Open main menu

Wikipedia:Teahouse

Contents

Most recent archives
891, 892, 893, 894, 895, 896, 897, 898, 899, 900, 901, 902, 903, 904, 905, 906, 907, 908, 909, 910

Archived Question re List of Thermal Conductivities.Edit

Hello again Tea House: Thanks for all your help and yet the Analytical List in the List of Thermal Conductivities which lines up in Google Chrome does not line up in Microsoft Edge. The conductivities HAVE TO line up with their corresponding temperatures for the table to make any sense but for example the Ice section and various other sections are out of alignment in Microsoft Edge. That defeats the whole purpose of the list. Would anyone have any advice on how to get the listed conductivities to line up with their corresponding temperatures on every browser? (I don't know the syntax of the table and I only learned how to get things up on it by trial and error). Thank you, Patriot1423 (talk) 04:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse, Patriot1423.
This is starting to sound like a topic that can't be addressed well in the Teahouse and we may need to send you to a different venue. The Village Pump (Technical) page may be a good place to get an answer to your question. The fact that different browsers interpret CSS and HTML and Javascript in different ways has long been a problem on the web, but all of this hassle is apparently the price we have to pay to stay away from a software monoculture. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 08:23, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Please wikilink the article, e.g., Up-and-Down Designs, or better the section, e.g., Up-and-Down Designs#The Original ("Simple" or "Classical") UDD, and the :File with a leading colon or a leading c: for commons, e.g., c:File:Pifig.pdf. I'd be very surprised if Edge has issues with an ordinary PNG such as the File:Staircase Transformed Up Down English.png shown above.
OTOH both "images" (PNG + PDF) are diagrams and should be SVGs, and actually PDF is a proprietary document format unsuited for simple images, IOW, this might be deleted as too bad.
JFTR, MicroSoft abandoned Edge, maybe try IE11 for comparisons with my browser from hell aka Chrome. –84.46.53.0 (talk) 16:08, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you and I don't know how to wikilink anything nor what that is and I'll have to get back to this later.Patriot1423 (talk) 06:33, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Note to self, wikilink wikilink on this page to get Help:Link#Wikilinks. 84.46.52.182 (talk) 15:24, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

RZB Securities | Raiffeisen Zentralbank | Raiffeisen_Bank_InternationalEdit

WP:DR Abelmoschus Esculentus (talkcontribs) 11:44, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Dear Teahouse, I recently made RZB Securities page and it was recommended as a merger page by another editor to the existing Raiffeisen page. "Matthew HK" is recommending deletion and I really don't understand why. IF all the other branches of RZB are listed so should RZB Securities which was a US branch. Please advise. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RZB_Securities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raiffeisen_Bank_International https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raiffeisen_Zentralbank https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raiffeisenbank Josephintechnicolor (talk) 08:49, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@Josephintechnicolor: Welcome to the Teahouse. If you go to the RZB Securities page and click on the blue links in the proposed deletion template, you can see why Matthew hk (talk · contribs) has tagged it for deletion. Specifically, there are no sources in the article to prove that this branch passes the general notability guideline. Sources must be independent (so not the bank's website) and in-depth coverage (so not a mere FINRA directory entry). As far as other branches having articles, that is an other articles exist argument. Each article has to stand on its own merits, not because similar articles already exist on Wikipedia. Some of the articles in the list at Raiffeisenbank were very short and should probably also be deleted or merged; for example Raiffeisen (Albania) was created in 2006 and there is no way an article like this would ever be accepted under today's standards. shoy (reactions) 15:54, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
@Shoy: Please also explained to him, throwing low-quality source for controversies section is not acceptable (see Raiffeisen Zentralbank#Controversy) It even looks like defamation. Matthew hk (talk) 16:15, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
An unsourced statement even once appeared in the article, claiming crime boss Semion Mogilevich somehow "controlled" the bank. Matthew hk (talk) 16:17, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
@Shoy: Thank you very much.
@Matthew hk: Regarding Raiffeisen Zentralbank Raiffeisen_Bank_International

Hi Matthew, 1) Semion Mogilevic and Raiffeisen Semion Mogilevich and RosUkrEnergo both make references and have sources that tie Semion Mogilevich to Raiffeisen. I found other sources showing the link between Semion and Raiffeisen. I plan to remake my post with these sources, (both are quality sources) before I do so I am presenting them to you. https://www.kyivpost.com/article/content/ukraine-politics/us-official-austrian-banks-ties-to-rosukrenergo-su-91986.html https://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/01/business/worldbusiness/ukraine-gas-deal-draws-attention-to-secretive.html

2) Semion Mogilevic and Raiffeisen (2) I never said that Semion "Controls" the bank. What was written is the below. "Raiffeisen has a link with Semion_Mogilevich, USA claims he controls RosUkrEnergo, who is actively involved in Russia–Ukraine gas disputes, and a partner of Raiffeisen Bank."

3) RB International Finance USA (main USA raiffensen entity - make a new page) I suggest we put RZB Securities under the main USA entity called "RB International Finance USA" (a new page to be created) and include RZB Finance. Both the former RZB securities and RZB finance have now been placed under RB International Finance USA management which is under Raiffeisen Bank International AG. Is that suitable for you?

Matthew hk - I hope that resolves everything? 04:42, 19 February 2019 (UTC)Josephintechnicolor (talk)

Please see WP:UNDUE. Controversial content should be cited by many sources, not just one source in the tone of tabloid journalism. Matthew hk (talk) 04:56, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Matthew hk I found 2 good sources (NYT and kyivpost) and I know I can find many more, I quickly searched and have 2 more below (der Spiegel and wikileaks). Are you telling me that the all of these are controversial news sites or tabloid? How about the American Government who cited most of these issues against Raiffeisen? Do you have any further issues otherwise I will proceed. I find your efforts to block this Semion post and my other RZB page are HIGHLY suspect and bordering questionable. (You did not answer ALL my questions above). I am only stating the truth using what is available from credible sources while it seems you are trying to prevent them from being on the Raiffeisen wikipedia. Done now? Given your obvious expert knowledge of Raiffeisen I am quite shocked you are not aware of their history and want to block it before you even research to confirm it is true / backed by sources.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/no-and-no-again-the-rocky-us-relationship-with-little-austria-a-733536-2.html
https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/06VIENNA514_a.html

@Shoy: Dear Shoy, How can Matthew HK just place a disputed comment on this section without even discussing it first? Please see Raiffeisen Zentralbank#Controversy to understand the section I refer to. The link he removed on the holocaust was validated by a book on Google and Semion (Mafia Boss) has many quality sources. Matthew HK seems like he is protecting something and I don't feel he is a neutral party. Not only is there case law on the Raiffeisen Holocaust https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1153156.html but there are books as well, here is one https://books.google.com.ph/books?id=BiygDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA59&lpg=PA59&dq=raiffeisen+and+holocaust&source=bl&ots=ueqOAcr-Yj&sig=ACfU3U1nkelboRxNwUrSPGFqROleTwW8mg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiNm5PW18zgAhWyBKYKHY1CA48Q6AEwCXoECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=raiffeisen%20and%20holocaust&f=false Can you please assist me and explain why is Matthew HK given so much power to deem things unworthy without so much as a discussion? 10:07, 21 February 2019 (UTC)Josephintechnicolor (talk)

This isn't the place for a lengthy discussion about Raiffeisen Zentralbank. If you can't reach a consensus at Talk:Raiffeisen Zentralbank, then go to WP:Dispute resolution. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:38, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Warning - like resume - what do I do?Edit

Hello,

I've been working on a 'draft article' User:LorriBrown/sandbox1 and a warning appeared

. I am not understanding why it appeared and how to remove it. I've reviewed other living person (artist) biographies and they are formatted in a variety of ways. Some have a list of 'select exhibitions' and others have tables. I removed the list (assuming that was the issue) and changed the heading from biography to career (not clear if that matters). For now, can I just delete that edit from page?

