Open main menu


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

Wikipedia is very very unfriendly in its ways to anyone new, attempting to contribute anything what so ever to WikipediaEdit

Dearest Wikipedia,

The barrier of entry for newcomers, even professionals as myself, is too high. I am giving up. I have at various points tried to contribute to this otherwise great forum of knowledge with absolutely credible information.

Was it not supposed to be a forum, where one can contribute within areas where one possess knowledge? Was it not meant to be in such a way so that when someone shares something which is factual and proper - then it will become a part of Wikipedia's knowledge base?

Every time I have just been hit in the head with rejection of anything what so ever. There is no friendly guideline. No hint as to concrete examples taken from what ever one wanted to contribute.

The language you are using, seem to be deliberately hostile to any newcomer. I am not stupid in terms of English, however, any response and attempt to "Guide" us newcomers is filled with jargon, and even ways of using the language which is very uncommon. It may be normal for people who work with encyclopedia and written knowledge administration, but it is very very hostile to newcomers.

I have at times tried to sit with a dictionary to understand the words being used - and while I understand these words as in the words themselves - there is a thick layer of connotation and "business-usage" of the same words, and this too, is not friendly at all.

So, you can shove it. I have a certified and verified IQ - by the way - of 146 - measured by Mensa, who is one of the leaders in such measurements - and I have worked within plenty of areas where I would likely be able to share some 200 to maybe 300 expert articles on various topics. But my few, innocent attempts to start by sharing a few things I know a little about has been met with the "hammer method" - or the "mushroom harvesting method".

Wikipedia has therefore moved away from being a place where professionals can share their knowledge - to become an elitist group who largely sits and polish their own helios/glory by making the very entry of any content so complex so that the ones which this was meant for - have been left out.

Frankly - I am a busy person - and I guess many with me are. I would love to share with everyone here on Wikipedia, the way it was - but I do not have the time for this learning curve, nor the patience, nor the stamina to be mistreated - by administrative, almost Kafka'-like behaviours.

So. You good people - live long and prosper - I will instead post things elsewhere, where everything is more in touch with reality.

And if you want me and other experts in plenty of fields which you have not even started to cover, to write, then you who sit and guard your territory of gibbedigook self-inflated, with arrogant barriers, need to change. David Svarrer

Sincerely David T. Svarrer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidsvarrer (talkcontribs) 04:53, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

@Davidsvarrer: Sorry you feel that way, but I'm not seeing what led to it. Can you give us examples where you have "been hit in the head with rejection of anything what so ever"? Your edit history shows that you posted to Talk:Nucleosynthesis in 2017 (no response) and to Talk:Jumia ‎ in 2018 (no response). You have made edits to Lead–acid battery and Solar azimuth angle this year, and all of those edits are still in the articles. You tried to create an article in 2016 and it was rejected as not showing notability with reliable sources. The only posts to your talk page are the notice of the rejection with suggestions and links, and a follow up post. The draft was deleted more than 6 months later as an abandoned draft, so it appears that you never went back to it. Meters (talk) 05:25, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
And, as the notice at Draft:Unboss says, WP:REFUND applies, soyou have only to ask to have the draft restore if you wish to work on it. Meters (talk) 05:28, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi Davidsvarrer. Some of the things you posted above about Wikipedia being a forum, a place to share information that is factual and proper, or a place where professionals can share their knowledge sort of indicate that you might slightly be misunderstanding the role Wikipedia is trying to play. Perhaps this will be clearer if you take a look at the following pages: Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth, and Wikipedia:Expert editors. Or course, Wikipedia wants people with expert knowledge about specific subjects to help improve the overall quality of articles, but all editors have to work within Wikipedia's various policies and guidelines when doing so. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:13, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Hello Davidsvarrer. Because Wikipedia is crowdsourced, and editors are, in principle, anonymous, the encyclopedia is based only on material found in reliable, published sources. For that reason, anyone interested in 'sharing a few things they know a little about' has come to the wrong place, unless they have a citation to a reliable source to back up what they know. Wikipedia has evolved as a project and a community starting from a blank and empty file, through much trial and error, battles and discussion. It may sound harsh, but in all practicality, there is no way to make a usable encyclopedia via crowdsourcing without such a constraint.--Quisqualis (talk) 07:23, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Davidsvarrer I think you have some misconceptions about what Wikipedia is; Wikipedia is not and has never claimed to be "a place where professionals can share their knowledge". Wikipedia is not for posting our personal knowledge, whether one is an expert or not- nor is it merely for sharing knowledge. It is, as noted above, based on materials found in independent reliable sources. Experts in fields are welcome, but they must work with everyone else here in a collaborative manner. As noted by Meters, your participation has been asked for over the years but you have not responded and it's also not clear where you have experienced this poor treatment- which would be wrong if you did- please provide examples of this poor treatment. I do find it interesting that an expert professional is accusing us of being elitist. We're not elitist and are willing to work with you to help you, but you need to meet us halfway. 331dot (talk) 10:45, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
@Davidsvarrer: You didn't mention a single page, editor, quote, time, or anything else which can be used to guess what you refer to. Are you by any chance referring to your edit [1] to the article wikisource:Landmark Education suffers humiliating legal defeat in New Jersey Federal Court? The edit was not to Wikipedia but to Wikisource. Your complaint at wikisource:User talk:EncycloPetey#Flavoured and non-factual article about Landmark Education is more recent than your Wikipedia edits. wikisource:Wikisource:About says: "Wikisource is a Free Library of source texts which are in the public domain or legally available for free redistribution. Wikisource is an official project of the Wikimedia Foundation and a sister project of Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia." Wikisource republishes existing source texts and Wikisource editors should not change them. The top of the article gives the original author and publication. Rick Ross published it in Cult News in 2005. He probably isn't a Wikisource editor. Inserting your own writing in the Wikisource republication is like going to a library, pulling out a book, changing the text to something the author would disapprove, and putting it back on the shelf. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:08, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Oops, missed the wikisource stuff. That may well explain this, although the issue was well explained at the time by User:Billinghurst. Meters (talk) 23:47, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Probably also worth explaining that to a standard Wikimedia Foundation user login that one can access all the sister wikis: Wikipedia, Wikisource, Commons, Wikiquote, Wikibooks, Wiktionary, Wikiversity, Wikivoyages, Meta, WikiSpecies, Wikidata, Wikinews; then add in all the language wikis, now total about 800 wikis. Each of these wikis share resources, and the Wikimedia scope, though each has its own community, its own scope and purpose. If you have questions about Wikisource, then please come to our general help for users at s:en:Wikisource:Scriptorium/Help. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:10, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
"I have a certified and verified IQ - by the way - of 146" Citation needed for that. Which is the basic problem you seem to have here. You seem to think that Wikipedia should accept anything you say on no more authority than the fact that you said it. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. We have no way of knowing if you are David Svarrer. Or what your IQ is. Or what credentials you might have. You could just as easily be Mildred Q. Milquetoast of East Podunk, Ohio, who has never been more than 3 miles from the house she was born in and never went beyond the 3rd grade. And the same goes for anyone. So we require citations to sources. Books, magazines, journals, TV programs, movies, etc, that anyone can check. --Khajidha (talk) 18:18, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • @Davidsvarrer: You are not alone. Many scholars from diverse disciplines have had similar experiences and no longer edit Wikipedia. Over the past 11 years of part-time, occasional editing, there have been many occasions when I felt hurt, disrespected, and angry. If you are still checking Wikipedia for notices and you read this, please feel free to contact me. I will gladly share some of my strategies for developing "psychological body armor" to deal with editors who seem to revel in the WP:ColonAttack (that's what I call it), particularly when they can target an accomplished person new to Wikipedia. I—and many other editors—believe that good editors are our most valuable resource. Best regards   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 19:13, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
P.S. I do not mean to infer that any of the editors on this page are "attacking" Davidsvarrer. I did not read the other responses—which might all be quite accurate in pointing out mistakes or unhelpful responses from the OP—I simply wanted David to know that he's not alone and to offer my support.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 19:18, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Hello Davidsvarrer. Like  Mark D Worthen PsyD, I also understand where you are coming from. There are, indeed, unfriendly editors but the trick is to simply ignore them. For instance, there are replies to your thread that contributed something constructive to the conversation but cannot help to be acerbic while at it. Just focus on the constructive part because we also need to be familiar about Wikipedia rules especially if we are new and experienced editors are helpful in this respect. Furthermore, we do need experts. While Wikipedia does not need personal knowledge, it will take expertise to find and correctly use information from third-party sources especially on subjects you seem to be interested in. If you need help with something, you can also count on me as long as I am able. Darwin Naz (talk) 23:50, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Hello Darwin Naz. I appreciate the good comments from your and others side. The problem is likely also of a technical nature. I am for instance sitting and doing an editing of source to enter this comment. I have looked and looked for a way to respond in a dialogue form where one can edit the text and click preview and then enter - but have not found. I do not even know if this way of editing my response works. The editing of Wikipedia is archaic and old fashioned. Sitting editing as if in almost HTML and CSS like style - and worse - it looks a bit like this old tool from the 80s named LATEX. And it is not that this gives a larger flexibility compared to for instance a WYSIWYG editing style like Google Docs. And to some of the good commenters: I have edited under different names too - pseudonyms - I have edited anonymously - and always is the result the same: Things which are factual are being removed with flimsy arguments. I am for instance writing about a book - and it is just discarded or removed. There is no discussion. No information. No instruction. No help. Just plain administrative, overhand removal. This is not friendly. You are losing intelligent people on this journey. Then this requirement of external source. What about if one self is the source? It is very well with rules. With rules, structures, systems, methods, models - everything becomes better. But the entire Wikipedia Circus is impenetrable for someone who would like to sit and read a functional, normal, manual about how to write, and then follow it. And then comes the mistreatment by the editors (how on EARTH they got approved - and by whom? - to have such position when they behave such unfriendly and anti-social - who knows?). Now. Why would a system continue to work like this, just because it was defined like this? WHEN will WikiPedia or who ever it is - pull the socks up and create an editor which works seamlessly for professionals? When will WikiPedia create a set of easy to understand rules, which can be checked by the writer? When will WikiPedia test the editors for social conduite? Really? I do not have the time to BOTH contribute voluntarily and then lose access to creative work just because of some young, bad-conduct person in the role of an Editor - deem it fit to behave like a Kafka office. I guess WikiPedia would be a better place to be, without this misbehaviour. I cannot but feel with the professionals who are even at a much higher level education wize than I am, who suffer from this misbehaviour. Now I have to find out how to sign my post. I cannot see any place where anyone have written these four tilde characters, so I will copy-paste what others seem to have done and enter my data manually here below. Likely this will make an editor just delete it all with no trace. Then so be it. David Svarrer (talk) 08:21, 14 December 2019 (UTC) Davidsvarrer (talk) 08:22, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I can see both sides, being both an admin and user of sites. On the admin side, it's the name of the game to synthesize how to interpret what a site's about (and sometimes that includes creating my 'rules', even when they don't exist), which makes it really hard to newcomers. The changes on a site from refinement create incongruities that leave a person confused. The addition of hidden rules cause newcomers to be overwhelmed and feel unwelcomed. However, I feel Wikipedia, on the user side, does take it a notch higher - with retaliation. However, this seems to not happen much in lesser known articles or with minor edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawaiisunfun (talkcontribs) 06:48, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

