, can you? Thank you. Tsarina Alexandra Hesse (talk) 10:20, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

You'll find the answer at WP:Banning policy. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:20, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Mr. David Biddulph. Tsarina Alexandra Hesse (talk) 10:38, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

@Tsarina Alexandra Hesse: Why do you ask? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 04:18, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Indeed. Do you plan on being blocked or banned?(which are different things) 331dot (talk) 13:17, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

BanglanEdit

I tried to create a page for art director and national film award winner Vinesh Banglan. But it is rejected and removed by wikipedia. Already a page in malayalam language is there. How I can create a page for Banglan in English language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Banglan (talkcontribs) 10:14, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Your user page was removed because that isn't the place for an article, see WP:user pages and WP:U5. The fact that there is an article in malayam doesn't necessarily mean that there should be an article in English, as each language's Wikipedia has its own rules. Please read about notability, and then read the advice at WP:Your first article. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:24, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia AccountsEdit

Excuse me, but is there a way to change your Wikipedia account user name, please? I would really like to change mine. Thank you. Tsarina Alexandra Hesse (talk) 10:44, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

See WP:Changing username. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:51, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Mr. David Biddulph. Tsarina Alexandra Hesse (talk) 10:55, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

WatchlistsEdit

Excuse me, but how do i access my Watchlist, please? I would like to access it. Thank you. Tsarina Alexandra Hesse (talk) 10:50, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

At the top of the page is a "Watchlist" link. If you are in mobile view rather than desktop view then you would probably need to use the top left-hand menu. For more information on your watchlist, see Help:Watchlist. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:55, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Mr. David Biddulph. Alexandra Feodorovna (Alix of Hesse) (talk) 11:45, 20 September 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsarina Alexandra Hesse (talkcontribs)

wanted to knowEdit

hello, I wanted to know if a deserving article be recreated which was deleted because it was created earlier by a banned user? Thanks.Worldnpeace (talk) 11:12, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Which specific article do you mean? There is no response to this question that will cover all situations. --bonadea contributions talk 11:31, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Bonadea, the answer ought to be an unequivocal "yes" since the question is about "deserving" articles? Usedtobecool TALK  14:11, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
No, not at all. "Deserving" means nothing in the context of Wikipedia. And it is unfair to a completely new user (including all those who may be reading the discussion) to tell them things that might be strictly correct in theory, but impossible for them to judge the applicability of in practice. But if you want a general answer, it would be "probably not but maybe depending on the context". --bonadea contributions talk 14:43, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

title editsEdit

hello

the title of an article is misspelled how do i change it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baba pajero pvp (talkcontribs) 12:42, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Which article? Britmax (talk) 13:16, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Baba pajero pvp, the title of an article is changed by WP:MOVE-ing it. Usedtobecool TALK  14:14, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

thanks for the response, the article is called dalecarlian languag — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baba pajero pvp (talkcontribs) 15:26, 20 September 2019 (UTC) Baba pajero pvp (talk) 16:21, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Baba pajero pvp, you can link articles in source mode by putting the article's title between double square brackets, like so: [[dalecarlian languag]]. Usedtobecool TALK  15:48, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
The title should of course be Dalecarlian language instead of Dalecarlian languag, but we mere mortals can't move it. A speedy deletion request is in place to get the existing redirect at Dalecarlian language deleted to make space for the article to be moved. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:26, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

My article was declinedEdit

Hello, my name is bill cage. a few weeks ago, i starting writing an article about mordecai, a character from the cartoon network series regular show. i wrote an early draft, which was rejected by a user named dan something. i would simply like to know why my draft was rejected, was it because of my writing, or did have something to do with the subject matter? please let me now before the six month time limit is over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill cage (talkcontribs) 15:38, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Your draft was "declined", not "rejected"; there is a difference, as rejected has an air of finality about it. There is feedback both in the draft and on your user talk page. In each case there are many useful wikilinks (words in blue) to further advice. You gave so little information in your draft that it was difficult to tell whether the subject is notable or not. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:48, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Additionally, we already have content about that character, which can be found at List of Regular Show characters#Mordecai. For a standalone article about a fictional character, we usually expect to have some information about that character's out of universe importance. —Kusma (t·c) 15:56, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Bill cage, they did leave a reason. Please click on the linked words/phrases in their declination message as well as the added comment. Without sources, there isn't a way to know if the subject matter is notable enough to be accepted. The page WP:YFA explains this well, please give it a read as well, or better yet, please start with this one. Good luck! Usedtobecool TALK  16:02, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I am confusedEdit

hi. i am a little confused about articles regarding television shows and films. iv'e that shows such as the simpsons, south park, star trek, among others, have articles created for every single episode, i'd like to know why this is done for those shows and not for others. i would also like to why certain fictional characters have articles and others don't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill cage (talkcontribs) 16:34, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Bill cage Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Most likely, it has not been done simply because no one has actually gone and done it. This is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, based in their own reasons for doing it. In the case of Star Trek, it has a large fan base around the world, which likely means many people are interested in writing articles about it. A less popular franchise or show might have fewer fans and as such fewer people interested in writing about it. In other cases, it may be the case that not every episode of a particular series is notable enough to merit a standalone article. 331dot (talk) 17:30, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill cage (talkcontribs) 20:01, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Screwed up my wiki pageEdit

Hello, I somehow created an error in my wiki page. I was trying to add the AAPOR Award URL down in the references section. Can you help? THANKS!! \- Nancy Bates, US Census Bureau, Bates005 username. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bates005 (talkcontribs) 16:38, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Bates005 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Please review the autobiography policy; you should avoid directly editing the article about you(it is not "your wiki page"); instead, you may make edit requests on the article talk page. You should also confirm your identity with Wikipedia by following the instructions at WP:REALNAME. 331dot (talk) 16:50, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

...Edit

Who are you and where you live — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.154.105.183 (talk) 16:47, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Please do not ask other users to reveal their personal information. 331dot (talk) 16:51, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Hordaland, NorwayEdit

The Wikipedia article at List of municipalities in Hordaland, Norway does not have Odda listed and therefore only has 32 municipalities instead of 33. Could someone add it with the appropriate flags and maps?