Thank you!LorriBrown (talk) 16:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello LorriBrown and welcome to the Teahouse.
An IP editor left that tag on your sandbox. This tag is normally applied to articles main space and is somewhat out of place on your draft, but I suppose the editor thought they were giving you helpful advice. When you believe you have addressed the issue raised by the tag, you are free to remove it.
I hope you're looking at some good examples of articles on artists - articles with classifications like good article or featured article are best; nearly any other article is liable to not be a good model, since only GA and FA articles have been subjected to any sort of rigorous review.
At first glance, your draft presents a somewhat forbidding wall of text and does indeed read more like a biography that would appear in a gallery catalog than an encyclopedia article (you need to strive for a more neutral tone in your writing). Please keep working on it and submit it for review when you think it's ready. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 21:25, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you jmcgnh Hope this reply is correct. Not sure how to respond to your reply. LorriBrown (talk) 23:30, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
I removed the tag, as the content is in your Sandbox. I agree with jmcgnh that the content needs trimming (WAY TOO MUCH DESCRIPTION OF SHOWS), and creation of sections. Model after other artist biographies that C-class or better (shown at top of Talk). Best wishes for submitting this to Articles for Creation. David notMD (talk) 02:21, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Understand that what is in WP is in all likelihood despite wherever it may be saved, viewable by others although you may be under the impression that it is private and restricted to your eyes only. People can comment on it and sometimes they will converse in "TEMPLATES" or on automatic which may not convey in the appropriate nuance what is needed in a particular situation. It may come across too strongly or too passively. Just like the in-law that attempts to easy your way into the new family, they may not have realized how crossing over the line has just happened. The internet does not provide the best was of conveying nuances such as body language when explaining. You cannot control how others communicate in writing with you but you can in future control how you communicate with others. This basically shows how cavernous WP can be in every aspect of its functioning. Just thank thre person for their suggestion and reminding them that you will when ready ask of their opinions.104.35.236.49 (talk) 01:18, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello David David notMD. Thank you for your input and for removing that tag! I apologize but I do not understand how to navigate to the "Model after other artist biographies that C-class or better (shown at top of Talk)" that you've referred to. @David notMD and David notMD:Question, How can an editor solicit other editors for help and input into their article(s). Also, how are people notified in this platform? I apologize if it is improper to 'ping' you. I noticed this on the sandbox revision history - not in the notifications. Thank you!LorriBrown (talk) 17:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
What I meant is go to artists' articles, and at the top of each Talk page there should be a rating (Stub, Start, C-class, B-class). The Start and C-class are models to emulate. See List of contemporary artists for examples. Pinging is appropriate (even though I don't do it). David notMD (talk) 20:19, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
David notMD Thank you!LorriBrown (talk) 23:39, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

creating wiki page on someoneEdit

how do you create a wiki page like this one, having top paragraph and then bluepanel left side saying Contents and one on right with photo and info below-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahatma_Gandhi and then write about each content section like Early Life, Education, etc - is there a step by step tutorial to watch.

can we create a page like this for oneself — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.115.176.67 (talk) 17:24, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

No, don't create one for yourself, see WP:Autobiography. Wikipedia articles are on subjects which are notable. To create an article on a notable subject, see the advice at WP:Your first article. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:29, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Copying can be the greatest way to understand what is the process. That may be upsetting to some people because they do not know your intentions as it might apply to WP. When you are in edit phase all the coding etc can be seen that is involved in an accepted and authorized WP article. If you want to use the same format in another WP it may not be the best way to go about it if you would like to avoid critical reactions from others. If you wish to doddle with it in your own creation for your own curiosity then just copy it to your personal computer and go for it. If it is for a future project on WP then some due process might help you. Try and identify what segments of WP may help you how what you are thinking might better develop WP or just get in the way. Is there a group in WP that covers the content issue area. ask them. Get a consensus. Then follow through.104.35.236.49 (talk) 01:02, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Darren BailieEdit

Need help getting this page ready for publication, if you google Darren Bailie you can get plenty of info on him, what should be included in the article.. he is well know for the Guru Josh Project and the Guru Project.. at the moment any mention of these on Wiki are wrongly re-directed to the Guru Josh article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dazperkz (talkcontribs) 00:08, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

@Dazparkz: Notability is weird sometimes. This isn't exactly the same as your case, but perhaps you've heard of Pentatonix? They're pretty famous, get loads of views on their article, yada yada. The thing is, not all the members have articles- some of them are only famous as part of the band, and not independently. Two of them are even part of another group, but still don't have articles. Just because someone's name is known among many people doesn't necessarily make them notable. One issue I see with the sources for Darren Bailie, though, is that many are primary sources. Wikipedia tends to want in-depth third-party coverage in a reliable source, which in regular terms just means that we want articles about them (and them, not another topic that mentions them in passing) in reputable sources, like the BBC or CNN, for example. In practice, most news sources work, as long as you're not trying to source a controversial political opinion with a partisan source (unless you provide both sides) or if the source is typically (on Wikipedia) considered patently ridiculous (probably not the best idea to source a controversial fact solely to the front cover of the Sun or the Daily Mail!) Pretty much all of the results that come up when I Google "Darren Bailie" are actually about Guru Josh- thus, not in-depth coverage. -A lainsane (Channel 2) 02:10, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
@Dazperkz: missed ping -A lainsane (Channel 2) 02:30, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
@A lad insane: what you are saying is not actually correct, it is the Guru Josh Project not Guru Josh results that come up when you google his name, this is because he created the Guru Josh Project in 2007 a separate entity, he then invited Paul Walden aka Guru Josh to join him in 2008 to be part of the Guru Josh Project, darren Bailie is solely responsible for the Guru Josh Project and any music produced for the Guru Josh Project, that is why when you google either Guru Josh Project or Darren Bailie is is Darren Bailies picture and details you will get. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dazperkz (talkcontribs) 10:19, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
@A lad insane: Basically Darren Bailie is The Guru Josh Project, the name is only a confusion matter as he based his band as project on the old music of Paul Walden aka Guru Josh... if you you look up Guru Josh Project, Dome 49 it is darren Bailie live on TV, if you look at the Winter Music conference awards in 2008/09 it is Darren Bailie in Miami collecting the awards. By every mention being re-directed to the Guru Josh page is totally misleading and FAKE news. It is Darren Bailie who created the band, produced any music, made any TV appearances and collected any award and this is because Darren Bailie is The Guru Josh Project. I only need help rectifying this fake news on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dazperkz (talkcontribs) 10:32, 19 February 2019 (UTC)Dazperkz (talk) 11:00, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
@A lad insane: and another huge misleading point that needs addressing, when Guru Project is searched it is also re-directed to the Guru Josh page, Paul Walden aka Guru Josh was and had never been anything to do with this band, he was never a member and never involved in any of its music, you guys whole police wikipedia need to check the facts before you you delete true factual, move or re-direct information. Darren Bailie once again is solely responsible for the band called The Guru Project, he is still the band owner and TM owner. So i think it's time you do a little help in getting the Darren Bailie draft ready to be published instead of ignorantly denying or removing its factual content Dazperkz (talk) 13:57, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
@Dazperkz: There is a great essay here that is relevant to your point. For a subject to have an article on Wikipedia, they typically should have been discussed in depth by multiple third-party sources as a standalone subject. Wikipedia goes off of what these sources say, and NOT what the source says. In other words, if every reliable source says that John Doe was born in Liverpool, but John himself insists he was born in Sydney, we will say that he was born in Liverpool. If you could provide links to third-party reliable sources backing up what you have said, the article may be fixed. If you haven't provided sources when there are sources to the contrary, you honestly might as well be building a snowman in Hell for as much you'll get done. Also, if you could refrain from calling many experienced editors "fake news" we would appreciate it. Please provide your sources. -A lainsane (Channel 2) 18:59, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
@A lad insane:thank you for the info i will include the third party links etc as you have suggested, as you can tell i am not experienced at this and your message is exactly the kind of help i needed. Dazperkz (talk) 21:55, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Question Re Proper Protocol - Adding a Section to an ArticleEdit

Hello,

I am a new contributor and am looking for advice on adding a section to an existing article. The article is scientific, and contains a References section that list technical books the reader can refer to. I feel the article could benefit from another section at the end of the article titled "Readings for a General Audience".

Would it be appropriate to use the article's Talk Page to ask if others agree that this new section is warranted?

Thank you very much.

Evan2184 (talk) 02:49, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Evan2184. When you edit, you can either be WP:BOLD or be WP:CAUTIOUS. If you're bold and somebody reverts the changes you made (and the revert is not a clearcut case of vandalism), then you're going to be expected to follow Wikipedia:Bold, revert, discuss cycle (BRD) and try to establish a consensus for the changes. Sometimes when you're bold, especially on articles which don't attract lots of attention, your edit might go unchallenged for quite a bit of time; however, when it is challenge (regardless of how much time has passed), you're going to be expected to still follow BRD. Generally, Wikipedia wants editors to be bold; sometimes, however, when you're planning on making a major change to an article, or you want to edit an article with lots of activity (maybe because it's perhaps about a controversial subject or something recently in the news, etc.), it can be a good idea to be a bit CAUTOUS to avoid any issues with others working on the article which might lead to edit warring. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:21, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi Marchjuly. Thank you for explaining bold vs cautious. It is much appreciated! Evan2184 (talk) 03:06, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
@Evan2184: Which article are you talking about? References are used to support statements in an article, but "Further reading" is for material not referred to, but nevertheless helpful to readers. If it doesnt already have one, I'd advise adding a new section with that title so as to follow the format of all other pages in this encyclopaedia. Although I dont remember ever seeing it done, I dont see why you couldn't split that into two - Introductory and Technical. Or simply put a comment in brackets after the source's details to indicate its technical level. See Wikipedia:Further reading. One other thing to say is that, yes, if you are ever worried about making a change to an article, you could, indeed, always post your proposal on its Talk Page and see what response you get from other editors. You should leave it a few days to a week to give peole a chance to reply. But organising a 'Further reading' section doesn't sound very contentious to me. It all depends on what article you're referring to. Hope this helps. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:37, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi Nick Moyes. Thank you for your advice. "Further Reading" is a better title for the section than "Readings for a General Audience", and follows the format used in other articles. I appreciate your help! Evan2184 (talk) 03:06, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Cogital PageEdit

How do I get an editor to clean up and check the cogital page and also change the name to cogital group? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mimel123 (talkcontribs) 16:36, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Name change done. See answer to the other part of your question at your talk page, copied from the Talk page of the IP address that had previously asked questions about Cogital. P.S. Sign all comments by typing four of David notMD (talk) 17:17, 19 February 2019 (UTC) at end. David notMD (talk) 17:17, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
@David notMD: please remember to ping an asking party with the {{Reply to}} template when answering, especially when that is a new user, who may not realize how to watch answers to their questions. --CiaPan (talk) 10:14, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
@Mimel123: Apparently David notMD tried to say “Sign all comments by typing four of ~~~~ in the comment above, but he probably forgot to escape the four tildes, so they got transformed into a signature and you couldn't see them.
You may want to see Wikipedia:Signatures for more information and gudelines on using automatic signatures in Wikipedia. --CiaPan (talk) 10:14, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

That was about CogitalCogitalGroup rename. --CiaPan (talk) 07:22, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Reading and correcting spelling/grammarEdit

Hi.