What an interesting and well-written letter by the OP ("Original Poster," and it took me years to learn what that meant)! I do believe this fellow (or woman) will actually stick around for a while; I believe he or she has enough stamina and self-regard to actually learn the Wikipedia ropes, as tangled as they might be! So, Davidsvarrer (if that is your real name), don't give up; you've simply repeated many of the same complaints that others have had over the years. Now, as to one of your complaints, the lack of an easy editing format: Believe it or not, there was a WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get) editing system here a few years ago. It was discontinued: Why? I believe that the old-timers who run the place were just unwilling to learn it 'cause they were so used to writing in the old format (which is exactly the one used today). That includes me; I like this kind format because I'm used to it. Anyway, click on any article at (the French Wikipedia), for example, and you will find two tags at the top of the page: "modifier" and "modifier le code." Click on the former and you bring up a page where you can actually write in everyday French and make changes on the page. We used to have such a system in the English Wikipedia, but, it was done away with. Now, I am not interested in renewing old battles over this change, but I am simply assuring you that, yes, there is an easier way to make your edits, and, no, apparently it's not going to be done by us worthy anglophones unless many more people like you take their valuable and limited time to make a fight for it. (And "fighting" without actual physical exertion often causes extreme psychological stress.) Anyway, best of luck, and most everybody here will help you learn our ropes if you want to swing on them. Yours, from a fellow who has BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 16:48, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
BeenAroundAWhile is referring to Wikipedia:VisualEditor. It's still an option at the English Wikipedia. We have just chosen not to display both edit links by default. Registered users can change this, or choose to only display a link for VisualEditor. And everybody can switch editor after starting an edit (except in namespaces where VisualEditor is disabled). PrimeHunter (talk) 18:11, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I did not know this. Those who are interested could now lobby to make this software available on every page, as it is in La Belle France and in Le Beau Canada. Your friend, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 18:18, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Davidsvarrer If you are talking about the WYSIWYG editing format for the main pages, then you can use the Visual Editor interface cited by PrimeHunter. You can access this through the pen icon beside the Publish button in the editing panel. However, if you are talking about such an interface for the Teahouse, I would also like to know if there is any. I have been using the Source Editor for my interactions here as well as in other Talk and discussion pages. :) Darwin Naz (talk) 00:35, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Other topicEdit

Hello @Naz Darwin, I am excited to know that you have information to share and that you are willing to add content to the page once I go live. Now that you are here, could you please send me a link to the right sandbox where I can post the content that I have generated so we can get to work. Many thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Obie Njoku (talkcontribs) 02:12, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

@Obie Njoku: Note that, in order for the notification of Darwin Naz to work, use {{Ping|Darwin Naz}} (which creates the linked "@Darwin Naz:" and notifies them). Note you must also sign your post by adding a space and four tildes ( ~~~~) to the end. Also, please add any new comments about the same subject to that existing section instead of creating a new one. Thanks. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 05:14, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I have uploaded the rough draft to my sandbox. I am waiting to have it looked over. Obie Njoku (talk) 20:21, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello Obie Njoku. The current draft looks too promotional. I suggest you take a look at other articles about NGOs. For example, there is the case of the WHA or the WCIP. While these pages tackle different subjects, you can take note of the structure, particularly the included sections. A suggestion is to reduce the goal section and refrain from talking about actions that the organization is planning. Also, make sure to avoid using or relying on primary sources. If you can publish the article as a draft, I or other editors can also make changes to the document. Darwin Naz (talk) 23:24, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, @Darwin Naz. I appreciate your suggestions, and the point to exclude future plans makes sense. I am going to take care of that. However, I am puzzled by the suggestion regarding primary sources. I did the writing for my first classroom experience working with Wikipedia. I tried to follow the same format as before. I'll wait to see the changes you guys make so let's go ahead and publish it. I am looking forward to continuing to learn with you guys. (Obie Njoku (talk) 01:41, 13 December 2019 (UTC)) I have edited that section and tried changing the language in sections and sentences that sound advertorial. You may go ahead and publish it after you look over my edits. Many thanks. (Obie Njoku (talk) 02:15, 13 December 2019 (UTC)) As of Friday morning, I published the page as a draft. I am looking forward to seeing the changes that you guys decide on. I will also continue to modify it as I fit. Thanks again! (Obie Njoku (talk) 15:19, 13 December 2019 (UTC))

Percy Jackson Grammar SchoolEdit

My submission was not accepted - and generally I can see why. It is too chatty and with insufficient third-party references. I am thinking of rewriting it completely, mentioning only points which have sound references. It will, of course, be much shorter but, once we get it accepted, more can be added later - with relevant references, of course. Is this a reasonable course? Do you have any other views on my submission? Kenpj (talk) 15:41, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Draft:Percy Jackson Grammar School --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:08, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
I've cleaned up the tone a bit and it seems that since it has been the subject of a larger local history book and some regional newspapers it qualifies for an article here. I would move it to mainspace but there's a redirect in the way. – Thjarkur (talk) 16:33, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
You could also merge the contents into Adwick School. – Thjarkur (talk) 17:07, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Reviewed and Rejected on 11 December, reviewer of the opinion that an article about the school cannot meet Wikipedia's concept of notability (elementary grade schools rarely do). David notMD (talk) 10:08, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
I would merge the two articles, as Thjarkur suggested. Best to you, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 17:20, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Dr Zakir Naik Wiki Page - concerns over editsEdit

Good afternoon all, i have tried many a time to make edits to the page with up to date correct and unbiased information with corresponding links to various articles but after i make the changes they keep getting re-stored. Can you advise why this keeps happening and what can i do so it doesn't happen again Plutowriter123 (talk) 15:49, 11 December 2019 (UTC)Plutowriter123