Thanks,Redriv (talk) 21:15, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Redriv. Welcome to the Teahouse. Whilst someone here might be willing to make that addition, often the best place to seek a clear change to an article is to post the request directly on the relevant article(s) talk page(s). I note that the matter was raised there in 2009 and again in 2016, but that the editor who I suspect was going to change it died shortly thereafter. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:36, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
@Redriv: That would be Talk:List of municipalities in Hordaland, Norway. Because that page has "fewer than 30 watchers", you might need to post a notice about your request at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Norway with a link to it (e.g. Talk:List of municipalities in Hordaland, Norway#Odda if you named the new section on the talk page "Odda". —[AlanM1(talk)]— 06:15, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Cities missing from Los Angeles CountyEdit

Hi - I'm no programmer and I don't want to mess things up but I found a few cities missing from the list of cities that make up LA County. They are Panorama City, San Pedro and Van Nuys for certain. I don't know if others are missing but those are the ones I came across. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmb8000 (talkcontribs) 21:31, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Tmb8000. It's possible they're "missing" for a good reason. For example, Panorama City, San Pedro, Los Angeles and Van Nuys are listed as communities/neighborhoods in their respective articles which means they might not meet the definition of "city" being applied to List of cities in Los Angeles County, California. The best place to discuss this would be at Talk:List of cities in Los Angeles County, California. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:59, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Tmb8000 They aren't listed as cities because they are parts of cities; they don't have independent, incorporated governments. 331dot (talk) 22:04, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

ArticleEdit

When will my article publish ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omarneal52 (talkcontribs) 22:44, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

@Omarneal52: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. What you have done is edit your user page, which is not article space. It is a place to introduce yourself to the Wikipedia community. You do have a sandbox where you can draft articles(User:Omarneal52/sandbox) and then submit them using Articles for Creation. However, your draft is completely unsourced; as a biography of a living person, all information in the draft must be sourced to an independent reliable source. Please see the policy in this area, WP:BLP, for more information. In addition, I'm not certain he meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable football player, written at WP:NGRIDIRON. He would need to have appeared in at least one regular season or playoff game in the NFL or other professional league to merit an article. Successfully writing a new article is the hardest task on Wikipedia; I suggest that you read Your First Article and use the new user tutorial to learn more about the process. 331dot (talk) 22:52, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) You haven't written an article. All of your contributions prior to this question were to your user page, but the content there does not satisfy the purpose of a user page, so it is liable to be deleted from there under criterion WP:U5. If it is intended to be a draft article you should move the content to User:Omarneal52/sandbox or to Draft:Jonathan Dorsey. It wouldn't yet be suitable as an article as it has no references to published WP:reliable sources. You can read the advice at WP:Your first article, but particularly the definition of notability and specifically WP:Notability (sports)#American football/Arena football/Canadian football. --David Biddulph (talk) 22:54, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
I moved it to Draft:Jonathan Dorsey. Would someone please apply the appropriate submission template? And Omarneal52, you should not submit this draft until it is adequately sourced. You will also have to show that this individual meets either WP:NGRIDIRON, WP:NCOLLATH, or WP:ANYBIO. John from Idegon (talk) 23:01, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
If he has not played pro yet the draft does not meet notability. David notMD (talk) 23:02, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

talk pagesEdit

When I'm on an article and click the Talk button it goes to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Redriv

From there I have to manually delete "User_" and then delete "Redriv" and type in the article name.

How can I fix it to go to the article talk page automatically?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redriv (talkcontribs) 00:45, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

@Redriv: The article talk tab you want is on the top left, next to the tab marked "article". It seems like you are clicking on your own user talk page link. (Please sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes like this: ~~~~.) TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 02:35, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I found it now. RedrivRedriv (talk) 23:26, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of draft rejectionEdit

Is there a streamlined way to open a dialogue with the people who have reviewed your draft and rejected it? I have some questions that I would like answered before resubmitting and have not heard from the WikiProject Articles for creation Help desk since I commented there on September 13th. I have since posted that Help desk post to the draft's talk page, and did not think it would belong on the Teahouse. If my understanding is mistaken, please let me know and I will be happy to move the post onto here! The draft I am talking about is "Action Teaching". Thanks for the help.

Tleclair96 (talk) 01:49, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Tleclair96 and welcome to the Teahouse. As one of the reviewers who turned down the article for lack of independent sources I've put a long explanation on the draft talk page at Draft talk:Action Teaching. StarryGrandma (talk) 03:36, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

How to revert an article?Edit

Can I revert an article?

Hi Anarulkhaled786 and welcome to the Teahouse. If your question is about Sahil Khan, then other editors have contributed to the article so it can't just be deleted at your request, but it might fail because of lack of notability. You can revert your own edits just by looking at the history and clicking "undo" for your last edit, or comparing selected versions and clicking "undo". Your addition was a mixture of good content and opinion. Maybe I've guessed wrongly and you are asking about another article? Dbfirs 06:51, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Oldest living manEdit

In Costa Rica there is a man named José Uriel de los Ángeles Delgado Corrales, who was born on march 10, 1900, this means that as today he must be the oldest man alive and one of the longest living person of all times. Here is the official reference from our civil authority:

https://www.tse.go.cr/consulta_persona/resultado_persona.aspx

Número de Cédula: 100339724 Nombre Padre: JESUS DELGADO Nombre: JOSE URIEL DE LOS ANGELES Identificación Padre: 0 Primer Apellido: DELGADO Nombre Madre: GABRILA CORRALES Segundo Apellido: CORRALES Identificación Madre: 0 Conocido Como: Empadronado: SI Fecha de Nacimiento: 10/03/1900 Fallecido: NO Lugar de Nacimiento: SAN ANTONIO ESCAZU SAN JOSE Marginal: NO Nacionalidad: COSTARRICENSE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgarciah (talkcontribs) 04:31, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