I am interested for now in reading the articles and checking for spelling and grammatical errors. Is this type of task available?

Yes! Thanks for offering to help with this neverending task. See WP:TYPO to start. In the see also section there is a link to other projects related to cleanup like this. RudolfRed (talk)

Dealing with a misspelling taken from a linked referenceEdit

I found a misspelled (transliterated) word in Wikipedia article Congregation Beth Israel (Milwaukee). The wikipedia article mentions the "Rabbi Solomon I. Scheinfeld Moath Chitim Fund", clearly taken from a Wisconsin Jewish Chronicle article date April 11, 2003: https://web.archive.org/web/20110716215155/http://www.jewishchronicle.org/article.php?article_id=2202

The Wisconsin Jewish Chronicle, though, should have spelled it "Maoth", with the 'a' and 'o' transposed. Does this warrant a " [sic]" notation, or does this qualify as what MOS:QUOTE calls a trivial typographic error that should simply be corrected without comment? Or something else? Jkgree (talk) 15:33, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

@Jkgree: If it's part of a quote included in the article, use a [sic] tag. If it's freeform text, just fix it, perhaps with another reference to back up the correct spelling. -A lainsane (Channel 2) 20:07, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Does this mean that WP is using "sic" in its text as there seemed to be a time that when a misspelling was contained in a quote there was no attempt made in WP to acknowledge it so that people would stop continually changing what was thought a mistake? I notice many times in WP coding that notes will be left to advise a potential contributor not to change the text as it appears in publication form. It may be a good idea to direct people to these coding rules.2605:E000:9149:8300:8C39:927C:54DA:93BC (talk) 01:33, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

There is image for a Polish RAF Pilot I would like to upload.Edit

The pilots name is Tadeusz Koc I'm not sure if copyright rules apply to old images from the 40s of military personal of the RAF I've found two images I had added a box to his page but not an image. Here is a link to one image the image for this one is above the name and here is the other one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jediaj02 (talkcontribs) 16:39, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jediaj02. Copyright depends upon quite a number of things (some are shown in c:Commons:Hirtle chart) and copyright rules can vary quite a bit from country to country; however, a photo taken during the 1940s is generally not old enough to be no longer considered protected by copyright just based on its age alone. The information generally needed to make a good assessment of a photo's copyright status is who took it, when it was taken, where it was taken and when it was first published. It can sometimes be hard to do this for photos found on websites like those you've linked to above because in most cases the website is not the original copyright holder of the image and is just using the image per fair use or fair dealing; in addition, such websites seldom provide detailed information about the photos they host, at least not detailed enough to determine copyright status.
For some countries such as the United States, photos taken by government employees (this includes military personnel) as part of their official duties are considered to be within the public domain (i.e. not eligible for copyright protection) regardless of when they were taken, but other countries like the UK might follow something different. You might try asking about this at WP:MCQ or c:COM:VPC since that's where editors experienced with image licensing are usually found. In general, it's going to need to be established that the photo(s) are no longer eligible or have never been eligible for copyright protection for either Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons to host the image under such a license; or, it's going to have to be shown that original copyright holder of the photo (i.e. the photographer ir his/her heirs) has given their explicit consent for the file to be released under a free license accepted by Wikipedia or Commons.
Now if the Tadeusz Koc your referring to above is the same person as Tadeusz Kotz, then another possibility would be to upload a non-free photo of him for primary identification purposes in that Wikipedia article per item 10 of WP:NFCI. Non-free content use, however, is quite restrictive and each use of a non-free photo must satisfy the ten non-free content use criteria listed in WP:NFCCP. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@Marchjuly Yes that is Tadeusz Koc I was talking about I just forgot link the page as well but thanks for giving me instructions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jediaj02 (talkcontribs) 13:12, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

creation of pageEdit

how to start creation a page ASLAM SHERWANI — Preceding unsigned comment added by ASLAM SHERWANI (talkcontribs) 16:44, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

If you are asking about creating an autobiography, the advice is not to try to do so, see WP:Autobiography. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:57, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Your User page is a place to write about your intentions as a Wikipedia editor. Your Sandbox is a place you can work on drafting an article. As DB wrote, advice is not to try to write an article about yourself. David notMD (talk) 20:49, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Is this content inappropriate for Wikipedia?Edit

Hello everyone.

Some days back, I wrote a small observation regarding Memling's painting The_Last_Judgment_(Memling) in its Talk:The_Last_Judgment_(Memling) page, which was then edited by adding the 'Ruminations' title.

Some days later, I passed by the main English Wikipedia page, where I read the 'Did you know...' line of the OK_gesture. In its Talk:OK_gesture page, I started writing an observation related to it (you can read it here). While I was still writing it, it was deleted from the page.

Both texts that I wrote were meant to highlight an objective observation of each article, but one was taken as rumination and the other one was deleted. In this sense, which one of them was edited right? I tried to ask each editor but I stopped hearing from them. I want to be completely clear so I don't make incorrect assumptions next time.

Thanks, everyone.

JoseEduardoTR (talk) 16:53, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, JoseEduardoTR, and welcome to the Teahouse. Please read about original research. No opinion, argument, conclusion, comparison, or theory is ever appropriate in a Wikipedia article, unless it is wholly contained in a single reliable source, which is cited. Talk pages are for discussing the corresponding article and how to improve it, not for discussing the subject. So it is sometimes permissible to argue or theorise about the reliability or interpretation of sources on the talk page, but not about the subject itself. --ColinFine (talk) 17:11, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Hey ColinFine, thanks for your kind response.

What you told me makes complete sense to me. First, I am not making an opinion ("I believe that this text is appropriate for this article..."), or an argument ("I disagree with you because my text is better..."), conclusion ("my text is the best..."), or a theory ("I believe in what I wrote, and so you should too..."); and second, I am not using the Wikipedia article, but the talk page.

What I wrote was meant to highlight an objective observation of each article. If both have the same purpose, I still don't know why one was added with the text 'Ruminations' and the other one was deleted.

Thanks ColinFine for your clarification. – JoseEduardoTR (talk) 17:47, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, JoseEduardoTR. As far as I can see, your "Ruminations" are 100% original research. They are your theories, opinions, and conclusions about the subject matter. As such, they can never go into the article, and I cannot see how they comply with WP:TALK#USE, so they do not belong on the talk page. (See particularly "Do not use the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic: the talk page is for discussing how to improve the article, not vent your feelings about it." in section TPNO.)
As for why one of your contributions was deleted and the other not, that is because Wikipedia is a volunteer project with many different editors, who don't always interpret the guidelines the same way. I don't think DavidWBrooks was right to delete your section - TPO as I read it says that collapsing the off-topic section would have been more appropriate. I have collapsed your Ruminations section for that reason. --ColinFine (talk) 20:20, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Hey ColinFine, thanks a ton for your clarification.

In the sense of 'original research', I will give it a thought, mainly because both texts that I wrote were based only on observation. I didn't research anything and I didn't come up with something original; I am inclined to think that someone with unbiased observation will watch this painting pretty similar as I do. Which is why I think they should at least be read and considered, not deleted.

Besides, they are not 'my' ruminations, the title 'Rumination' was added later. Those are only the result of my observation without evaluation, which I also consider the highest form of intelligence.

If you think that you are right by collapsing my observation, will you also be right by telling me to write back and collapse my observation on the OK gesture's talk page without the unfortunate to be deleted?

Thanks once again, ColinFine. – JoseEduardoTR (talk) 21:24, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

JoseEduardoTR. I think you are construing "research" too narrowly. The first paragraph of OR says

The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources

.