@Plutowriter123: your edits were undone by GorgeCustersSabre for being 'POV' and 'unnecessary' (according to edit summaries). They're not very detailed summaries but that is often the way, and the next step if you disagree is to discuss it on the talk page of the article. Your edits do appear to introduce negative information but that isn't a problem per se, if they are reliably sourced. However, as always where there is a disagreement about content in an article, it needs to be discussed at the article talk page so that agreement can be reached. Hugsyrup 16:06, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
@Plutowriter123: The comments by the reverting editors can be seen at the article's history page, and the discussion should be held at the article's talk page (Talk:Zakir Naik). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 18:13, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Is there any chance i can get in direct contact with GorgeCustersSabre Plutowriter123 (talk) 12:26, 13 December 2019 (UTC)Plutowriter123

@Plutowriter123: you can post a message on their talk page. Some editors are more responsive than others, however. Hugsyrup 12:28, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Usually an editor who makes a change will keep an eye on the Talk page of the article in question, so if you make a comment there, he or she will see it and respond to it. Best to you, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 17:22, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Help neededEdit

Why is the article I contributed coming under the "speedy deletion" criteria and being tagged as promotional? KD Content (talk) 06:38, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

KD Content Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I deleted the article because it was indeed promotional. You seem to have a common misconception about what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a place to merely tell about something. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources say about article subjects that meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability. Wikipedia has no interest in what the subject wants to say about itself or in merely telling about a subject.
You also seem to have what we call a conflict of interest and, if you are a representative of the hospital, a paid editor. Editors with a conflict of interest should avoid directly editing about things related to it, and if paid, they are required by Wikipedia's Terms of Use to comply with the paid editing policy. I would also suggest that in your case, you should change your username; I will post instructions on how to do that at your user talk page. 331dot (talk) 11:58, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

First of all, it was very rude of you to delete the article without suggesting any scope for improvement. I had asked for help and guidance, not for deletion! Secondly, if you say that the content was promotional what are your views about these pages?:,_Ahmedabad Why are these pages sticking on Wikipedia? KD Content (talk) 06:35, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

No answer to this by 331dot !! KD Content (talk) 10:45, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

KD Content I was not aware you had responded(try pinging as I have pinged you). You should not cite other articles as a reason for your article to exist too, please read other stuff exists. As this is a volunteer project, it is possible for inappropriate articles to go undetected, even for years. Thanks for point out other potentially inappropriate articles. In these cases, however, I do not yet see evidence those articles were written by employees or representatives of those facilites. While you cannot publicly out other editors, if you believe that there are editors with an undeclared conflict of interest or have not declared their paid editing status, please address that at WP:COIN. 331dot (talk) 20:22, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
@331dot: I don't intend to point at other articles as inappropriate, I wanted help through this post on how to improve the article rather than asking someone to delete it! You did not give any suggestion or point out anything that should be changed, rather you deleted it immediately!! And for your information, I am not a paid editor or representative of the hospital. (talk) 06:04, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
I assume you are KD Content(remember to be logged in when you post). I am sorry, but if an article is tagged for speedy deletion and it meets the criteria as determined by an administrator, it may be deleted without delay or discussion. You wrote about a hospital called "Kusum Dhirajlal Hospital" and your current username(which you still need to change) is "KD Content" where I presume the KD stands for Kusum Dhirajlal which can suggest you are the 'content' editor for Kusum Dhirajlal Hospital. If you say you aren't, I take you at your word, but either way the article was a promotional piece for the hospital, having language like "It also excels in academics through its nursing college" which is an opinion, and detailing the services performed at the hospital. It detailed the hospital "mission" and "vision" which is unencyclopedic content, as it is impossible to independently verify what a facility believes to be its mission and vision to be. The article should only state what independent reliable sources say about the hospital, and not what the hospital says about itself. Most of the sources seem to also be press release or routine announcement type articles and not significant coverage. You may want to read Your First Article for some advice. I hope this helps you and I apologize for causing bad feelings, that was not my intention. 331dot (talk) 07:45, 14 December 2019 (UTC)


How do you change your username? Gumshoe97 (talk) 15:04, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Gumshoe97, and welcome to the Teahouse! The easiest way to change your username is to use this form; you need to have an email address connected to your account in order to use it. If you do not have an email address connected to your account, you can also make a request on this page. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 15:48, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Just adding to make sure your new username comply with the WP:username policy Thanks! Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 01:05, 13 December 2019 (UTC)


DESiegel Agreed that we should try to improve most articles, but those of us who think the articles are not worth keeping get a pass. By the way – did you review the sourcing? It’s a great example of Wikipedia’s blind spot for things that seem notable but aren’t. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 02:36, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Timtempleton If you don't think that the article should exist, you are certainly not required to help improve it, but commenting to this effect in response to a question on how to work on the article is not, in my view, very helpful or appropriate. I reviewed the AfD, including your arguments there, and did not find them persuasive. But that is a debate for another forum, specifically AfD. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 02:41, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Sounds good - good luck improving the article. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 07:25, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Waukauyengtipu and Mount VenamoEdit

I reviewed Draft:Waukauyengtipu, and declined it, saying that the author should expand on Mount Venamo, including on the issue of whether there is one mountain or two. The author, User:MatWr, replied at my talk page, asking me to reconsider, and saying that there needs to be a separate article. Perhaps I have misunderstood what the author is asking, but it appears that the author is asking to create a content fork and to have two articles that disagree with each other. The author is clearly saying that there are two mountains. If there are two mountains, Wikipedia should consistently say that there are two mountains, or should consistently say that different explorers disagree.

I am asking if other experienced editors will look at the draft and at the article, and whether I am correct in thinking that any discussion of whether either to rename or split the existing article should be at the talk page of the existing article, rather than having two inconsistent articles. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:38, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I see that the author has edited Mount Venamo to state that there are two mountains. I disagree with the style of the additions, and I think that there should be discussion on the article talk page, but at least the existing article should reflect what is said by reliable sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:07, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon: What a nightmare! I've spent the last three hours wading through (scant) online sources and doing a bit of detective work with Google maps and Smithsonian herbarium specimen labels. In essence, I think User:MatWr is correct in their assertion, though whether the evidence stacks up in terms of Wikipedia's measure of verifiability, is another matter. Any evidence that supports these two mountains being distinct (and thus meriting separate articles) needs to be weighed up against what evidence there is to continue asserting they are synonymous with one another (a la Mount Everest/Chomolungma). We also need to recognise that errors long-perpetuated on Wikipedia can enter into general acceptance in other places simply through WP being naively used as a source of always-reliable information . Clearly, this part of Venezuala/Guyana is little-known. Allow me to list what I've found out, and maybe by the end of it I can draw some conclusions:
  • First off, the linking of the two names was made in 2013 with this edit - part of a series by Mgiganteus1. It appears to have been based upon one source on carnivorous plants which probably can't be regarded as a WP:RS in this context, and another source that links to the Smithsonian Museum website no longer functions, and searching there yields nothing. If someone were to make that edit today, I might be saying the sources linking the two is not sufficient, and I wouldn't accept it without further evidence of synonymy.
  • Clearly, both place names verifiably do exist, but are they in the same place? (See here for Waukauyengtipu)
  • Mount Venamo is stated in a WP:RS to sit on the international boundary, and I have inserted this reference to confirm that.
  • The article's own coordinates for Mount Venamo (although not cited to a source) do plot on Google maps onto the international boundary, and an oval, steep sided table top plateau appears discernable nearby.
  • I can find little online about Waukauyengtipu, yet there are enough reliable source to prove it exists.
  • A number of 1997 Herbarium sheets in the Smithsonian Museum of plants collected at Waukauyengtipu contain detailed latitude and longitude coordinates for the eastern summit of Waukauyengtipu, and for a camp at its base. I've put a couple of these into a template on one of my sandbox pages and they plot out on Geohack here - a long way from Mount Venamo (though there is little evidence in satellite images of any plateau mountains).
On balance, I feel there is probably just enough circumstantial evidence to accept two separate articles, and not enough material for us to justify perpetuating a probable error on the Venamo page (despite the evidence being very thin either way), though I recommend putting a copy of this discussion on the Mount Venamo talk page, and being open to modify or merge either article should more secondary sources surface. I have no reason whatsoever to doubt the assertion by MatWr that they've been there (lucky devil!), though I've tried to ignore that in this analysis (purely because we never accept personal, unpublished opinion from anyone about anything here! (It's a shame their website doesn't include more broader photographic images of Waukauyengtipu. Maybe they'd consider uploading some images to Commons.) What does bother me in the draft is the longish discussion as to why there is doubt. Some of that could probably go into the Talk page, thus keeping open and visible the possibility of further expeditions unearthing more up-to-date information in the future. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 02:42, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
User:Nick Moyes - Thank you. You did more research and review than I have requested. Based on what you have concluded, I think that you have done enough research to indicate that there should definitely be two articles, but they do need to agree. Also, as we both said, we cannot rely on the personal experience of User:MatWr exploring the region, except to the extent that his exploration has been described in a reliable secondary source. There aren't very many areas on the Earth that can still be said to be poorly explored; but the mountain rain forests of South America and Africa within a few degrees of the equator really haven't been explored that much. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:06, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