The best place to discuss this is probably at Talk: List of the oldest living people. The source you linked probably isn't sufficient proof -- it is a voter registration record (I believe). As a side note, I discovered my mother's name on the voter register long after she died (and had to request having it removed). 2606:A000:1126:28D:304D:E8A1:FEED:60B5 (talk) 05:10, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
@Mgarciah: ... where it has been discussed four times before (archive search). He is also discussed at Talk:Oldest people/Archive 17#José Uriel Delgado Corrales and listed at Longevity claims#Recent, along with several supposedly older people. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 06:53, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Create a Page for Banglan - art directorEdit

Created user page is deleted. How to create an article successfully? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Banglan (talkcontribs) 05:36, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Banglan, your user page is not the place to be writing Wikipedia articles. Additionally, writing about yourself is strongly discouraged. signed, Rosguill talk 05:43, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Did you read the reply which you received at #Banglan above? --David Biddulph (talk) 07:25, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Can we use Social Media posts for CitationEdit

Dear Seniors, Please advise if I can use twitter/facebook posts as citation for some references in the article. One such post is https://twitter.com/UNICEF_Yemen/status/885686645558738944 Achint2182 (talk) 06:09, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

@Achint2182: WP:USERG and WP:SELFPUB would be the most immediately relevant guidelines, but the policy WP:No original research can be relevant as well.
For that specific post, what article and what context would it be used for? Ian.thomson (talk) 06:56, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict):Hi Achint2182 and welcome to the Teahouse. Anyone can put any rubbish on Facebook and Twitter, and often do! I haven't looked at your link, so I am not making a judgement here. In general, Wikipedia does not regard Twitter and Facebook as WP:Reliable sources so they can not be used as references except in certain circumstances. Official Facebook and Twitter accounts might be one exception. Perhaps a discussion on the talk page of the article would be appropriate? Dbfirs 06:59, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks User:Dbfirs and Ian.thomson, I will start this topic on Talk Page of Article. Achint2182 (talk) 07:03, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

How can i get this done ?Edit

Dear Members, I have been checking out since months about some pages which are blocked due to recreation again and again since the people who created those pages were either blocked or banned or in some cases just the SUBJECT is protected from creation, although the SUBJECT passes wp:gng and notability criteria and have enough coverage to get a Stand alone article, My question is how can these pages be created which are blocked and have been salted earlier, but now they have significant coverage, cuz if someone creates a page by a previously banned user they might can get blocked as well. Amit Bhadana is one of the example of such page, he is a digital star in India having one of the largest subscribers group on his YouTube channel after Bhuvan Bam, yet he was previously recreated and now requires admin access.

some of his significant coverages are below [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]

Thanks Worldnpeace (talk) 07:08, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Worldnpeace Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If you wish to create an article that is protected from creation due to repeated recreation by a blocked user, you should create it as a draft using Articles for Creation; if the draft is approved, the reviewer will arrange to move it to the proper title. You could also ask the blocking administrator about it(whose name should be given in the notice of protection). 331dot (talk) 07:34, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Worldnpeace forgot to mention that the article was in fact deleted less than a year ago after a community discussion where the overwhelming consensus was that the subject was not notable. The title was subsequently create protected due to repeated recreations, and the draft title has also been create protected recently. But contacting one of the protecting admins is of course still possible. --bonadea contributions talk 07:44, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
I would further add that large numbers of YouTube followers does not by itself meet the notability criteria; what matters is if the person gets significant coverage in independent reliable sources. This could be the case for someone with 50 followers or 50 million followers; conversely, someone could have millions of followers and not be notable, because no one has written about them. If the article you want to create was deleted due to a discussion, you must address the reasons for deletion given in the discussion to recreate the article. 331dot (talk) 07:54, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Article blockedEdit

Hello,

Can you help me to unblock my article? I can't put it back in my sandbox or publish it. There seem to be a conflict and the error message is "This sandbox is in the article namespace. Either move this page into your userspace, or remove the {{User sandbox}} template." — Preceding unsigned comment added by PatmanSA1 (talkcontribs)

Many thanks for your help regards Patrick

Could you clarify what page this problem is on. Thanks, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 11:06, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
I think this relates to Draft:Richard Phelps Gough. If I read the tortuous history aright, PatmanSA1 tried to move it from their sandbox to main space, but didn't get the move right; but Theroadislong has now moved it to a sensible place. --ColinFine (talk) 13:59, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

AccountsEdit

Is anyone able to delete accounts, please. If so, could you delete mine, please? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsarina Alexandra Hesse (talkcontribs) 12:25, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

No, accounts cannot be deleted. More information here. --bonadea contributions talk 12:50, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
You can put a RETIRED banner across the top of your User page using the information at Wikipedia:Retiring. David notMD (talk) 14:13, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

computerEdit

If you want to know computer where do you learn

Hi Ayanda katlego and welcome to the teahouse. If you want to learn how to use a computer, then look for introductory computer courses near where you live. If you want to learn how to edit Wikipedia, then you might like to try WP:The Wikipedia Adventure. By the way, your last edit has been reverted because it deleted other content, probably accidentally. Please don't try to add long strings of Emojis to Wikipedia. Dbfirs 15:04, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Is it possible to add images on a mobile device?Edit

G’day! I was wondering whether you can upload an image on an article on a mobile device (iPad, to be precise). If so, how do I access the menu to upload images in the Visual Editor? Thanks in advance.

From Baba pajero pvp, 15:28, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, you can use the file upload wizard to upload images. It doesn't work on mobile, though. --LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 15:32, 21 September 2019 (UTC)


Thanks for your timely response!