I am certainly not going to advise you to go back and restore what you wrote on the other page, even if you then collapse it. While I don't think DavidWBrooks was correct, I do not believe that it would be in the interest of Wikipedia to restore your text. If you feel strongly that it should be, then according to BRD you should not restore the other editor's reversion of your edit, but should engage in a discussion with that editor and any others who join in, to reach consensus. (That process is normally applied to articles, but I don't see any reason why it should not be extended to a talk page where there is a dispute as to the proper content of the talk page). --ColinFine (talk) 22:30, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

HeyColinFine,

What you tell me makes sense. I will find the best way to write back the text in the OK gesture talk page. Thanks for your support! – JoseEduardoTR (talk) 01:13, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

InternetBigelow is backup on the Life!Edit

Hello Wikipedia the free encyclopædia i am InternetBigelow. Do you remember me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by InternetBigelow (talkcontribs) 17:37, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

@InternetBigelow: Welcome (back) to Wikipedia. Please remember to add proper citations for your edits, and sign your posts here with the four tildes (~~~~). TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 19:33, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
@InternetBigelow: I'm not sure why Timtempleton asked you to give a citation to this edit which only added "It started información Windows Vista and ended in 8.1.". Personally, I would have removed it completely as not being a correctly constructed sentence in English. Would you please try again and make it clearer what you mean? As Tim asks, please ensure you support it with a reference. We welcome new editors here whose first language is not English, but we do require them to write coherently. Your user page does not fill me with much confidence that you may do that. So I would earnestly ask you to take great care in everything you edit here. You might wish to familiarise yourself with the basics of Wikipedia by doing The Wikipedia Adventure. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:57, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes: Courtesy benefit of a doubt, per not biting newcomers, but extra eyes are good too. ;-) TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 23:16, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Not Enough Expeirence to CSDEdit

I've been deleting pure nonsense drafts and reverting vandalism as well as editing articles. However, an admin told me I don't have enough experience to do that. Why is that the case if so? --One Blue Hat❯❯❯ (talk) 18:25, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

@One Blue Hat: It's likely related to the newness of your account, but in any case you'd be better off engaging the editor who contacted you on his/her talk page. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 18:33, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
What the VERY experienced editor wrote on your Talk is "Don't tag any more pages for speedy deletion." As you have been an editor for only a month, valid advice. Sometimes, inexperienced/new editors create an incomplete article directly in Wikipedia rather than submit to Articles for Creation, with intention to come back to the article and improve it. Rather than slap them with a SD, perhaps offer advice on how to improve the article, or just do nothing, with hope it will be improved. There is no need for rush to judgement. David notMD (talk) 21:13, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Is it possible to block/ban someone for verbally abusing someone?Edit

I just had this experience with someone who wanted to "edit" my user page. I told him/her "No". Then out of nowhere, he starts swearing at me, using the "f" word and "b" word. Is it possible to block/ban him for doing that action? BashurMan (talk) 01:52, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@BashurMan: Not unless it is an ungoing problem. You basically did not assume good faith and complete bit a newby. You were both uncivil. Next time be nicer and maybe you will get nicer replies in return. See WP:BITE, WP:AGF, and WP:BOOMERANG. RudolfRed (talk) 02:09, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
The OP and both new users posting on his or her talkpage are CU blocked. Meters (talk) 02:32, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
OP unblocked within 6 minutes. --David Biddulph (talk) 03:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Orphan tag on Roberto McCausland Dieppa stub articleEdit

Hello I am interested in creating a link on this stub Article to remove the orphan tag. I have found a review on Semana magazine which compares him to vladimir feltsman a pianist with a Wikipedia article aswell as the magazine . I am asking for assistance as I am still learning about the procedures and policies. Thank you in advance

Deanna Coakley 03:01, 21 February 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deanna Coakley (talkcontribs) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse&action=edit&section=78Deanna Coakley 04:05, 21 February 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deanna Coakley (talkcontribs)

@Deanna Coakley: It sounds like you might be confusing WP:ORPHAN with WP:UNSOURCED. Articles like Roberto McCausland Dieppa are tagged as {{Orphan}} when there are no wikilinks to them found in other existing Wikipedia articles, while articles are tagged as {{Unreferenced}} when none of the article content is supported by any citations to sources. Orphaned articles can be de-orphaned by simply adding a wikilink to the orphaned article to another existing Wikipedia article, while articles which are unreferenced can be referenced (i.e. "de-unreferenced") by adding citations to reliable sources. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:14, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

NPOV in the social sciencesEdit

I'm involved in a POV discussion on Talk:Rent regulation. I believe that the article should "fairly represent all prominent viewpoints" on rent controls "in proportion to their prominence," but I don't know how to adjudicate what that means for an article about a social issue.

I created a subsection with my proposal for how to organize the viewpoints of economists, sociologists, tenants'-rights activists, etc. It seems that everyone likes my proposal, but I still feel like reaching out to the broader community to reach a consensus on what it means for the article to be "neutral" on rent control. I particularly want to invite editors from WikiProjects like Econ and Sociology to join the discussion. How would doing that help us reach consensus? Also, what's the best way to do this? Qzekrom (talk) 07:09, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

WP:TEAHOUSE is definitely not the place for some general outreach efforts.  You can try WP:VP (village pump), or you can figure out how to get some kind of RFC (request for comments) on WP:CENT (centralized discussions). On Commons the latter would boil down to editing a CENT template, on enwiki I'm not sure if it has or had CENT (but if I don't get a red link in the edit preview it should exist.) –84.46.52.182 (talk) 19:57, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Oh, I wasn't going to ask at Teahouse. We do have {{centralized discussion}} but this is too specific for that. Although I'm mostly concerned about a single article, I do believe that a more general consensus on what counts as neutrality in the social sciences might be warranted. WikiProject Econ has a content guideline that's relevant to this article, but I don't see anything similar for the other social sciences.
If I just want to talk about the one article, I should probably just post {{please see}} messages on relevant WikiProject talk pages. But if I want a discussion of the broader issue, WP:Village pump like you said would be more appropriate. Qzekrom (talk) 01:43, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
And yeah, an RFC might be a good idea. Qzekrom (talk) 06:08, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Help with templateEdit

Dear friendly editors.

Can anyone help me edit this Template:Inconsistent Birthday? Basically, the purpose is to allow pass in multiple (ideally, indefinite number of) entries of InterWikiLinks and Birthdays as variables of the template, and use it on Talk page.

It looks like this right now


Language Link Birthday
ja ja:カルロス・カイザー 1987-11-22
en en:Carlos_Kaiser_(footballer) 1963-04-02



Xinbenlv (talk) 07:26, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Xinbenlv. Because templates can affect lots of pages (sometimes in not so obvious ways) and the syntax involved can be a bit complicated, you might get better feedback from experienced template editors by asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Templates or even Wikipedia:Village Pump/Technical instead. Moreover, you should be aware that templates which have little encyclopedic value or are redundant to exisiting template can end up being nominated for deletion at WP:TFD if they don't comply with Wikipedia:Template namespace for some reason. I'm not saying that's the case here, but just pointing it out in case you weren't aware of it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:42, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you that's very helpful. I will ask over there. Xinbenlv (talk) 07:45, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Article Wizard is so hard!Edit

Why is Article Wizard So Hard It Should Be Easy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elliotlucapowell (talkcontribs) 09:09, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Elliotlucapowell - welcome to the Teahouse. Contributing to any encyclopaedia is a very responsible job, and Wikipedia is no exception. As a brand new editor, you appear to have chosen the hardest task here - trying to create a completely new article from scratch. Most editors start off by making small improvements to existing articles before moving on to slightly harder and more complex tasks, like ensuring that everything they state is supported by a proper, reliable reference. (We don't just take anyone's personal opinions - we need citations as evidence). It can be quite demoralising to start of by trying to make an entirely new page. It's a bit like learning to drive for the first time, but choosing to do it on a busy motorway.
Why not try The Wikipedia Adventure, which is an interactive tour of the basics of how things worlk here, plus having a read of Wikipedia:Your first article? I should say that you have successfully managed to create a blank draft called Draft:Elliot Powell, so well done for that first step. I should point out that there is a very great difference between saying a few lines about yourself on your own userpage User:Elliotlucapowell (which is fine to do), and trying to add a new page about yourself to the encyclopaedia. We advise against people trying to write about themselves, but at this early stage I won't bore you stuff about 'notability' as you might well be intending to write about another subject, and simply put the wrong name on it. Once you have created a properly constructed new article, supported by references, you would hit the big blue 'submit' button and a reviewer will check your work, and rename it if necessary. I've left a short welcome message and a few helpful links on your user talk page. Just pop back here if you need any further help, advice or explanation of anything. We're all volunteers here, but we try to resppond as quickly as we're able. Best wishes at the start of your own personal Wikipedia adventure! Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:07, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

film companyEdit

What do you do about theift of data online or i do.? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MeickalieMeilleur (talkcontribs) 10:02, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, MeickalieMeilleur. A warm welcome to you from everyone here at the Teahouse. I'm not sure what you are asking - could you explain please? It is important that you provide a link to an article you are concerned about. We do not permit use of copyrighted content on this site, and we take it very seriously. Have you found something that needs to be quickly removed? If so, we will need more details before we can assist you. Please respond as soon as possible, and another host will attempt to help you, as I'm now logging off for the day. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:11, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Question on List of EpisodesEdit