How to edit "top"Edit

When I want to edit some section of an article, I can click on an "edit source" button near the section title. But when I want to edit the opening paragraphs, there isn't a section title, so I click on the "Edit source" tab at the top of the page. This works OK, but my edit summary doesn't say "top". I see other people's edits in the edit history that say "top", I suppose they could have typed it in themselves, but is there some automatic way to get that? Also, with a long article, previewing takes longer when it has to reload the whole article; it would be a bit more convenient if I could just edit the opening paragraphs. Or am I wishing for what ain't? Bruce leverett (talk) 01:40, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Bruce leverett. What you're talking about is editing the MOS:LEAD section of an article and everything that comes above it. You can do this by simply clicking on the "Edit" tab at the top of the article and open the editing window for the entire articles. This works pretty well for shorter articles and articles without subsections. Another thing you can try would be to set your user preferences to add an "Edit" link for the leads of articles. Click on your "Preferences" tag at the top of your browser and then click on "Gadgets". Look for the "Appearance" section and check the box "Add an [edit] link for the lead section of a page". Save the changes and you should see an "Edit" button now being displayed for the lead sections of articles. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:50, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, just what I was looking for! Bruce leverett (talk) 02:11, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
What I don't understand is why this isn't part of the default. It seems much more useful to have the ability to edit just the lead without having to open up the entire page for editing. --Khajidha (talk) 13:01, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
@Khajidha: If you click on any "edit section" link you end up on an URL ending with, e.g., for the 1st section …&section=1 in the address bar of your browser. If you replace the 1 by 0 and go to this modified addresss you can edit the lede (lead). It's one of those "once you know it" things, only a section instead of the complete page can be very important over shaky mobile broadband connections. –07:00, 15 December 2019 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The account which started this discussion has been blocked per WP:SOCK. The user-in-question seems now aware of how to appeal the blocking of their first account; so, I'm going to close this because (1) they won't be able to post anything further here until that account has been unblocked and (2) any further discussion here at the Teahouse with them about the merits of the Wikipedia article they want to create should wait until their account has been unblocked. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:34, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

In 2016 i got fascinated about Wikipedia, and started editing it, everything was perfect until unaware of Wikipedia policies i accidentally made Wikipedia username on my real name, as i am a musician from india having notable enough articles to pass wp:gng and this took some time to get these reliable sources, but again as a kid i did this mistake earlier only, and then to try to make other wiki and recreating my page also multiple time led me into the scenario of sock puppetry and i always ended up my and others Wikipedia deleted which i created from different accounts, now the scenario is this that i really want a BIG help from someover here as i am fed up of this block game, i want it to be resolved because i know multiple people too who did this mistake as a startup on Wikipedia but now are doing good having their own articles created from different names etc, i am ready to go through a process where i am even ready to sign some legal things for the Assurity that those mistakes which i did I WILL NOT DO THEM AGAIN, but all i want is i want to be on Wikipedia happily editing and increasing my account statistics like a good Wikipedian do, i made this account just to confess as i know that i will be deleted again or blocked under G5, my identity is Vivek Verma and i have been multiple banned for abusing Wikipedia under user:Vivek.k.Verma, please guide me before blocking me, i really really want this time not to hide anything, i want rhat i am known by my name and not be blocked being called a sock puppet under the checkuser. I accept i did those mistakes, but because of mine foolishness there are multiple deserving pages which are suffering by being deleted under G5, i request please someone guide and help me, in these last 3 to 4 years i have been active on Wikipedia and now understand and know almost all policies, i know i have done blunders which can be forgiven but i don't want to leave Wikipedia and want to be a decent contributor, i am ready to do anything for this!! Please guide me Please Incase someone want to guide me they can also mail me. My email id is - (Redacted) I AM SORRY Juanita's (talk) 03:14, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

  • This is what i have as a musician which i said i pass wp:gng
Please do not copy and paste article or draft content in wikiformat into a Teahouse thread
{{Infobox person
| name         = Vivek Verma<ref></ref>
| image        =Vivek Verma New.jpg
| caption      = 
| birth_date   = {{birth date and age|1992|09|10}}<ref></ref>
| birth_place  = [[Raniganj]], [[West Bengal]], India
| occupation   = [[Playback Singer]],<br>Record Producer,<br>Composer,<br>Music Director,<br>Indi-Pop Singer
| years_active = 
| parents            = Chandan Verma <br/> Sulochna Verma

'''Vivek Verma'''  (Born on 10 September) also known as Vivek<ref>{{Cite web|url=|title=Vivek Verma An Indie-Pop Multitasker|}}</ref>is an Indian [[Playback Singer]], [[composer]] and [[musician]] from [[Raniganj]] in [[India]], He is currently working in [[Bollywood]], Vivek came in limelight after he got awarded by [[Government of India]] the Web Ratna Award on [[]] In 2009 <ref></ref>. he is also known for composing film music with [[Himesh Reshammiya]].<ref></ref>

== Early life and education ==
Vivek got trained in [[Hindustani classical music]] from his mother at a very young age and was exposed to various music styles. Later he moved to banares for further studies of music and He moved to [[Mumbai]] in 2011 to assist playback singer [[Anup Jalota]], Where he met Andy singh then CEO of [[HR Musik]] who introduced him to the composer [[Himesh Reshammiya]]. Vivek also studied Guitar as his main instrument since a very young age in a small town of [[West Bengal]] called New Kenda.<ref>{{Cite web|url=|title=Coming From A Small Town And Making A Popularity In The Indian Music Industry, Meet Vivek Verma, Music Composer, Producer, PlayBack Singer!! - Student Stories|website=Dailyhunt}}</ref>

== Career ==
While assisting [[Himesh Reshammiya]], Vivek performed songs for the film  ''[[Sanam Bewafa]]'' and now he has moved on to independent music, joining international tours with Himesh Reshammiya.<ref>{{Cite web|url=|title=Vivek Verma Announces 2019 International Tour Dates|}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=|title=Vivek Verma, Indian Music composer and Playback Singer!|date=January 22, 2018}}</ref>

== Filmography ==

{| class="wikitable"
| style="background:#ffc;"| 
| Denotes films that have not yet been released

{| class="wikitable sortable"
! style="background:#cfc; text-align:center;"| '''Year''' 
! style="background:#cfc; text-align:center;"| '''Title''' 
! style="background:#cfc; text-align:center;"| '''Other Notes'''
| 1991 || style="background:ff;" | ''[[Sanam Bewafa]]'' || Meri Jaan Chali
| 2009 || style="background:ff;" | ''Sharnagat'' || ''Music Album''

==Awards and nominations==
|- style="background:#ebf5ff;"
!Nominated For
|- style="background:#bfd7ff;"
| colspan="4" style="text-align:center;"|'''Web Ratna Award'''<ref></ref>
|''[[Government of India]]''
|- style="background:#bfd7ff;"
| colspan="4" style="text-align:center;"|'''Bizasia Music Award'''<ref>{{Cite web|url=|title=Vivek Verma, An Indian Composer/Playback Singer With Inspirational Musical Journey|first=BusinessofCinema News|last=Network|date=May 24, 2019}}</ref>
|Best Male Debut Singer
|Mai Aur Tu<ref>{{Cite web|url=|title=Vivek Verma Is Hitting The Right Note with "Mai Aur Tu"|date=April 21, 2019}}</ref>
| {{Won}}

== Songs ==
{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-  style="background:#cccccf; text-align:center;"
| '''Film''' || '''Song''' || '''Singer''' || '''Lyricist''' || '''Year of Release'''
|''[[Sanam Bewafa]]''
|Meri Jaan Chali
| Vivek Verma<ref>{{Cite web|url=|title=?Vivek Verma on Apple Music|website=Apple Music}}</ref>
|[[Saawan Kumar Tak]]
|Vivek Verma
|shyam laxmikant
|''Bekhudi reprise''<ref></ref>
| Vivek Verma
| [[Sameer Anjaan]]
|''Mai Aur Tu''
|Mai Aur Tu
|Vivek Verma
|Aashiq Elahii
|Udaan<ref>{{Cite web|url=|title=After winning over Bollywood, Vivek Verma is heading for the Billboard|date=August 25, 2019|website=Deccan Chronicle}}</ref>
|Vivek Verma 
|Shravan j Nair
|Vivek Verma 
|Shravan j Nair

==Filmography as Musician==
{| class="wikitable sortable"
! Year !! Film
| 2014 ||[[Action Jackson (2014 film)]]
| 2015 || [[All Is Well (film)]]
| 2015 || [[Prem Ratan Dhan Payo]]
| 2016 || [[Sanam Teri Kasam (2016 film)]]
| 2016 || [[Aap Se Mausiiquii]]
| 2016 || [[Teraa Surroor]]
| 2019 || Teri Meri Kahani<ref></ref>