Baba pajero pvp (talk) 15:55, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Baba pajero pvp. I regularly upload photos to Wikimedia Commons that I have taken on my Google Pixel smartphone, using an Android app. It works very well. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:31, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Improve my translation from Portuguese?Edit

I know this isn't exactly a question, but could anyone do grammar fixes in my translation in the Ele Não movement article? Thanks. --Bageense(disc.) 15:46, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

@Bageense: Here are some editors who have stated they are willing to help in cases like this: Wikipedia:Translators_available#Portuguese-to-English RudolfRed (talk) 16:17, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks but it is not needed to know Portuguese... anyone could do it. I just need some grammar fixes there. --Bageense(disc.) 16:23, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
It was already an excellent translation. I've made a couple of very minor tweaks. Dbfirs 16:25, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Dbfirs, Wow thanks! And I thought my English really sucked. :) :) That made my day a bit better. --Bageense(disc.) 17:24, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Userspace drafting questionEdit

Hello all! Quick question for those more experienced than I in Userspace drafting. I want to begin working on an article which doesn't exist. I've read the drafting articles in detail but I was curious if editing in a Mainspace draft is better convention or preferred than editing in my Userspace/article? (E.g., draft:mainspace versus draft:userspace/article or draft:userspace)

Also: if I edit within my Userspace are non-logged in users able to edit it? Are logged-in users able to? Perhaps I can grant access to specific logged-in users which allows them to also edit in my Userspace?

Hopefully these questions make sense. Thanks for your time. --Abermuffin (talk) 15:47, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

@Abermuffin: It is better to create it in Draft space, following the guidelines at WP:YFA and using the wizard there to create the draft. Anyone will be able to see it and edit it, wherever you create the draft. You cannot limit it to specific other editors. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. RudolfRed (talk) 16:16, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
In case that's not clear, your User page is NOT for drafting an article. David notMD (talk) 16:36, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I like professor. LaytonEdit

Who like professor Layton aka real name Hershel— Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.36.78.154 (talk) 16:15, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

See below. Dbfirs 16:43, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Does anyone likes catsEdit

...cats. E— Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.36.78.154 (talk) 16:23, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi 5.36.78.154, and welcome to the Teahouse. Your edits so far seem to indicate that you have a misunderstanding about Wikipedia. It is not social media for posting rubbish, it is an encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. If you would like to learn more, then you can try WP:The Wikipedia Adventure to get some practice in editing. Dbfirs 16:46, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Update: User now blocked for vandalism. Nick Moyes (talk) 17:05, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Help with an ArticleEdit

I wanted to ask if there is a way to archive older conversations that have occurred on articles that are not currently relevant, for example. the NPOV discussion on the BLP article SAT talk page? Thank you, LorriBrown (talk) 16:40, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, LorriBrown. Yes, there are a few ways to archive old discussions. I will archive the discussion on the talk page you have specified. Once done, look at the edit summary and follow the link to OneClickArchiver. You can also see how it works when I use it. Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 16:46, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Also see Help:Archiving a talk page. Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 16:47, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
@Willbb234: I'm not fully convinced that archiving the only other discussion thread on that page (which took place just two months ago) was really the best thing to do. You could either have simply left it there, closed it with a box and a summary of any consensus, or collapsed it with {{cot}} / {{cob}} templates. In my view, rushing to archive a recent thread hides from view the fact that there has been editor interaction, and that's not a good thing to do, and forces an editor to wade through archives they needn't have to. Either way, I hope you will ensure there will be a clearly visible link to the archived subpage? Nick Moyes (talk) 17:28, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
@Willbb234: Thank you for archiving that conversation. Can the talk page include a list of the archived content... or is this not needed for article talk pages? Perhaps other editors are very familiar with this process and would know how to locate the conversation if they needed to. Sorry if that is an odd question.LorriBrown (talk) 17:18, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: I stated my view on the user's talk page, but I will take your advice and do as said, probably reverting myself. Regards, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 17:40, 21 September 2019 (UTC) @LorriBrown: thats not an odd question at all. Yes, an archive box should be left whenever discussions are archived, so that users can easily navigate there. I have reverted the archive (see reason by Nick Moyes) so an archive box doesn't need to be included. Regards, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 17:47, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

@Willbb234: + @Nick Moyes: FYI, I moved this question to a new section... KT talk page. LorriBrown (talk) 21:38, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, both, and also to Usedtobecool. I think that's a perfect solution, leaving all recent discussion available, but not overpoweringly visible. Nick Moyes (talk) 08:34, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

SidebarEdit

How do I create a sidebar with basic personal information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ Careystevens (talkcontribs) 2019-09-21T17:43:37 (UTC)

@Careystevens: What do you mean exactly? I think you should check Template:Infobox user. LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 19:31, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
@Careystevens: If you're referring to your own user page (User:Careystevens), please consider Wikipedia:Personal security practices and WP:UP. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 07:22, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

HowEdit

How can I add my blog articles on Wikipedia— Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.29.231.213 (talk) 17:25, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

You cannot. See WP:NOT. RudolfRed (talk) 17:45, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Artha Venture FundEdit

Hi,

I have created an article about Artha Venture Fund. This article has received a rejection.

I need your help to improve the article as well as why my article got rejected?

Thanks Maverick — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maverickwroks (talkcontribs) 2019-09-21T18:38:18 (UTC)

Actualy, "Declined," which is not as severe as Rejected. The editor who declined provided an explanation. Teahouse is for asking for advice, not for help writing articles. Good luck with your revision if you intend to improve and resubmit. 19:22, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
@Maverickwroks: You can ask for help about the decline at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk RudolfRed (talk) 19:27, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Maverickwroks: some obvious problems with Draft:Artha Venture Fund are
  • It doesn't start by saying what AVF is. Is it a quoted company?
  • It says to much about Anirudh Damani, rather than about the company (or whatever it is) itself.
  • It is unduly promotional.   Maproom (talk) 21:19, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

HelloEdit

Thank you for inviting me to the the teahouse. What can i do to help wikipedia?