Hi there! I am helping to create a List of Episodes page for a new show. A second season was announced to be released this year but it hasn't come yet. However, is it still okay to create a episode list page for the show regardless of it only having one season now? Or should I wait for the second season to be out? Thanks in advance! --ZoeZoeZoey (talk) 11:00, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello ZoeZoeZoey. It's best to wait until the new season is definitely more than just crystal ball gazing: either until somebody unconnected with the series chooses to publish something about the new season - and not just from a press release, but actually writing about it off their own bat - or until the season actually airs (and even then, it would be best if you could cite independent sources discussing it). --ColinFine (talk) 17:01, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Help improving my REJECTED draftEdit

I've been working on a draft article for David M. Posner, a well-respected rabbi. Is there someone who could mentor me to improve it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamjessklein (talkcontribs) 16:49, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@Iamjessklein: The reason for rejection does not appear to be quality, rather it seems to be questionable notability. This is not so easy to fix as quality; in fact, it's not really something you can "improve". If you can provide third-party sources with in-depth coverage, it may increase the chances the article is accepted. -A lainsane (Channel 2) 19:11, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
The draft was rejected when it had only two references. You added five references, that's already much better. All statements apparently have sources, and the two NYT references are good to establish notability. So after "checking" your draft for less than five minutes I'd say that it's at least a valid stub with a chance to survive a deletion debate.
For further tips see the second link on the page: If you need extra help, please ask us a question at the at the AfC Help Desk: I'm not linking this here, because the link only works as it should if clicked on the draft. The AfC (Article for Creation) reviewers have special requirements, they want to be very sure that any draft promoted to an article by them will be not deleted. (Untested, I never visited the AfC help desk.) –84.46.52.182 (talk) 19:31, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for all of your input. I'll check back later after continuing to draft some more. Iamjessklein (talk) 21:04, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Draft rejectedEdit

I wrote about a product with some references but it got rejected, can anyone help me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swot Guide (talkcontribs) 17:07, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Swot Guide. Not being an administrator, I can't see the deleted draft called "Vouch365", but you need to study the various links which have been put on your User talk page. Judging from those comments, it sounds as if you have the (very common) misunderstanding that Wikipedia has anything at all to do with telling the world about a product (or any other subject). It does not: Wikipedia is only interested in subjects which somebody completely unconnected has already chosen to tell the world about, by publishing at some length about it in a reliable source. Wikipedia has little interest in what any subject says about themselves (or what their relatives, friends, employees, employers, producers, institutions, or associates say about them), and no interest at all in how they want to be presented. So the question for you is, where has somebody not in any way associated with Vouch365 chosen to write about it? Unless you can answer that, you will be wasting your time trying again, as any article must be almost 100% based on such sources. --ColinFine (talk) 18:34, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Dr. Saber AzamEdit

I had uploaded a previous version that I would like to delete.

As for this version, I would like it to be put in the usual Wikipedia profile format. Can someone help?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SaberAzam (talkcontribs) 18:09, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, SaberAzam, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that, like many people, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not contain profiles - not one. What it contains are articles, which are neutrally written, and almost entirely based on reliable published sources independent of the subject. It is quite likely that you meet Wikipedia's criteria for notabililty, and so that we could have an article about you. Unfortunately, since the material you posted presumably comes from you (since you have licensed it as your own work), almost none of it is acceptable a source for an article about you. For that reason, I would be very surprised if anybody tried to use it as the basis of an article.
You are in any case discouraged from writing about yourself (see autobiography). You could request somebody write an article at Requested articles, but in truth, the takeup rate from there is very low. I suspect your best bet would be to post at WT:WikiProject United Nations, and see if somebody there would be interested in writing an article about you. --ColinFine (talk) 18:45, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @SaberAzam: Please sign your comments using four tildes like so: ~~~~. I think you may be confusing Wikipedia with Facebook or the sort; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a social media platform or webhost.. If you are referring to the pictures, I'm not sure what policy is for uploading PDFs, but that shouldn't necessarily be an issue. If you are referring to an article or draft, you don't appear to have created anything; did you use another account to do that? Based on your username, though, it sounds to me like you are the person in question, which berings concerns to your use of the word "profile". If you are referring to the PDF, you should be able to crop the image and upload it as a JPG, but if you are referring to any kind of article I'm afraid you'll have to read WP:AUTO and WP:COI. -A lainsane (Channel 2) 18:50, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the useful advice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.197.236.110 (talk) 19:03, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Signature on CommonsEdit

Hello, I have made an edit to the page: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:%22Anything%27s_Possible%22_Quarterback,_bronze_sculpture_installation_by_Levi%27s_Stadium.jpg and when I sign my name it says that that my user page does not exist, yet it does link to my talk page. Please Help. Wisteriagarden (talk) 20:51, 21 February 2019 (UTC)Wisteriagarden

Hi Wisteriagarden, that's because you haven't created a user page on Commons. Commons and English Wikipedia are separate projects. —teb728 t c 22:09, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
What teb728 has said above is true, but if you generate a user page in meta:, it will be used anywhere (including Commons) that you don't have a specific user page, see meta:Global user pages. --David Biddulph (talk) 07:17, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you both for your help. After I read User:teb728's response, I created a user page on Commons, which gave me the blue link that I was missing. Then I saw User:David Biddulph's response and I went and created a page on Wikimedia Meta-Wiki. Phew! It's a good thing there are so many helpful Wikipedians! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wisteriagarden (talkcontribs) 16:28, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Actors Dick Sargent & Fannie Flagg married?Edit

I was just watching an old episiode of a game show called Tattle Tales, where entertainment couples answer questions about each other. Dick Sargent and Fannie Flagg were introduced as a married couple at the beginning of the show. Since both actors became publicly gay at some point in their lives, was this for real? But this relationship is not listed under either of their Wiki profiles. Was it a sham hollywood marriage, phony marriage? Does anybody know? Very curious

Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CE2A:6DD0:E456:FD0E:587:45CD (talk) 21:32, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi IP 2602:306:CE2A:6DD0:E456:FD0E:587:45CD. The Teahouse is really intended to be a place where editors can come to ask questions about Wikipedia editing, policies and guidelines, article creation, etc. It's not really a good place to ask questions such a this. You might try asking about this at Wikipedia:Reference desk.
As for why the relationship is not mentioned in Sragent's or Flagg's Wikipedia articles, it's possible that the subject has been previously discussed and a consensus established not to mention for some reason (e.g. it couldn't be properly verified by citations to reliable sources). Try looking at each article's talk page (including the talk page archives, if any) to see if this is something which has been discussed before. If it hasn't and you think it's something worth discussing, then you can start a new thread about it. Just remember that the discussion should focus on how this information would improve the respective article(s) in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines; it should not be a free-for-all anything goes type of general discussion on the subject. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:48, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Still draftEdit

Hi. When does my entry lose its draft status? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Renegade Statman (talkcontribs) 22:00, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Renegade Statman, and welcome to the Teahouse. Draft:Corrie Ndaba becomes a published article when somebody moves it to the article space and the consensus is that it is an acceptable article. As your account is not yet four days old, and has not made ten edits, you will not yet be able to move pages; but it would be a mistake for anybody to move that draft to article space at present, partly because it has so little content, but mostly because it does not have a single cited source that is independent of the subject. A Wikipedia article should be based almost 100% on what people who have no connection with the subject have chosen to publish about the subject: if there is little or no such independent material, then it is impossible to write an acceptable article about them. The Wikipedia jargon for this is whether or not they are notable.
What I suggest you do, is read your first article, and NFOOTY, and (if you can find suitable independent reliable sources) continue to develop the draft. (If you can't find such sources, then give up, and don't waste any more time on a pointless effort). When you think it meets the criteria, submit it for review by pasting {{subst:submit}} (with the double curly brackets) at the top. Somebody will eventually get round to reviewing it, and they will either accept it and move it to main article space, or decline it, giving you a message explaining why. --ColinFine (talk) 22:49, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Page Rename/RedirectEdit

Hello! I'm brand new to editing on Wikipedia, so sorry if this is something obvious. (There's a lot to take in.)

I was making edits to this page because I work in the travel industry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Society_of_Travel_Agents ASTA changed their name to the American Society of Travel Advisors (instead of Agents). I'm wondering how I should go about changing the page name and redirecting the old one. (I've seen it on Wikipedia before, just don't know what the proper process is or if I'm even able to do that.)

Thanks in advance!

Megrrose (talk) 22:38, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@Megrrose: You can use WP:RM to request the article move to a new name. RudolfRed (talk) 22:39, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
@RudolfRed: Thank you!