== References ==

== External links ==
* {{IMDb name|id=nm8419269|name=Vivek Verma}}

{{Authority control}} 

Kusnur (talk) 04:03, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Over years, appears you have tried to create article about yourself many times, under different names, all deleted. Also, User:Vivek.k.Verma indefinitely blocked for having seven confirmed sockpuppets and at least four suspected sockpuppets. And now, Kusnur. First, find a pathway to appealing your block (very unlikely). Second, stop trying to create an article about yourself. If you are now sufficiently notable, in time, someone else may write about you. David notMD (talk) 04:19, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hi Kusnur. Please don't post your contact information or the contact information of anyone else here at the Teahouse for the reason's given in WP:BLPPRIVACY. Nobody here at the Teahouse can know for sure whether you are who your claiming to be, and even if they did believe you it's unlikely that they would contact by email to discuss any Wikipedia article or problems you're having.
Please also don't copy and post content articles or drafts formatted in Wikiformat into any discussions at the Teahouse (or any other page for that matter) because the formatted text may cause problems with the formatting and layout of the page you're posting on. If you want to ask a question about a particular article or draft, please provide a WP:WIKILINK to the relevant page instead.
If you were previously blocked on Wikipedia for violating some policy or guideline and the account you used is still blocked, please don't create another account to try and edit Wikipedia. Even if you're intentions are good, please don't do such a thing because it will be seen as a violation of WP:EVADE. Instead what you will need to do is request that the other account be unblocked as explained in Wikipedia:Appealing a block. Continuing to create new accounts will only make things worse. Once your first account has been unblocked, then you can come back to the Teahouse and use it to post a question about any problems or other questions related to Wikipedia editing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:29, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Kusnur said: in these last 3 to 4 years i have been active on Wikipedia and now understand and know almost all policies. Can you clarify please? It seems to say you've been editing for the last 3–4 years. If so, can you comment on which exact policies you have learned, and show examples of articles that you have contributed to positively with that knowledge?
You seem to relate being blocked to not having an article about you on Wikipedia, as though this were a social media platform, which it is not. If you want to positively contribute to Wikipedia by editing articles you are interested in – other than one about you – please give us an idea of what those articles might be and what kind of work you intend to do.
Unrelated, and regardless of whether you are personally blocked from editing, if someone in the world decides to do the research and work to write an article on Wikipedia about you, then they can do that. It will not be "your" article, and you will have no control over what is in it (other than being able to correct outright, verifiably wrong, information).
If, on the other hand, you want to be unblocked just to create an article about yourself again, you're going to have a difficult time, and should save your energy for your music and promoting yourself on all the platforms out there that are designed to help you do that. Please keep this in mind in your further actions. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 05:30, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Hello, Kusnur. Please read Wikipedia:Standard offer. Your first step is to avoid editing Wikipedia in any way, shape or form for six months. Then, consider your next move very, very carefully and cautiously. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:20, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

use of non free screenshots to demonstrate video game features?Edit

I am trying to improve the article Carmageddon II: Carpocalypse Now, I wanted to add some screenshots to demonstrate the games engine, I have it at my native resolution but I see that I need to resize or descale it, could someone please explain as i am very confused.

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amdcrash (talkcontribs) 10:04, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Amdcrash. There are important licencing and useage issues which you need to be aware of, and guidance on these are laid out at Wikipedia:Software screenshots. I note the line there which states: "Screenshots should be taken at a reduced screen resolution, such as 640x480, 800x600 or 1024x768". Any simple image editing program on your computer will let you reduce image size, and is a simple task. (My personal choice is IrfanView, but MS Paint will do at a pinch!)
Having assured yourself by careful reading of all our guidance that you are not contravening the non-free use of an image, it can then be uploaded directly to English Wikipedia, or to Wikimedia Commons. (To be honest, I'm not confident that the use you have in mind would be deemed as OK under our non-free use policy, as there are already two images on the page which serve that purpose). Uploading images to Commons enables any language Wikipedia to use the image, though their licencing conditions are extremely strict (moreso than here). Any infringement results in images being swiftly removed. See Wikipedia:Uploading images for detailed guidance on how images can be uploaded. Let us know if this helps you. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 13:30, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
thank you for your reply, I wanted to know if reducing the image size by 50% would be fine? for instance, 1366 by768 to 683 by 384? Amdcrash (talk) 16:13, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
@Amdcrash: I suspect that would be fine. The most important thing is whether or not the screenshot image you propose to create would meet our non-free use rationale. Have you read through it and decided that it will be?
@Amdcrash: If you pick the commons route after reading c:COM:SCREENSHOTS upload the screenshot as is on commons. For that there must be no copyrighted content such as logos etc. unless it's c:Commons:De minimis. For fair use uploads here reducing the size could help, but as noted above, a non-free use rationale for more images on an article that already has non-free images is "hard", you're probably wasting your time. – (talk) 07:20, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Create a page about allyl isocyanideEdit

I want to create a page but please help me how to do it.or else please create a page for the above topic . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siwan2002 (talkcontribs) 11:35, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

@Siwan2002: it looks to me as if this topic is already covered at Isocyanide. If you are very confident that Allyl Isocyanide is independently notable enough to justify its own page, then you can create one by following the instructions at WP:AFC, but please be warned that the technical steps to creating a page are the easy part - the hard part is understanding and meeting Wikipedia's guidelines for what is notable enough to be included. I suggest you read WP:GNG and WP:RS before creating the page, and double-checking that you are certain you have enough sources to demonstrate the notability of this topic. Hugsyrup 12:53, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse, Siwan2002. We don't create pages for users here, but we can point you in the right direction of ways to achieve that end for yourself. First off, there is already mention of allyl isocyanide at the isocyanide page. So first I'd ask if it's chemically appropriate to expand the existing article, or is Allyl cyanide a more closely related compound? If not, we have a way to get other people to create articles - see WP:Requested Articles and specifically you might add your request at Wikipedia:Requested articles/Natural sciences/Chemistry#Chemical_compounds, ensuring you include a link to relevant high-quality reliably published sources of information (maybe something this?) Things don't happen overnight there - sometimes nobody is interested in doing it!
Creating an article from scratch is one of the hardest tasks to achieve here, especially for beginners, although it's fractionally easier for rigidly scientific subjects than it is for waffly stuff about trivial celebrities and dull sportspeople (in my view!). As there's no rush, and as learning how to edit is a valuable journey in itself, I would suggest first learning the basics of how we operate by undertaking The Wikipedia Adventure. This is a fun, interactive tour you can do. Then should then read Your First Article. We always recommend creating a draft article first, which you can work on before submitting it for review and helpful feedback. That page includes a link to an 'Article Wizard' to help you do just that.
I hope that between the two replies we've given you it's enough of an answer to help you achieve your goal. Pop back if you have further questions. Best wishes, Nick Moyes (talk) 13:07, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia BotsEdit

Hello, looking to make some more simple edits on Wikipedia on my free time, wondering if a bot exists that allows humans to work with it and check over its edits as it goes, allowing for accuracy. Thanks in advance!

MrAKinsey (talk) 12:43, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

@MrAKinsey: I'm not sure if there are any bots available for general use by editors. However, it sounds as if what you might want is Wikipedia:AutoEd. This is a tool which recommends simple edits to pages (tidying things up, removing stray spaces, fixing formatting errors, etc) and you can then confirm those edits and submit. You must, of course, take responsibility for making sure all the edits are appropriate. There are also a lot of other scripts here Wikipedia:User_scripts/List, some of which may also help you to make small edits quickly, however I don't know so much about all of these, so you should make sure to do your research and read any accompanying guidelines before using them. Hugsyrup 12:49, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
@MrAKinsey: I used to like using the live spell-checking element of User:Lupin/Anti-vandal tool, which I modified slightly to run for longer then let it run in the background for a couple of hours every morning and, in my lunch-break, sat eating a sandwich and correcting typos. If that interests you, you're welcome to follow the instructions and use the original script, or copy and use my slightly modified (i.e. improved) version at User:Nick Moyes/recent2test.js. More experienced editors can seek permission to use the very powerful AutoWikiBrowser, but I think it's a bit too soon to be recommending you that one right now. Whatever you do, the 'gnomish' work of tidying things up is an overlooked but much-appreciated contribution that anyone with a bit of spare time can make. Thanks for your interest. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 13:17, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

J. Walter KennedyEdit

There is no question that he died in Stamford, CT.