Thanks for wanting to help, you can do whatever piques your interest! There are articles that need updating, typos that need fixing, just about anything you can think of. Start by checking out the tutorial and online interactive learning game at WP:TUTORIAL and WP:ADVENTURE. If you have any questions, come on back and ask away. RudolfRed (talk) 19:49, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

UserboxesEdit

How do I make a userbox on my userpage? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragonboy8 (talkcontribs) 18:36, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Dragonboy8, welcome to the Teahouse. See Wikipedia:Userboxes. If there is no existing suitable userbox then you can use Template:Userbox. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:25, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I need a redirect be deletedEdit

Feminism in Brazil. I tagged it for speedy deletion but in Wikipedia things are slow. Please, delete it so I can publish my translation? Thanks :) --Bageense(disc.) 19:10, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Bageense. I have deleted it. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:21, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
I thought I had replied. Well the article's been published now, thanks! --Bageense(disc.) 20:06, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Iran—Saudi Arabia warEdit

Hello everybody!, I just watched on CNN an interview with Adel al-Jubeir and he said the attack by Iran is an "act of war" if proven. Then my question is, shouldn't we start such article? Thanks for your patience! --CoryGlee (talk) 20:35, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

CoryGlee Hello and welcome. If you are a referring to an article about a war between Saudi Arabia and Iran, countries can commit acts of war without declaring a formal state of war between them. The Saudi Foreign Minister can articulate his government's view on the incident without a formal declaration of war by that government. Unless there is a formal declaration of war, or some other form of sustained conflict, I'm not sure another article is needed. There is an article about the recent attack itself, 2019 Abqaiq–Khurais attack, and an article about the Saudi Arabian–Yemeni border conflict (2015–present). 331dot (talk) 21:01, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

breif infoEdit

is there an outsource re longer more in depth articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.227.225.134 (talk) 20:37, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello and welcome, I do not entirely understand your question. 331dot (talk) 21:02, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
The references and whatever else has not been included. There is no know deep state WP.2605:E000:9149:8300:549A:9CC6:73E3:B72D (talk) 07:20, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
The question (if there is one) is still totally incomprehensible. if you are not fluent in English you may find it easier to stick to editing a Wikipedia in your own language. You'll find them listed at meta:List of Wikipedias. --David Biddulph (talk) 07:26, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Sharing of facts available but not includedEdit

Preface:I am an incident investigator and HSE Systems Lead in the Oil & Gas Industry. As such, I spend considerable time and effort taking second (or third) looks at "disasters" (not always the word we use because of its pejorative connotations) in various industries - O&G and otherwise. Often we find that what happened and how it happened are not accurately reported in the media - which is where much of the citations in Wikipedia come from, especially with regard to industry disasters.

Question: Is discussing the facts discovered in these post-investigation reviews and how these should be cited best held on the talk page of an event's wiki? GrantAdamCole (talk) 21:27, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello, GrantAdamCole, and welcome to the Teahouse. Yes, an article's talk page is the best place to discuss this (please don't refer to an article as a "wiki": The whole of Wikipedia is one of the many thousands of wikis on the internet!). However, please have a look at the core principle of verifiability. Wikipedia is consciously and intentionally based on reliably published information: unpublished information has no place in it. Unfortunately this does sometimes mean that somebody knows that information in an article is inaccurate, but cannot get it changed because that's what the reliable sources say. In order to challenge such information, you would have to get the different information published by a reputable publisher - and even then, it would be up to a consensus of editors to decide how to handle the disagreement between sources. Often the best you could do would be for the article to say that sources A, B, and C say XYZ while source D says PQR. --ColinFine (talk) 21:42, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi GrantAdamCole. It's not really Wikipedia's purpose to correct content reported by the media (see WP:RGW), but it can cover retractions or corrections made by media about events such as a "disaster". Wikipedia isn't really intended to be up-to-the minute like news which is why editors are generally encouraged to wait a bit until the dust somewhat settles before creating articles about certain things (see WP:RECENTISM). However, when something happens and there's a fair amount of significant coverage about it, some editors want to get it on Wikipedia asap. This isn't necessarily a bad thing per se because a Wikipedia article is always pretty much a work-in-progress and issues generally get sorted out when there are a number of editors working on a "hot topic". It's also likely that new information will be made available after much more time has passed which can be used to "correct" things originally added. Basically, it's going to depend upon whether you're going to be able to provide reliable secondary sources in support of the changes you wish to make that are not WP:UNDUE. If you're simple going to rely on your personal knowledge of events or what "official" investigative reports have to say, then you're probably going to have a bit of hard time per WP:NOR,WP:PRIMARY and WP:VNT. Finally, even if the "real" cause of a "disaster" was subsequently reported upon by reliable sources at a later date, removal of the older "incorrect" content might not be as preferred as tweaking it in some way to which not only incorporates the new content but also shows that mistakes in determining the cause were initially made. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:00, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

KT talk pageEdit

I previous inquired about this in the 'Help with an Article' above but then decided to move it to a new conversation.....

I wanted to ask about archiving conversations related to an article talk page that I have a COI with, which is the KT article talk page. I would like to make some additional requests for edits but... am somewhat reluctant since I think it looks bad and it is getting fairly cluttered up with these types of requests and rejections. Any suggestions for this article's talk page history? LorriBrown (talk) 21:37, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
@LorriBrown: More details about archiving can be found in WP:ARCHIVE and it's OK, for the most part, to be WP:BOLD. Like most things on Wikipedia, however, if the archiving turns out to be contentious, it can be undone and discussion about it should then take place on the relevant talk page. For reference, archiving a talk page is not mandatory, but it can make talk pages which have been posted on so many times that much easier to read and navigate. At the same time, archiving shouldn't really be used to hide comments just for the sake of hiding them per WP:OWN. Those old edit requests might be an eyesore to you, but their being declined isn't perhaps as important perhaps as the reasons why they were declined and it may actually be helpful to others hoping to make a similar request to leave them as is. Talk:Kent Tate has only seven threads and doesn't (at least in my opinion) seem nearly long enough to merit any archiving simply based upon page size. It's only a little over 19,000 bytes which is still quite a way from the size of 75,000 bytes generally suggested for archiving. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:40, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
@LorriBrown: Since you have a COI with the article in question, a decision to archive the talk page might invite scrutiny. I second Marchjuly's advice. However, if the talk page does end up getting closer to 75,000 bytes in the future and you would like help with archiving, feel free to let me know. Clovermoss (talk) 22:43, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Why change back to the original bad grammatical errors and misspellings?Edit