FE-SchriftEdit

I added glyphs and an error "sans serif" and it's now a font. Can i use it in cars or not, if is from Germany? I live in Argentina. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles Bigelow (talkcontribs) 23:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Charles Bigelow. I can see that you made some changes to the article FE-Schrift, corresponding to your first sentence. But I don't know what you are asking. If you are asking about what fonts are legal for number plates in Argentina, then this page is for asking questions about editing Wikipedia, not about anything else. In any case, I'm afraid that Wikipedia cannot give legal advice. If I've misunderstood your question, please clarify. --ColinFine (talk) 23:22, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, because the basic 95 glyphs with the no break space = 96, and i am sorry (misleading error, 103), because i counted bad. Can i anstall this font in my country?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles Bigelow (talkcontribs) 23:30, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I made a movie but I can't make a page about it. Why?Edit

My movie is called VIYCE. Everybody knows this movie exists because it's free to watch and for sale on DVD. It's not the best movie ever, but it's a movie. It has a trailer and an original song. It is about the Bush administration. I play four early 2000s politicians and voice four pieces of paper. I cannot provide any links to outside newspaper articles because no big newspapers know this movie exists. Neither do any small newspapers. It exists nonetheless. i don't have the means to get this movie out. Anybody can buy it or watch it, and if people do, that's not my fault. I did not make an article about this movie for advertising. I made it because I believe it should have an article since it doesn't have one. I have been blocked and accused of spam. Explain why this is. I have no idea. This is wrong. Therealspiel (talk) 23:33, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@Therealspiel: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a venue for promoting your movie. Articles are required to be on topics that are notable (WP:N). If there are no sources that have written about your movie, then it is not something we can have an article about. RudolfRed (talk) 23:40, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
More pecisely, Wikipedia:Notability (films) says how movies can be notable. This item does not seem to fit. Sometimes I nutshell it as, no publicity for those who need it. Only if they have already succeeded. Everypedia doesn't have that rule; maybe it's possible there. Jim.henderson (talk) 23:49, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

This seems to be dwindling into a purposeless jumble that helps no one. WP has a particular purpose what some would call an encyclopia. It is not thr end all source of existence for everything in the world or in the part of the world that uses that particular language. It is by nature of those that financially and intellectually support it contain what is notable--again for that particular part of the world that the language is used. As long as there are a particular group of people in control of WP and its intentions and they have a qualification of notability and they get to decide what is notable then what you might find in a newspaper or magazine might nit be qualified to appear in WP. Yes, there may be people of distinction and repute that a=know of something or have read or seen something but what is suppose to be the assessment of notability is there being from record of quality sources why something is notable and not just the creator of the thing saying so. That is the difference. from being a publicity piece. Of course the problem with this strategy is that if something is notable, i.e. significant and it is not in the language of those that decide then it has less likelihood of being included in WP English if it is not part of the world of WP English readers. But that is another subject.2605:E000:9149:8300:8C39:927C:54DA:93BC (talk) 00:30, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

  • OP blocked as a sockpuppet by TonyBallioni. I knew I'd seen this before. 331dot (talk) 11:56, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Does any one have the right to eliminate what has happened in WP such as what has been done in the following sitution.Edit

WP article on the "Ramadan" has a matter of divergence from WP standards and when this has been pointed out, it was eliminated from the record and the previous incomplete statement was reintroduced. What is the correct way of going about this. The presence of something that is not WP stantdard has been pointed out on the talk page:

"==Hadith== In Islamic eschatology:

  • Abu Hurairah said that the Prophet said:[clarification needed]

    There will be an Ayah (sign) in (the month of) Ramadan. Then, there will 'isabah (splitting into groups) in Shawwal. Then, there will be fighting in (the month of) Dhu al-Qi'dah. Then, the pilgrim will be robbed in (the month of) Dhu al-Hijjah. Then, the prohibitions will be violated in (the month of) al-Muharram. Then, there will be sound in (the month of) Safar, then the tribes will conflict with each other in the two months of Rabi' al-awwal & Rabi' al-thani. Then, the most amazing thing will happen between (the months of) Jumada and Rajab. Then, a well-fed she-camel will be better than a fortress (castle) sheltering a thousand (people).[1]

    "

As as been pointed out in the talk page the parts that stand for a CI of source ar to other parts of WP and are also redirects. This is not an appropriate level of responsibility for WP. there neds to be a [age number otherwise it becomes the responsibility of the reader to determine where this is suppose to come.

References

  1. ^ Al-Haakim, Naim ibn Hammad, Kitab Al-Fitan

2605:E000:9149:8300:8C39:927C:54DA:93BC (talk) 00:12, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

The same "CI" is in WP 12 times.2605:E000:9149:8300:8C39:927C:54DA:93BC (talk) 00:20, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
I've swapped the "clarify" tag for {{Nonspecific}} since that seems to be the issue. If it's a book, it has publisher details that should be cited. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 00:28, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Well, that certainly is very specific for what was the initial situation of a reported CI that was folding back onto itself and not providing an answer. But then when this was pointed it, another "contributor" supplied an explanation that n paraphrase included a link but that was not the solution or the intent, then erased the record that there was something wrong and re-imposing the previously paraphrased explanation--which did not solve the situation. WP contributors, especially those that imply they should know the rules of conduct, should not be attempting to thwart and censor the record. That is not acceptable. By the actions that followed after the talk page opening discussion, I am not clear if the other contributor was aware of what was the problem as they did not contribute to any better understanding as to why a CI without any direction to source was better than nothing being cited or the whole episode being retracted from the article (and all the other times used). The quality of a plastered wall does not improve when all you have doe is just increased the amount of plaster on the wall. And a string of words or works or links is not going to make a CI suitable or better because of it, or ignoring it.2605:E000:9149:8300:8C39:927C:54DA:93BC (talk) 00:44, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
I have been editing for nearly ten years and am an administrator, but I do not recognize what "CI" is. Use acronyms sparingly and only when readers worldwide will understand the acronym. I have looked at the talk pages of Ramadan and Hadith and Islamic eschatology, and see no discussion of any such issues. So, what does "CI" mean and precisely which article are we talking about? Accusations of censorship are rarely persuasive on Wikipedia because no government controls our content with force of law, except in very narrow cases like child pornography. If one Wikipedia editor wants to remove content and another editor disagrees and wants to restore it, then we have established dispute resolution processes in place, which should be utilized before hollering "censorship". Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:02, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Excuse me, what is CI? I can't find anyhing like this in WP: namespace pages except WP:CIWikipedia:Category intersection, which doesn't seem to have anything to do here. --CiaPan (talk) 08:49, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
CiaPan and cullen328 could the editor be meaning CI = "citation" ? If I insert citation for CI in their posts, it seems to work, especially in this post: " the parts that stand for a CI of source ar to other parts of WP and are also redirects." Are they saying that we're citing WP in a WP article? valereee (talk) 12:33, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
@Finnusertop: Could you, please, specify where you have swapped something, so that the discussion will make some sense for not involved readers, too?
(failed to ping properly, hopefully this one will work. --CiaPan (talk) 11:50, 22 February 2019 (UTC))
@CiaPan:: Ramadan (calendar month)#Hadith – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 11:53, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
@Finnusertop: Oh, I see. I looked at Ramadan, but couldn't find anything relevant enough to this talk. Thank you! --CiaPan (talk) 12:07, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
CiaPan, I think maybe the editor is pointing out that the reference for that section is a deadlink? valereee (talk) 12:38, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Pushpin ImagesEdit

What do I need to enter into an Infobox to add some pushpin images? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NerdyKaiExpo (talkcontribs) 00:50, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, NerdyKaiExpo. Your question is rather unclear. I'm not sure what you mean by "pushpin images"—are you referring to pushpin maps? If so, the answer depends on what infobox the article uses. For example, the relevant fields in {{Infobox settlement}} are listed at Template:Infobox settlement#Maps, coordinates. The fields for some other infoboxes are similar, but some infoboxes, even for geolocatable things, don't allow for the inclusion of pushpin maps. In any case, you can look at the infobox template's documentation to see what fields are available.
If I haven't understood your question correctly, please try to clarify it. Deor (talk) 15:42, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

what if.....Edit

in schools there are lots of kids who get told don't use Wikipedia because its just probably a 40 year old man living in his parents basement writing lies....well I want to change that I say you update Wikipedia were before your things can get published Wikipedia has to verify it to see if its appropriate kid friendly real true makes since…. this.....is happening for children to not use this very useful site! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Videogamerwriter (talkcontribs) 02:19, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@Videogamerwriter: "Publishing" happens more-or-less in real time.
Whenever Wikipedia came up while I was in school, I would point out that while Wikipedia is unstable, it cites reliable sources (and so a good place to find sources) and Wikipedia is both more accurate and expansive than the Encyclopedia Britannica (making it a good starting point for getting a general idea about a topic). Ian.thomson (talk) 02:39, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Can someone plz remove the "notability guideline" tag?Edit

The subject of this article has been covered in cited in multiple "reliable secondary sources" and also has received significant coverage in some prominent English newspapers whose online copies are also on the internet.

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

3 reliable sources for verifying: http://www.newindianexpress.com/lifestyle/health/2018/may/20/the-vedic-healer-1816044.html

https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/puducherry/attempting-to-take-gita-to-the-young-generation/article7925935.ece

http://www.newindianexpress.com/magazine/2016/apr/23/Versatile-Verve-for-Divine-Verses-928166.html


Despite repeated attempts to establish the notability of this subject, this tag has been remained. This tag was removed by an independent wiki editor earlier. Can this tag be removed or is it likely to be a permanent feature on the article?