However, his article has his final resting place in both Stamford, CT and in Springfield, MA,

As his body was not divided up upon his death, one of these final resting places has to be wrong! He can’t be in two places at once, otherwise! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C5A:427F:E524:77:E90C:1AB6:5DBD (talk) 13:45, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. This would be a matter to bring up on the article talk page, so that the editors that follow that article can see it. 331dot (talk) 14:32, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
What J. Walter Kennedy really needs is multiple refs to substantiate all of the content. Right now, only one ref, and that is behind a paywall. David notMD (talk) 16:36, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
I added a source for Springdale, a section of Stamford. Someone mistook it for Springfield. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 20:22, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm researching this. He was 64, according to multiple sources (i.e. he was born July 8, 1913, according to one). The St John's Catholic Cemetery in Darien (just outside the Springdale area of Stamford mentioned in one source) is likely correct (we don't have a mention of that cemetery here). Find-A-Grave is currently wrong on both DoD and resting place, which again shows why we don't use them, but I've suggested fixes there FWIW. I've found a number of additional newspaper articles and have requested info from the funeral home given in one source (though we can't cite it, I know). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 21:27, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Add a new football club to wikipediaEdit


I dont understand this, how can add a football club to wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FK Karlshamn United (talkcontribs) 15:12, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

@FK Karlshamn United: The very simple answer to your question is - follow the instructions at WP:AFC to create an article. However, before you do that you need to be aware of a few very important things:
  1. Your username suggests that you are a football club, and therefore implies shared use. This is against policies and I see that someone has already reported it which means that you may end up being blocked. You should either change your username or, if you are blocked, create a new account that does not breach this policy.
  2. Given your username, I assume that you are associated with the football club you want to create an article for? If so, you have a conflict of interest and are also probably a paid editor. You must read this policy and comply with the disclosure required in it: WP:PAID. This is mandatory.
  3. Finally, football clubs should only have articles about them if they meet the notability guidelines. This means being the subject of substantial coverage in multiple, reliable, secondary sources. If you do not have such sources for your club, the article will not be accepted, or will be deleted.
I hope this helps. Hugsyrup 15:31, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

What are some relatively safe areas for users to edits.Edit

I've been told not to participate in a certain area of Wikipedia because I'm not experienced enough and my actions are disruptive (which I never intended them to be). What are some relatively safe areas to edit in so that I can build up some experience without getting blocked? LampGenie01 (talk) 15:13, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

@LampGenie0: I see from your talk page that you've been asked to stop tagging articles for speedy deletion. This is an area that takes a reasonable amount of experience, and a solid understanding of the various CSD policies, the meaning of notability and importance, the ability to identify reliable sources, and so on. It is best avoided until you have a bit more background as an editor. The best place to start for any editor is in, quite simply, editing articles! You can pick any article that you think needs improvement, and you can improve it - just be careful that any chance you make is supported by sources, and if someone reverts your change (which might well happen) you then discuss it on the talk page and get agreement. If you do want to also work in what you could consider the 'administrative areas' of Wikipedia such as article deletion, I would suggest that you start off by reading through some WP:AFD discussions and contributing to any you are interested in. Just try to base your arguments in deletion policy, and be aware of arguments to avoid in these discussions. Getting experience at AFD generally helps to lead on to more accurate work with CSD. Hugsyrup 15:26, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Well, you received some very excellent advice on your talk page: edit articles, improve content, instead of getting involved in things like deletion tagging. --bonadea contributions talk 15:30, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
@Bonadea: All I'm going to say about the "advice" left on my talk page is that you and I must be reading different versions of it or something.
@Hugsyrup: Thank you for that. To be honest, I've been put off doing the administrative side of things. (which was probably the intention of the user who messaged me in the first place, so good job, they win) Where can I find a list of articles needing such improvement? I've used SuggestBot in the past but it only gives me a small selection. LampGenie01 (talk) 15:35, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
@LampGenie01: There are a few different places you can find articles to improve, but one that I often use for inspiration is Wikipedia:Backlog. There are a few different backlogs here, but you can find ones that sound fun to you - for example some of the ones like 'too technical' or 'plot summary needs attention' could be interesting if you're good with words, while 'of unclear notability' are interesting if you like trying to dig out reliable sources. Hugsyrup 15:39, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
@Hugsyrup: That's exactly the sort of thing I was hoping existed. Thank you so much for digging that out for me. LampGenie01 (talk) 15:42, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
@LampGenie01: You're welcome, good luck! Hugsyrup 15:46, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
The thing that got me into editing was patrolling recent changes, reverting vandalism is safe and honestly fairly fun. And not to worry, I also made the same mistake when starting out by tagging speedies and was also scolded for it ;) Speedy tagging is one area where it's really easy to make mistakes. – Thjarkur (talk) 18:01, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
@Þjarkur: And yet, instead of giving advice to avoid repetition of such mistakes, certain users seem more willing to make accusations of disruptive behaviour and threats of blocking which will end up driving new users away. Anyway, that's by the by. I'll take a look at vandalism when I've got a little more editing experience under my belt, but thank you for the suggestion. LampGenie01 (talk) 21:13, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

LampGenie01 I am afraid that some users are better at framing helpful advice than others, even if thy do not mean to be hostile. I cna tell you, as an admin who goes through the category of pages tagged for speedy deletion on a regular basis, finding things tagged which should not be can be very frustrating, but I do try to be helpful, or at least not hostile, when i notify a user of a tag i have removed. Note that i don't always know if an editor is an experienced Wikipedian who should have known better, or a relative newcomer. If you want further advice on ways to contribute here, i will be glad to try to help. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:06, 13 December 2019 (UTC) @LampGenie01:

@DESiegel: I understand. I also understand that my responses did nothing to help paint me in a positive light (weirdly enough, my work seems to provide me with a lot of time for self-reflection). I would greatly appreciate any help you would be able to offer. LampGenie01 (talk) 15:31, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Sorry for the delau in responding, LampGenie01. I am taking this to your user page, because it is goign to be a bit out of scope for the Teahouse. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:08, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia fundraiserEdit

Just curious, I’ve been a Wikipedia monthly supporter for more than a year but I don’t know how to eliminate the multiple pop ups asking me to please donate. Any suggestions? Does logging in first cause the systems to check my donation status and thereby prevent the donation requests? Smash591 (talk) 15:50, 13 December 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smash591 (talkcontribs) 15:28, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Smash591, thanks for your question. Logged-in users like yourself can disable fundraising banners through your preferences. In preferences, go to Gadgets and the option "Suppress display of fundraiser banners" is in the Browsing section. WJ94 (talk) 15:39, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi WJ94, Thank you for the quick response. One question though, is the preference area only available on a desktop browser as I am on my iPhone and cannot find the setting you refer to. Smash591 (talk) 15:56, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Here is a mobile link to the preferences: (talk) 17:22, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Question with "Pings"Edit

I probably am one of the only ones that want this, but here is my question. How can you set your watchlist to give you a notification when a page is edited? I mean a notification as if someone mentioned you. If there is a way then I am planning to modify my watchlist to a few pages that I want to edit. Thanks in advance Elijahandskip (talk) 16:23, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

@Elijahandskip: Hello again. You can install User:Enterprisey/watchlist-notice.js to your common.js file and it will give you a green notification when you have unread items in your watchlist. To install it, copy and paste the code {{subst:iusc|User:APerson/watchlist-notice.js}} to here. Does this help? Interstellarity (talk) 16:40, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Alternatively (if you don't want to decimate your current watchlist) you could create an alternative account with a curated watchlist and go to "Preferences → Email me when a page or a file on my watchlist is changed". – Thjarkur (talk) 17:17, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

No responseEdit

It's a request to one of my good fellow on Wikipedia "Eman 235". Please reply on your talk page. Thanks. ( (talk) 17:11, 13 December 2019 (UTC))

Eman will see the message you left him the next time he opens up Wikipedia. He hasn't edited for two days now. – Thjarkur (talk) 17:20, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
He helps and guide other fellows who leave request on his talk page but he hasn't responded to any request since last one month. I hope everything is ok. Thanks. ( (talk) 19:27, 13 December 2019 (UTC))

Timeline for resubmission/approvalEdit

I submitted a draft on Nov. 6 for Roger A. Ramsammy and after hearing some suggestions, i went back to the article and made several reference additions. I believe he meets the notability standard for academics but haven't heard anything since. Realizing this is a volunteer venture for all, I don't want to push but when could I expect either an approval or rejection decision again? Thank you. Zippylips (talk) 18:01, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Zippylips, and welcome to the Teahouse. There are currently some 3,617 submissions awaiting reviews. Each volunteer picks the ones he or she prefers, it is not a first-come-first-served line. But It could easily take several months before the draft you wrote is reviewed. People are working to cut this backlog down. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:38, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply and clarification DES I really appreciate it. Zippylips (talk) 19:52, 13 December 2019 (UTC)


How do you become a bureaucrat on wikipedia? James The Bond 007 (talk) 18:23, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Is there any way to become extended confirmed user, without having 500 edits and 30 days old? James The Bond 007 (talk) 18:27, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, James The Bond 007. See WP:RFB for how bureaucrat s are chosen. A bureaucrat would normally have several years of experience, thousands of edits, and a very good general reputation. A bureaucrat would almost always already have been an admin for some time.
As for being an EC user, an Admin can grant this right early, but that is almost never done. See Wikipedia:Requests for permissions. What do you want to do that would require EC status? Most articles and othe pages can be edited without it. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:49, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Hello, James The Bond 007. I suggest that you read this essay: Wikipedia:Hat collecting. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:57, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

When does my page get published?Edit

Hi guys

Just wondering how long it takes for a wiki page to get published. I have gone in and edited the page at least 10 times now and made the page very informative with lots of links. Is there an amount of time you have to wait or is there a way of publishing it myself?