It seems that my little corrections keep getting changed back to the original text that contained errors. Is it because so many other outlets use Wikipedia articles that to change the source would diminish their veracity, no matter how incorrect the source was, grammatically or otherwise? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brainsmetbrawn (talkcontribs) 2019-09-22T00:27:45 (UTC)

Hello, Brainsmetbrawn. I don't see examples of your little corrections getting changed back to the original text, apart from the inappropriate reformatting of dates in Saaho. But in answer to your suggestion: no. Wikipedia is constantly being edited, hopefully to improve it. Anybody is welcome to reuse material from it as long as they comply with the licence, but it is up to the reusers to decide what they want to do about Wikipedia changing. --ColinFine (talk) 23:48, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Brainsmetbrawn: Looking at the history page, I notice that there were something like 30 edits within the 24 hours after you made your change (about 10 of which were reverts). I don't know just what's the reason for there suddenly being so much activity on this page, but it certainly makes it more tedious to dig through and find out exactly what happened when. Anyway, the current version does have your changes in it, but it's easy to imagine that you looked at it at some point in time when your change had been reverted, and which was subsequently restored. Fabrickator (talk) 00:12, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
HI Brainsmetbrawn. One possible reason that you're changes were reverted might've been because you didn't leave an edit summary explaining why the change was needed. Other editors obviously cannot to read your mind; so, even something you feel is a simple change might not be so simple. Leaving an edit summary, even a brief one, explaining the reasons behind the edit at least gives some clarification as to why the edit was made. Ideally, you should, whenever possible, either link to or refer to the relevant policy or guideline which the change is based upon, but any explanation is almost always better than no explanation. In addition, Wikipedia doesn't have a particular house style when it comes to which English is use in an article; so, something is written in British English is not any better or worse than something written in American English. The same applies to date formats as well: 22 September 2019 is just as acceptable as September 22, 2019. Which national variety of English or which date format to use depends on various things, but the important points are to be consistent and not just completely change things for the sake of changing them or personal preference.
Another thing I notice, is that you're marking all of your edits as "minor edits", even ones which probably shouldn't have be marked as such. Please read WP:MINOR for more on this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:44, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Brainsmetbrawn and all other editors ... I'm going to use one of the changes made to Halloween by Brainsmetbrawn to make a point:
Other Jaycees followed suit with their own versions ...
was changed to
Other Jaycees followed suit with their versions ...
I presume that the basis for this change was a belief that "own" is superfluous in this context. But omitting "own" leaves the reader wondering whether or not the different versions are intended to be distinct. The point I want to make is that editors should give a degree of deference to the existing text. Every once in a while, this would save us from a change that never should have been made, and all the subsequent activity that's likely to occur when one dares to revert such a change. Fabrickator (talk) 07:14, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Are ness and Lucas from smash the same?Edit

Argue in the comments— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bb3gamr (talkcontribs) 01:21, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Please sign your posts, like this one. Also, the Teahouse is a place to ask questions about editing Wikipedia. Do you have a question? --LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 01:53, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi Bb3gamr. Welcome to the Teahouse. As pointed out above by Littlest Pet Shop, the Teahouse is really intended only to be a place for asking questions about Wikipedia; it's not a general online forum for discussing things unrelated to Wikipedia. So, if you have a question about editing, feel free to ask below. If you have a question about a specific Wikipedia article (perhaps you think there's a way it can be improved), then you can discuss that on the article's talk page, but be aware that Wikipedia is not really a forum for a general discussion about the subjects of Wikipedia articles.
In addition, please do not edit posts made by other editors like you did here as explained on this page. The word you changed wasn't a "typo", but there was no real need to "fix" it even if it was. I'm sure you were only trying to help out, but it's best to leave another editor's posts as is unless there's a really good Wikipedia policy or guideline based reason (like some of the ones listed in the page I linked to above) to change them. If you find something about the post confusing or odd, you can always ask for clarification.
Finally, please try to remember to sign your posts as explained here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:11, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Is a field goal an attempt if it results in points or only when it is missed or blocked?Edit

Could I find out why is it that WP allowed a confusing use of terms when it concerns field goals in the sport of America style football. Many times it can be found expressed as grammatically correct that "X" made "field goal attempts" yet in the same sentence or article it can be said that they had "X" average which includes the comparison of competed versus their total output. What is going on?2605:E000:9149:8300:549A:9CC6:73E3:B72D (talk) 03:35, 22 September 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:9149:8300:549A:9CC6:73E3:B72D (talk) 03:22, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Situation: in the sport of American style football there is a scoring move called field goals which has a team member kicking the ball over the field goal to make points in lie of a touchdown or in addition to a touch down. Every time that ball is kocjed in a foeld goal action it is kicked but it may not always go over the field goal therefore it is incomplete. A field goal kick that goes over the goal is not an attempt because it has been completed yet there seems to be an adherence to the term "field goal attempts" as an accurate description of "field goal kicks made". Thid appears in both textual references and statistical charts. Are field goal attempts an accurate description of field goal kicks completed, i.e. resulting in the rewarding points in either text or charts?2605:E000:9149:8300:549A:9CC6:73E3:B72D (talk) 03:35, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

  • To clarify the issue under discussion, this is one of multiple, similar examples [1]. It's not ungrammatical or inaccurate to refer to field goal attempts, and this is the traditionally accepted terminology. It seems the impetus to change this in multiple articles revolves on a sort of grammatical original research. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:40, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