It is a little disappointing to raise this query in the teahouse for the 4th time, especially for me as article creator as I had identified 5 articles for creation of notable persons and organizations last year but am still stuck on my first article . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pavankum (talkcontribs) 04:18, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@Pavankum: Seems alright to me (and Milowent, the person who tagged it in the first place, OK'd it on their talk page). I've gone ahead and removed the tag. Gaelan 💬✏️ 05:23, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Monte Carlo studiosEdit

When will my page be visible for public — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monte Carlo studios (talkcontribs) 04:39, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Never because I've deleted the page and blocked OP. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:49, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Moving problemEdit

I was trying to move the page downhere and capitalise the first letter, because the names of Wikipedia articles should not be stylised. Although, when I tried to move it, it said that the title was the same. In the page, it displays the title as "downhere", and I don't know how to fix it. Catinthedogs (talk) 07:20, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@Catinthedogs: MediaWiki (the software powering Wikipedia) doesn't actually allow articles that start with a lowercase letter. However, there are tricks in the wikitext that force the page to be displayed with a lowercase title. Therefore, you can't move the article (because, technically, its current title is already Downhere). Instead, edit the article, and look for {{lowercase title}} or {{DISPLAYTITLE}} and remove that. Gaelan 💬✏️ 07:30, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
WP:NCLOWERCASEFIRST is specifically intended for subjects which are normally styled with a lowercase first letter, so I don't know why you say "the names of Wikipedia articles should not be stylised"? --David Biddulph (talk) 08:26, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
You can just edit the {{DISPLAYTITLE}} to display the correct title.
Sincerely,
Masum Rezatalk 08:56, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
@Masumrezarock100: Unless you are doing one of the few things allowed by Template:DISPLAYTITLE#Description, there is no point in using {{DISPLAYTITLE}}. If it is decided by consensus that the first character of the subject's name is not normally styled in lower case, the correct action would indeed be to remove the {{lowercase title}} template as Gaelan suggested. To put in a {{DISPLAYTITLE}} template but with an upper case first letter would be pointless and confusing. The sources do, however, seem to confirm the lowercase styling. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:13, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

User Talk Page vs. Article Talk PageEdit

Hi. I know how to access my 'User Talk Page'. Is the 'Article Talk Page' the same as that article's View History Page?- AWCzarnik (talk) 07:58, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@AWCzarnik: No—each article has a page for discussing changes to that article. It's visible as a "Talk" tab at the top left of each article. For instance, here's the talk page for the Apple article. Gaelan 💬✏️ 08:06, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, AWCzarnik. No, those two things are not the same. An article talk page is for human editors to discuss possible improvements to a specific article. So it is oriented to the future, and is mostly created by human editors, though bots may sometimes post notices. A view history page for an article is a chronological list of every single edit that has been made to that article, and is generated automatically by the software. It is a log of past activity, not a discussion page. I hope this helps. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:08, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Roger that, friends. Hadn't seen that in the upper left corner. Cheers.- AWCzarnik (talk) 08:19, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

(Pings go here.) Hello, everybody! Shouldn't Help:Talk pages be mentioned in this thread...? --CiaPan (talk) 10:42, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Well a simpler explanation would be the talk page is for discussion matters of the subject/it's corresponding main page. Abelmoschus Esculentus (talkcontribs) 14:53, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Call for help editing Wikipedia Initial Google Result Thumb Nail ( Potential Political Crises)Edit

To go straight to the point,

My father is a political Figure in Africa and thus, when his name is googled, the initial result shown in the link below (Yemi Akinseye George https://g.co/kgs/3F9TrB ) reports that he is from " EKITI STATE " Where as he is from " ONDO STATE ".

The Google Result alone, is enough to damage his political career and insight violence against him.

Please any help on subject would be greatly appreciated.

I have been able to edit his actual wikipedia page ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yemi_Akinseye_George ) to show his real state of origin "ONDO STATE" Which is situate in NIGERIA. However i cannot figure out how to edit the Initial Google Result Thumb Nail owing to my inadequate computer skills.

PLEASE HELP!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.56.108.23 (talk) 12:48, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. It takes time for Google to index pages, this includes Wikipedia articles. We cannot do anything about their processes; you would need to contact Google, but I don't think there is much that can be done to speed it up. 331dot (talk) 12:51, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  Are you by any chance referring to a photo or text shown to the right of a Google search? Google's Knowledge Graph uses a wide variety of sources. There may be a text paragraph ending with "Wikipedia" to indicate that particular text was copied from Wikipedia. An image and other text before or after the Wikipedia excerpt may be from sources completely unrelated to Wikipedia. We have no control over how Google presents our information, but Google's Knowledge Graph has a "Feedback" link where anyone can mark a field as wrong. – Teratix 13:09, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Google's Knowledge Graph does not specify the source of data fields but they may be getting it from us. Yemi Akinseye George is in Category:People from Ekiti State, and Yemi Akinseye George (Q18719254) says Ekiti State, imported from English Wikipedia. He was bon in 1963, long before Ekiti State was split off from Ondo State in 1996. I haven't found where in Ondo State he was born but even if it was the present Ekiti State, I guess we should say Ondo State. Our alleged reference for birth year and state is archived at [1] and doesn't mention any year or state. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:29, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

How to find CategoriesEdit

I don't mind saying that the process of how to find suitable Categories for an article bewilders me. Normally I try copying them from similar articles, changing as necessary - sometimes that works and sometimes it doesn't. But is there some way to search for suitable Categories? For example, I just published Marcello Costa. Most of my Category guesses were okay, but not Category:Fellows of the Australasian Academy of Science and Category:Alumni of the University of Turin. Those were modelled on categories used for other universities and follows of societies, but I just don't know how to find our what the right names are - if they indeed exist. Is there a searchable list of categories somewhere? Or some other way to find out what to use?--Gronk Oz (talk) 13:21, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@Gronk Oz: You can go to Special:Search, clear all the namespaces selected by default, add 'Category' instead, and insert 'University Turin' in the search box. Result: Special:Search/Category:University Turin.
Similary Special:Search/Category:fellows academy science or Special:Search/Category:australasian fellows.
HTH. :) CiaPan (talk) 13:30, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
@CiaPan: that is just brilliant, thank you - it is exactly what I need!   Now I can easily see that the one I want is Category:University of Turin alumni, and it's so easy. Thanks.--Gronk Oz (talk) 13:40, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
@Gronk Oz: Another method is to use HotCat, a gadget you enable in your preferences (Preferences --> Gadgets --> Enable HotCat). I find it quite useful. --bonadea contributions talk 13:43, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
(ec) Glad to help, Gronk Oz. Have a nice day. Or night ...well, have a nice time, whichever time it is at your side now.   --CiaPan (talk) 13:46, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
@Gronk Oz: I've also found this helpful: Special:CategoryTree valereee (talk) 15:23, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, all - I will put these to good use.--Gronk Oz (talk) 21:50, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

No subjectEdit

can u review my draft??????????? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Debasmita_Bhattacharya

please help me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhikhurathee (talkcontribs) 15:32, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@Bhikhurathee: Another editor has reviewed your draft. See the comments on your talk page and on the draft. RudolfRed (talk) 18:13, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

How do I cite a limited time source?Edit

I am currently adding to a article about a recent incident and I want to cite something from the involved company's website. The incident was a shooting so there is a message from the company's CEO offering condolences on the company website front page. How should I cite the statement as a source if the statement will likely be removed from the website after a while. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koalafied1 (talkcontribs) 15:54, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@Koalafied1: Wikipedia tries to stick to lasting coverage and so avoids temporary sources (at least those that don't end up on the Internet Archive). A shooting would likely be covered by at least local news and news coverage would be a more preferable source to a temporary company statement. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:25, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Хочу создать страницу одного талантливого, молодого футболиста, но не знаю как.Edit

Помогите пожалуйста с созданием странички. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manujoon (talkcontribs) 15:57, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

A rough translation from Russian:
== I want to publish a page of one talented, young football player, but I don't know how ==
Please help (me) with publishing the page.
User:Manujoon
(transl. by CiaPan (talk) 16:57, 22 February 2019 (UTC))
Based on the user's sandbox I suppose it's about https://ru-ru.facebook.com/kimatsho.muminshoev --CiaPan (talk) 17:01, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
I have posted a request for help at Wikipedia talk:Embassy#Help needed for a Russian-speaking newbie. In case that is not the best place, please copy or link it elsewhere. --CiaPan (talk) 17:23, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

semi-protected pageEdit

Hi, I'm a new editor and there are certain things that I find to be incorrect. Especially on the page titled 'Meme' in the Anthropology section. The internet culture section of 'Meme' is so incorrect I could hardly call it true. Anyway I can edit it? ---- Epic game fixer

@Epic game fixer: You can make edit requests at Talk:Meme. Try to put the edit request in one of the following formats:
  • 'please change (X text) to (Y text) because of (Z source or policy)'
  • 'please add (B text) between (A text) and (C text) because of (Z source)'
  • 'please remove (B text) between (A text) and (C text) because of (Z source or policy)'
...Or something else along those lines. Edit requests are not tickets to get to edit the page, they're where you ask someone who can edit the page to do so. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:20, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Approval of EditsEdit