Really look forward to any response

Many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steviejayuk (talkcontribs) 00:13, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Stevbiejayuk Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You edited your user page, which is not article space and not searchable by search engines. It is meant to be a place for you to introduce yourself to the Wikipedia community in the context of your Wikipedia editing or use.
The page is 'published' in that it is saved to Wikipedia servers and visible to the public, but it is not 'published' in the sense that it is formally a part of the encyclopedia. As the piece is largely a promotional piece about yourself, if it were moved to the main encyclopedia, it would probably be nominated for deletion rather quickly, I'm afraid. Successfully writing a new Wikipedia article(not just "page", a subtle but important distinction) is the hardest task on Wikipedia; it is even harder when attempting to write about yourself. Please review the autobiography policy; autobiographical articles are strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. This is because people naturally write favorably about themselves. If you have reviewed the Wikipedia definition of a notable musician and truly feel that you meet at least one of the listed criteria to merit an article, you ideally shouldn't be the one to write it. It is a rare thing for someone to successfully write an autobiography here; in order to be successful, you would essentially need to forget everything you know about yourself and only write based on the content of independent sources. If you just want to tell the world about yourself, you should use social media. If you truly feel that you can write an appropriate encyclopedic article that only summarizes what independent reliable sources say about you, you should use Articles for Creation to create and submit a draft for an independent review. 331dot (talk) 00:33, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hello, Steviejayuk, and welcome to the Teahosue. First of all, Wikipedia does not publish "pages". It publishes articles about notable topics. this is a subtle but important difference, and is one of the things that makes Wikipedia different from social media. You have not yet created or worked on any articles, nor any drafts for articles. In fact, all your edits have been to User:Steviejayuk. That is your user page. A user page is meant to describe you as a Wikipedia editor. it is intended so that other editors can know something about you. Look at my user page at User:DESiegel for an example. User pages are not ever "published" as articles. Please read our guideline on user pages.
It seems as though what you want is an article about yourself. There are several problems with that. First of all, please read our guideline on autobiography and our guideline on conflict of interest. Note that autobiographies are strongly discouraged. In any case, there could not be an article about you, even if someone else wrote it, unless you are found to be Notable. Please see our guideline on the notability of individuals and our guideline on the notability of musicians and related topics.
I strongly advise that you trim down User:Steviejayuk so that it is a brief summery of who you are and what yoiu intend to do (or have done) as a Wikipedia editor, and nothing more. It should not resemble a biographical article. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:48, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
If you want to create an actual article, i sugest that you follow the steps below:
  • First, review our guideline on notability, our policy on Verifiability, and our general notability guideline (GNG). Consider whether your subject clearly meets the standards listed there. Also, check if the topic is already covered, perhaps under a different spelling or in a section of an article about a wider topic. You will waste a lot of time, if you create a new article, and then find that the encyclopedia already has an article about that.
  • Second, read how to create Your First Article and referencing for beginners and again consider if you want to go ahead.
  • Third, If you have any connection or affiliation with the subject, disclose it in accordance with our guideline on Conflict of interest. If you have been or expect to be paid for making edits, or are making them as part of your job, disclose this according to the strict rules of the Paid-contribution disclosure. This is absolutely required; omitting it can result in you being blocked from further editing.
  • Fourth, gather sources. You want independent, professionally published, reliable sources with each discussing the subject in some detail. If you can't find several such sources, stop; an article will not be created! Sources do NOT need to be online, or in English, although it is helpful if at least some are. The "independent" part is vital. Wikipedia does not consider as independent sources such as press releases, or news stories based on press releases, or anything published by the subject itself or an affiliate of the subject. Strictly local coverage is also not preferred. Regional or national newspapers or magazines, books published by mainstream publishers (not self-published), or scholarly journals are usually good. So are online equivalents of these. (Additional sources may verify particular statements but not discuss the subject in detail. But those significant detailed sources are needed first.)
  • Fifth, use the article wizard to create a draft under the articles for creation project. This is always a good idea for an inexperienced editor, but in the case of an editor with a conflict of interest it is essential.
  • Sixth, use the sources gathered before (and other sources you may find along the way) to write the article. Cite all significant statements to sources. Do not express opinions or judgements, unless they are explicitly attributed to named people or entities, preferably in a direct quotation, and cited to a source. Do not use puffery or marketing-speak. Provide page numbers, dates, authors and titles for sources to the extent these are available. A title is always needed. Submit the draaft when you thimnk it is ready for reviewq. Be prepared to wait a while for a review (several weeks or more).
  • Seventh, when (well perhaps if) your draft is declined, pay attention to the comments of the reviewer, and correct the draft and resubmit it. During this whole process, if you face any unresolvable editing hurdles, or cannot comprehend any editing issue, feel free to post a request here or at the help desk and ask the regulars. Repeat this until the draft passes review.
Congratulations, you have now created a valid Wikipedia article. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:48, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Email addressEdit

Is there some sort of a real email address that wiki has? I have found that it's a never ending circle of nothing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1005:B101:F13E:99F4:3CE:27D8:E4DF (talk) 05:18, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

It depends on exactly what your issue is. Generally what is it regarding? Does WP:CONTACT help? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 05:35, 14 December 2019 (UTC)


@AlanM1 Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas Lynn Pool (talkcontribs) 05:55, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Looking for workEdit

Help I'm looking for work! I'm something of a wiki mercenary. Is there any place I could see a list of things that need done? Thanks a lot! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:59, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, IP editor. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Community portal, where you will find enough useful work to keep you busy for many, many years to come. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:38, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:44, 14 December 2019 (UTC)


I'm trying to create my user page but it's blocked to prevent vandalism. I don't get it It's my user page, I should be able to edit it. If you could help it would be great thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:22, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, IP editor. If you want to create a userpage, then simply register an account, which will give you many other benefits as well, including genuine anonymity if you wish. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:36, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I can't get an account for private reasons. Any other tips about a profile? (Btw I'm sorry for wasting your time) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:50, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Can someone explain the privacy concern sometimes claimed as a reason for not registering an account? As you said, Cullen328, it would seem more secure, due to the IP masking. I understand the concern of using public networks, and the technique of using an alternate to avoid compromising your main account, but this is not that. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 07:35, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes, it is far more anonymous, private and secure to edit Wikipedia from a registered account than from an IP address. Simply do not disclose personal information and nobody will know who or where you are. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:41, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, you only get a User page if you register for an account. This can be done even if you are using a shared computer (school, library...). Profile-type stuff does not go on your Talk page. In reply to your previous question: "Help I'm looking for work! I'm something of a wiki mercenary.", we are all unpaid volunteers here. The amount of work is infinite. The amount of pay is zero. [Truth - some people are paid by their employers to create/edit, and some people offer Wikipedia composition work free lance, but then the whole WP:PAID thing gets involved.] Here is hoping that you find satisfaction as a volunteer editor. David notMD (talk) 13:25, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
AlanM1, they did say for private reason not privacy reasons. If that wasn't a typo, I recall an incident where some said something similar, and it turned out it was a minor whose parents had forbidden the creation of an account. May not be the situation here. S Philbrick(Talk) 18:43, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your help ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:51, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: (For the benefit of such parents reading) I guess that makes sense in the context of other platforms, where you can't edit without an account, but here, you don't need an account to edit. I suppose there could be said to be some benefit to the transient nature of some IP assignments, in that the edits aren't all easily grouped together and associated with the editor for all time. That, of course, depends on your connection – one of mine, though not technically static, remains at the same IP for months to years, last I checked. Still, if I were a parent with such a need (which I can understand), it would make more sense to disallow editing here entirely. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 23:07, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
AlanM1, It has been years, so don't hold me to it, but I think the parent's intent was to disallow editing, and they thought forbidding an account would accomplish that. S Philbrick(Talk) 23:31, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Help me!Edit

im facing a problem in contest this speedy deletion. what to do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deyga organics (talkcontribs) 09:31, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I responded to the {{help me}} on talkpage of Deyga organics, also reported at UAA. —usernamekiran(talk) 09:52, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Victor Makalala ProfileEdit