If it is traditional then it should be used in all examples? Or only those that are approve on an as of yet disclosed policy. And before anyone jumps to the issue of disruptive editing, just when has it been WP policy to accept what is grammatically inaccurate when something is not in all instances expressed as such? Are we to take a number count of use to decide? There are many article on sport in WP that if confusing terminology and expressionare use does not benefit the purpose of WP or the readers that consult it.2605:E000:9149:8300:549A:9CC6:73E3:B72D (talk) 03:52, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi IP 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63. I don't think Wikipedia determines whether a "missed kick" is counted as an "attempted field goal"; Wikipedia really only refers to it as such or should only refer to it as such if reliable sources are referring to it as such. If someone tries to do something but is unsuccessful, then I think it wouldn't be too out of the ordinary to refer to it as an "attempt" or more specifically a "failed attempt". If missed attempts weren't counted in field goal statistics, then pretty much every kicker would have a success rate of 100%, wouldn't they? So, this seems to be more of a question as to how best to present this type of information, which might be something worth discussing at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject American football. That's where you're likely going to find people who edit articles about American football who might be able to help sort out whether a change is needed and to best ensure consistency among this type of article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:49, 22 September 2019 (UTC); [Note: Post edited by Marchjuly to and a missing word and correct spelling (both changes are underlined). — 11:21, 22 September 2019 (UTC)]
Hi, Marchjuly. As far as I know, the statistic has always been 'attempted field goals' or 'field goal attempts', just as we refer to 'attempted passes.' The unilateral decision to change this in multiple articles, in favor of the repetitive 'field goal kicks' (not a terminology I've encountered in 59 years) to refer to attempts, is a new one. While reverting many of the new user's edits, I've also posted several warnings. An editor may not disrupt standard usage and claim to be making grammatical corrections. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:57, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Honestly, I think this is a competence issue. The user has three times accused me of 'cheap shots'. Really close to going to ANI. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:02, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Normally, when you're in a dispute over content with another editor, the best way to try and resolve things is to follow Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and discuss things with this person on the relevant article's talk page. However, when the dispute has the potential to affect lots of article, even if it's something like changing a word like "attempt" to "kick", then it's probably better to get more editors involved. So, my suggestion to you would be to first try the article's talk page and seek assistance from a WikiProject like WP:AMF (since this would cover all genre of articles about American football) by adding a Template:Please see to WT:AMF to let others know about the discussion. (Make sure to avoid any problems with WP:CANVASS) If an inappropriate change is being made to lots of articles, then getting more people involved increases the chances of things being sorted out in a way that's best for Wikipedia. Trying to "correct" things on your own is only likely going to lead to edit warring which you won't win no matter how right you believe you are. If the other editor continues to motor on as before even after multiple editors are advising them to stop, they will be eventually dealt with by an administrator. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:11, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
If you're thinking about going to ANI, you should be aware of WP:BOOMERANG. Most administrators will look at your edits as well and look for attempts made by you to try and resolve this disagreement. I'm not saying you did anything wrong, only that ANI can turn out to be a bit unpleasant for everyone involved, not just the person being accused of violating policy/guidelines. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:17, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
See PFR, a reasonably popular source, which is consistent with other sites and my experience.
  • FGA = Field Goals Attempted
  • FGM = Field Goals Made
  • FG% = Percentage of Field Goals Made = 100 * FGM / FGA
E.g. Titans have attempted four field goals, of which they made three (and missed one), for a FG% of 75. I.e., field goal attempts include both successful and unsuccessful events. Note that kicked points-after-touchdown (XPA, XPM, XP%) and punts (Pnt, Blk) are separate types of plays – they are not "field goals". —[AlanM1(talk)]— 08:32, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Well, I guess someone has already reverted the about 5 articles that the statistical charts have been edited? And who ever said not including both missed and completed field goals in the textual statistics structured grammatically as "attempted" even if they were successfully completed. I have always had the understanding that in common understanding, especially in polite society and cocktail conversation an "attempt" was something that did not quite get there. I take a word at its entendre especially if double or colloquial. But it still remains to be discussed if "attempt" will be accepted as both missed and scored field goals. Instead it seems to be shimming in about what should have been done and what penalties should be applied. And this is not an ANI environment, normally. So what i see if the example provided shows what is important with this discussion is about a statistical chart then is than difference with text which may not have all included that would be found in one area what that information pertains so there is less ability to strain just what is being said.
The analogy of batting scores in American style baseball may best show a cross comparison. Someone's hitting average is determined from a variety of aspects but we do not call home runs the same as strikes or stealing a base. The whole point of WP is for those to consult. That is far more significant to those who do not know rather than those that have to confirm. It serves both groups but it does not help to confuse, unless that is the unintended result. What gets interesting in figuring out for the uninitiated is just what is a field goal action when it contains a divide, better known in the US as a fraction say of .5 field goal attempts? Yes, I know that averages can be any result but it has to be a common measurable thing. The only common thing of missed and completed field goals is that they all start with a kick because once a field goal has reached it intended target of getting its reward it is no longer an attempt. If "attempt" was so applicable to the textual expression of the activity in WP then every mention of field goals, missed or counted for point, would include the expression. It does not in WP. I can hear it already. This lack of uniformity is saying that WP is wrong. I did not say that. I pointed out that WP is inconsistent. Inconsistency does not help establish credibility unless the point is to impose something on others. I can hear it already. He is saying that WP intends on imposing on people. Most of the people in the world do not have a consistent and readily available power source to access WP. Grammar has a consistency about it or an explanation for its exception. The rule for field goals is that they have to be achieved by a kick. They cannot be tossed into the field goal zone. They cannot be bounced into the field goal zone. They cannot even fall short of the field goal zone. If they do, they are a missed field goal. We can forego a consideration of blocked field goals except to know that if it does not go into the field goal zone then it is a miss. A missed and a completed field goal are two different animals. One gets you a point and the other one does not.2605:E000:9149:8300:549A:9CC6:73E3:B72D (talk) 09:38, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Both a home run and a strike out are counted as an at bat; one may be considered to be a quite successful at bat and the other a failed at bat, but they are still counted as an at bat. Now, in baseball there are certain things which aren’t counted as an at bat (e.g. a walk or a sacrifice), but these are well agreed upon and specifically designated as such in the rules of the game.
If you were WP:BOLD in making a change, then that’s perfectly OK to do; however, when someone reverts your change, then you’re going to be expected (unless the revert was clearly a case of vandalism or some other clear policy/guideline violation) to follow Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (aka WP:BRD). You don’t revert back to your preferred version and then expect the other person to discuss because that’s WP:BRRD (i.e. bold, revert, revert back, discuss) and that’s how small things often become unnecessary problems. So, my advice to you is the same as I gave above to the other IP: discuss on the talk page and if necessary seek assistance from one of the relevant WikiProjects which cover American football articles. — Marchjuly (talk) 11:40, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