Will all edits be reviewed before approval? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarthaKings (talkcontribs) 16:11, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@MarthaKings: That depends on the page. Many pages are unprotected and update in real-time. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:18, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

what do i click to make a articleEdit

how to make a article— Preceding unsigned comment added by Petey088 (talkcontribs)

I've left instructions on OP's user talk page. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:30, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

how do i make a aritcle about something someone else has allready madeEdit

how do i make a aritcle about something someone else has allready made — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petey088 (talkcontribs) 16:30, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@Petey088: If we already have an article about a topic, we don't have a second, redundant, duplicate article on the exact same topic. You edit the existing article instead. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:32, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

after i make a wikipidea page what is the eta time (it takes for other people to see it/before it goes public)Edit

. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petey088 (talkcontribs)

@Petey088: Stop making new sections for every question, just edit the existing sections you've made. Scroll down to the section, look for a button next to the section title, and click the button next to the section title. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:33, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
@Petey088: How long is a piece of string? If you create a new page on a clearly notable topic, and obviously based on good references, it could get through Articles for Creation quite quickly, maybe in a few days. But there is a huge backlog, and it can take our volunteers up to 5 weeks to review it. If it clearly fails our criteria, you are quite likely to get feedback on why your draft article has been rejected much sooner than that. You then have as much time as you need to address the issues raised in that rejection. Any new article put into the encyclopaedia still has to go through New Page Review. This means that, whilst a new article is visible immediately on Wikipedia, we dont permit Google to index it until we've done the NPP review. This stops people from abusing Wikipedia to promote their pet band, wrestler, company, product or whatever. Were you to try to put a new article directly into the encylopaedia without going through the AFC review process, it would be visible within Wikipedia immediately, but equally would be liable to be speedily deleted - even within minutes if it were seen to be flagrantly breaching our page creation criteria. (So, the 'Articles for Creation' route is the way to go.) Does that answer your question? Regards, Nick Moyes (talk),

QUESTIONEdit

How do you become an administrator on Wikipedia?


Thanks, Badsaad10 (talk

@Badsaad10: Once an editor has demonstrated that their competence and trustworthiness over many years and thousands of edits, someone can nominate them for adminship. Then the community discusses the nomination and the Arbitration Committee decides on the community's consensus. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:18, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
@Ian.thomson: Oh, I see. Thank you very much!
@Ian.thomson and Badsaad10: This is mostly correct. The Arbitration Committee has nothing to do with RFAs, which are closed by Bureaucrats. 100.2.120.74 (talk) 19:28, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
@Badsaad10: You can read all about it here: Wikipedia:Administrators. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 20:09, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Picture on SatyagrahaEdit

Hello! I am new to the english Wikipedia and I drew a picture on Gandhi's Satyagraha. A german version is already used in the german Article w:de:Satyagraha. You can also look on the Talk page of the article for my reasons Talk:Satyagraha#Picture_on_Satyagraha.

My question is: Is the picture good enough for the english article? :-)

Friendly greetings, Quark48 (talk) 20:58, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Quark48 and a friendly welcome to the Teahouse to you, too. The answer I was just about to give you has already been supplied to you on the talk page of that article. There you were advised by Ronz to raise the issue at Wikipedia talk:Image use policy, which I think was a good suggestion. Instead you chose to ask here, and my view is that, assuming you translated it into English, there would probably be far too much original research inherent within your flow diagram that it probably would be rejected as unacceptable. (Neither my knowledge of the topic, nor knowledge of the German language are sufficient for me to give firm advice). If you were to proceed, you should ensure that any chart followed content given in cited references, and not just your own personal understanding and interpretation of this particular concept of non-violent resistance. But, you are to be applauded for taking the initiative to ask first, so thank you for your concerns to ensure that English wikipedia stays as neutral and unbiased as is possible. I hope you get the results you seek at the Image use forum. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:19, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I'll ask there! Thank you. :-) Quark48 (talk) 09:49, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Found a biased articleEdit

Hello. I am new to Wikipedia so I don't think I should be responsible for editing this article. Rather, I should have someone else fix the article, and then I observe how it was fixed and I'll learn from that. The article is Tyler Morris and it is so biased that it seems like it was written by a publicist. I posted on the Talk Page but I'm not sure if anyone will ever see my post.

To get the article improved, what would be my best move here? Jasongarb (talk) 21:57, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@Jasongarb: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I kind of see what you are saying, some of the language could be toned down a bit. If you don't feel comfortable doing it yourself, you can make your talk page comment into a formal edit request (click that link for more information) which will eventually draw the attention of another editor. 331dot (talk) 00:04, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Article shortened by more than half. Separate problem is that the first ref goes nowhere related to TM and the other two are to his website. David notMD (talk) 03:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
@Jasongarb:The article has now been nominated for deletion.--Gronk Oz (talk) 08:44, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Tennis EditEdit

Is this where I can inquire about making an edit to an article? I have some information to add to in the Wikipedia "tennis" page and would like to add some information to the section talking about tennis balls and racket dampeners. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chambersbrand (talkcontribs) 23:34, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@Chambersbrand: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse! This is a place for newer or inexperienced users to ask any questions they have about using or editing Wikipedia. That includes questions about editing articles; feel free to pose your question and others (not necessarily me) will do their best to help. 331dot (talk) 23:57, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
You also may not be aware that every article has an associated 'talk page', which is meant for discussing changes to or the makeup of the article. In the case of tennis that would be Talk:Tennis. You may also ask your question there; it is likely that many editors follow the tennis article and will see your question. 331dot (talk) 23:59, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Closing discussion problemEdit

For some reason, whenever I am using {{atop|''note'' + ~~~~}}, it is not displayed once published. However, when I remove my signature (~~~~) it's displayed normal. Any ideas on why this is happening with me? I don't see this a problem with other users. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 01:33, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

ImmortalWizard — It is because you have a bare span tag — <span style="color:orange">'''THE NEW'''</span>. Try removing it from your signature and it will be fixed. Abelmoschus Esculentus (talkcontribs) 01:42, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
@ImmortalWizard and Abelmoschus Esculentus: No, it is because your signature contains equals signs and you don't say {{atop|result=''note'' + ~~~~}} as documented at Template:atop. Without a named parameter like result=, everything to the left of the first equals sign is interpreted as a parameter name being assigned everything to the right of the equals sign. It's fine to have equals signs in your signature but it means that any signature in a template parameter must use a parameter name. If the parameter has no name then say |1= for the first unnamed parameter, |2= for the second and so on. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:43, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Abelmoschus Esculentus may be partially right. If an equals sign in an unnamed parameter is inside a wikilink then it appears it will not be interpreted as a parameter assignment, so it would work to eliminate the first equals sign in this signature. But you can keep the signature if you just say |reason= or |1=. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:50, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Inc or Inc.?Edit

Which is consonant with Wiki usage: 'Inc' or 'Inc.'?- AWCzarnik (talk) 05:29, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

In an article title, usually neither, see WP:Naming conventions (companies). --David Biddulph (talk) 05:35, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. That generates another question. The title of Czarnik v. Illumina is given as, 'Czarnik v. Illumina, Inc'. Based on WP:Naming conventions (companies), the 'Inc' should not be in the title. I don't know how to edit the title. Would appreciate advice.- AWCzarnik (talk) 06:02, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

@AWCzarnik: Legal cases are different—in that case, Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Legal#In_the_United_States applies. I'm not sure what the "Bluebook" style referred to is, but it seems from the examples and other articles about legal cases that we do include the "Inc." For future reference, if you hover over the "More" text (next to Read, Edit, etc) there should be a "Move" link. Click that to rename an article. Gaelan 💬✏️ 06:26, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, AWCzarnik. The problem with your analysis is that Czarnik v. Illumina, Inc is not an article about a company, but rather an article about a court case involving that company. Therefore, a guideline about naming articles about companies is not relevant and is off point. Instead, we name articles about court cases the way that the preponderance of reliable sources about the court case (not the company) refer to the case. And almost all reliable sources describing the court case use "Inc" as discussed by the court itself. And therefore, Wikipedia will title its article about the case that way. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:30, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you both. If the suffix is to remain, I assume it should be, "Inc.". Are either of you able to help me edit the title to add the period?- AWCzarnik (talk) 06:45, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I figured out the solution to my own question, thanks to the advice of Gaelan. Appreciate both of your assistance.- AWCzarnik (talk) 07:08, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

GA/DYK countEdit

Hey there, I was wondering if there was a way to check a user's GA and DYK count. So, could you kindly let me know if there is any? Thank you!   Adityavagarwal (talk) 07:55, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

How can I add the twilight zone (2019) logo picture in wikipedia ?Edit

Excuse me but I am not good at adding images in wikipedia,So I need step by step instructions on how will I add the twilight zone (2019) logo in the wikipedia article ? : https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c7/Twilight_zone_2019_logo.jpg --Belrien12 (talk) 07:57, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Belrien12. That image is already in use at The Twilight Zone (2019 TV series). Are you thinking of using the image in another article? Please understand that because that logo is being used under a claim of fair use, it can only be used in very specific locations, and the image page would have to be changed to make out a fair use rationale for any separate, additonal display. Can you provide some details on where you wanted to use this?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 08:46, 23 February 2019 (UTC)