What is this idea of expectation? If you decide to overrile someone without talk page discussion or an explanation of why you think is it one way and not sanother even in situastions where there is a statsticasl chart uwage and a textual usuage then if someone expected to ber followed then maybe they should understand that someone does not alwaysd know that the right person has yet to complain about somethuing. This did go on for several days and other editors edited the articles as if all was well? Again, a missed field goal is not the same as an attempt becaisde an attempt is not a completion of the ultimate action--a point(s) from the field goal being completed. If a completed field goal and an attempt were the same then both would get point(s). They don't. Nothing is going to change that. The only thing they have in common is they result from a kick. "Attempt" is being used to express the only thing that an attempt and a completed field goal share in common. You cannot have a field goal without a kick. You cannot have a missed field goal without a kick. But an attempt to make a field goal stops being an attempt when it is a completed field goal. An egg stops being called an egg when you cook it into a soufle. You do not continue calling it an egg even if the shell is included."2605:E000:9149:8300:549A:9CC6:73E3:B72D (talk) 13:44, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

ArticleEdit

Jonathan has played pro ball he went undrafted with N.O saints also spent time with redskins/colts played college at Alabama a&m. I’m not sure why the article is going to draft — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omarneal52 (talkcontribs) 04:38, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Draft (Draft:Jonathan Dorsey) is where it belongs because it has almost no content and no references. Another key question is whether he has been in a NFL game, or just practice squad. As a draft, other editors can see it, but it does not show up on a Google search. When drafts are ready they are submitted, and a reviewer either accepts or declines. The declined can be worked on and submitted again. David notMD (talk) 04:54, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hi Omarneal52. You received some answers to your question the last time you asked at Wikipedia:Teahouse#Article and some editors have also posted comments on your user talk page. If Johnathan doesn't meet the guidelines of WP:NGRIDIRON, WP:GNG or WP:BIO, then maybe it's just WP:TOOSOON to write an article about him. If you want further clarification about Wikipedia's notability guidelines for a person like Johnathan, try asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject American football or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League. Maybe one of the members of either of those WikiProjects can help clarify things a bit better. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:59, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

How to lock the page that one createdEdit

Sir, It would be a great favour, if you teach how to lock the page that I creat — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksgdkl14 (talkcontribs) 06:38, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ksgdkl14, and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit, and no-one owns any page, so it is impossible for you to lock any page to your preferred version. If there is persistent vandalism, then some protection may be offered by an administrator. I cannot see any page created by your current user name. Dbfirs 06:47, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) A page would be protected only if it had been subjected to repeated vandalism, see WP:RFPP. The whole principle of Wikipedia is that it is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. If you wish to publish a page that other people can't edit, you'll need to publish it somewhere other than Wikipedia. --David Biddulph (talk) 06:49, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
(ec)Welcome to the Teahouse, Ksgdkl14. You cannot lock any page that you created because Wikipedia is the encylopedia that anyone can edit, as long they comply with our policies and guidelines. If a page that you created has been the subject of vandalism or other disruption, please file a report at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. An administrator can lock the page if it is being disrupted. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:55, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Bitossi Rimini potteryEdit

Hi, can anyone tell me if each piece of pottery is marked/stamped with an individual mark or number, or could for eg 2 candle holders be marked exactly the same. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weaselbobs (talkcontribs) 07:23, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. This is actually a place where we help editors with problems they encounter whilst editing Wikipedia. I'm afraid we're not here to help people search for stuff they ought to be able to find for themselves, either by reading Wikipedia articles or simply by searching online. I think this would be your best course of action. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 08:14, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Weaselbobs Fixing ping, so you get a direct notification of my reply. Nick Moyes (talk) 08:15, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
You can try Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:41, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

New UserEdit

Hi, I am new here and tried to edit some protected pages. I want to ask that I already, edited more than 10 pages in 4 days, when I could be able to edit protected pages?

My second question is: How can I underline and cut the written text.Shadowsparks786 (talk) 10:47, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Shadowsparks786 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. There are different levels of page protection, which might require more edits, or have complete protection from editing by anyone. If you want to share which article you are attempting to edit, I could give a better answer(though you don't need to). 331dot (talk) 13:20, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Shadowsparks786 In answer to your second question, we don't generally underline text in articles, but there are circumstances when it can be bolded or italicised; these are outlined at MOS:BOLD and MOS:ITALIC. You can cut text using normal methods (right click and cut, or Ctrl+x) when editing pages. GirthSummit (blether) 13:52, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse, Shadowsparks786. Although you created your account on 18th September, you're first edit was on 19 September at 14:11 UTC. Although it's not explicitly stated (at this explanatory page) I would assume that your 'autoconfirmed' status of having an account over four days old would be timed from an editor's first edit, not the moment their acccount was created. So, you should therefore be able to edit semi-protected pages this time tomorrow, 23rd September. As for underlining words, you would be unlikely to need very much that whilst editing articles, though if you respond to this post you'll see that I used opening and closing underline commands like this: <u>underlining words</u>. Cutting of text is the same as in any normal word-processing document. Just highlight the text and hit delete. Of course, do explain what changes you make to any article with an edit summary, and always ensure that whatever factual statement you do add to any article is directly supported the reference already there, or that you add a further one to allow it to be verified. See Wikipedia:Tutorial for further guidance on editing. Hope this helps. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:54, 22 September 2019 (UTC)