How do I set up a Profile for Victor Makalala with the below URL references? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Makalala02 (talkcontribs) 10:21, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't host profiles. We have articles about notable topics which only summarise what reliable, independent published sources have to say about a subject. If there are no such sources then we cannot have an article. Blogs are not reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 11:41, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Makalala02, firstly, he does meet the notability criteria for football players (WP:NFOOTY), as he plays in a fully professional league. This means he can have an article here.
To create one, especially if you are new, you are advised to use the article wizard, which will guide you through the steps.
If you think he should have an article, but don't want to write it, you can request one at Wikipedia:Requested articles/Sports/Association football (soccer)#Players (individual). However, there is no guarantee anyone will write one, and if they do it will not be done quickly, as everyone here is a volunteer. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 11:42, 14 December 2019 (UTC) Didn't notice the drafts existing already ~~ OxonAlex - talk 11:44, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Dave TarantoEdit

I am attempting to create a wiki-page on a artist friend. I don't know how to do it. I have details of his birth/death and easily cited facts about his career. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crashingdown Man (talkcontribs) 10:59, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Crashingdown Man. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Writing about yourself, family, friends and Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Creative professionals. If your friend is considered Wikipedia notable for an article to be written about him, then you are probably not going to be the best person to write such an article because of your connection to him. So, try to forget that he's your friend for a minute and do a little self-assessment as to whether he meets Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything. If you do that and still feel he's Wikipedia notable and should have an article written about him, try asking for assistance at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Arts and entertainment because that's were you're most likely going to find editors with experience in writing articles about artist and assessing whether a particular artist is Wikipedia notable. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:10, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
@Crashingdown Man: In addition to agreeing with the points made above, I would add that even without a 'Conflict of Interest', creating any new article from scratch, and getting it accepted is the very hardest thing anyone can do here. For a total beginner, you would also be best advised to learn the basics of how Wikipedia works before doing anything else. Simple typo or grammar correction gets you a feeling of how things function, and how we interact with one another. Nobody gets in a car and shoots off up the motorway the first time they sit behind the wheel of a vehicle; similarly, trying to create any article with no experience whatsoever is likely to lead to disappointment. The difference here is that nobody dies. So why not take our interactive tour called The Wikipedia Adventure? And then maybe read Help:Getting started, which is full of links to many elements and rules about editing the encyclopaedia. (It's worth me adding that, at a quick search, I can find nothing online about a Dave Taranto which suggests the world at large has taken note of him as an artist, so anyone wanting to create a page about this person would need to find reliable sources (not personal social media) that demonstrates he meets our notability criteria (shortcut: WP:NARTIST)) Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 11:23, 14 December 2019 (UTC)  
Thank you for your helpful feedback. I should clarify the issue a bit. Dave or David Taranto is a broadcaster, television producer and entrepreneur who helped evolve the comedy industry in Melbourne Australia. He managed the Melbourne International Comedy Festival in 1995. Comedians such as Flacco, Anthony Morgan, Bob Franklin, Peter Helliar, Rod Quantock developed their careers in Australia thanks to Dave's encouragement and promotion. I am a professional Australian comedian. A number of colleagues this week were discussing setting up a page or blog describing his work from the late 1980s to the late 1990s. Sections on his radio work and work as a promoter running the famous Cheese Shop shows in Melbourne. Potentially - and hopefully - there would be a number of contributors to the Wikipedia page. I am most certainly a beginner. However, this page would be a purely professional work, recording the history of an important player in Australian comedy. I should have spelt this out. Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crashingdown Man (talkcontribs) 12:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Hello, Crashingdown Man, and welcome to the Teahouse. What you and your colleagues are wanting to do sounds great - but it doesn't sound like something that Wikipedia does. If you, or anybody, creates an article about Taranto, it will have to conform to Wikipedia's policies. Every single thing in the article should be sourced to a reliable published source: no personal recollections, or unpublished documents, can be used. The article should be a neutral summary of the independent published sources: absolutely no interpretation or evaluation of the subject, unless summarising the interpretation or evaluation that an independent source has made. And, as with almost all Wikipedia articles, anybody may edit it. --ColinFine (talk) 13:43, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Each person who edits should create their own account, as editor accounts are for individuals. Your all having known Dave Taranto before he died would be considered a manageable conflict in interest. Key to adding content is, as ColinFine pointed out, neutral and based on published stuff, not what you all personally know. An important nuance - Wikipedia has articles, not pages, and anyone can edit. David notMD (talk) 19:01, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
@Crashingdown Man: To be more specific, if you don't mind, I'd like to point out some things in your post that might be problematic if they were to find their way into an article.
For example, helped evolve the comedy industry in Melbourne Australia and comedians such as ... developed their careers in Australia thanks to Dave's encouragement and promotion, while they might be true from your viewpoint, are looked at very carefully, and would need to be cited to multiple reliable sources that assign him this credit. Things like famous Cheese Shop shows and important player in Australian comedy are also to be avoided, per WP:PUFFERY.
With regard to setting up a page or blog describing his work, I think that's a great idea, just not here. There are lots of free solutions out there, designed for exactly this purpose, but Wikipedia is fundamentally not one of them, per WP:NOTWEBHOST. With that in mind, if you think you can create an article for the purpose of neutrally documenting what the world knows about him and would find encyclopedic, the key is to have the reliable sources to WP:CITE, both to establish his notability and for any non-trivial statements in the article. If you've got that, you'll be fine, and will likely get some help along the way here if you need it. Cheers! —[AlanM1(talk)]— 23:29, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Please read through my article Klimo LibraryEdit

Hello there! I have just finished my article and I would like to kindly ask your help. I do not trust fully in my English, so I would be thankful if someone checks the article. Thanks in advance! Bencemac (talk) 13:04, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Bencemac. I haven't had a proper read through, but I noticed there's a lot about the founder, György Klimó. You really should remove all that content about him and place it in his main article. And then you should wikilink back from his article to the library page. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:57, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Tagged with references needed. Work on refs after reducing the content about György Klimó. David notMD (talk) 21:08, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
@David notMD: I do not fully understand why these books (including monographs) are not reliable enough. They are in Hungarian, that is true, but I cannot change the fact there are no sources in English. Bencemac (talk) 18:44, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
@Bencemac: The references are OK. The problem is that paragraphs and sections of the article do not have references. If the existing references support that content, then those refs need to be used for the currently unreferenced content. David notMD (talk) 20:13, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Wholesale editingEdit

Are there any guidelines that cover the topic of "wholesale editing"? By wholesale editing I mean when an editor deletes an entire section and all of its references (or any large amount of content) with no discussion, and then inserts that same content into a completely different article. Thanks. Bitwixen (talk) 17:05, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello Bitwixen,
This would be an example of a partial merge, and the merging policy would apply.
If it is believed to be uncontroversial, discussion isn't required (and can be reverted), but there is a process for merger discussion - see the proposing a merger section of the policy. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 17:10, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Interestingly, there was a proposal for a more formal structure, but this didn't pass. See Wikipedia:Articles for merging ~~ OxonAlex - talk 17:12, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

creating pageEdit

i was practising how to learn writing wiki article in my sandbox but I did not submit it for the review. But I received a message that saying that the article i created do not complement with the guidelines of the wikipedia. I am wondering why did this happen my purpose was not publishing this article on live space of wikipedia. So how did you get notified baout it because and did not press the button called "submit this page"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uzthegeek (talkcontribs) 19:01, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

@Uzthegeek: I feel it would be best to let an administrator answer this question since they can view deleted pages. I will ping a few admins that are active here at the Teahouse: @331dot, Cullen328, and DESiegel:. You should get a response from them shortly. Interstellarity (talk) 20:26, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Uzthegeek Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. All edits to every page on Wikipedia- articles, policy pages, talk page and sandboxes- appears in the Recent changes feed which is monitored by thousands of editors. While your sandbox is not searchable by search engines, edits to it would be seen in Recent Changes. Though you recreated it yesterday. your sandbox was deleted in 2015. Your sandbox was deleted because it was a blatant advertisement. 331dot (talk) 20:32, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
As an administrator, I could read some content that you wrote about "Dreamwebhostings worlds first IT barter system". That was advertising, and that type of content is not allowed anywhere on Wikipedia. Please do not attempt to add advertising to Wikipedia again. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:49, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
The message on your user talk page about your sandbox was dated "7:58 am, 29 December 2015, Tuesday" aand applied to the sandbox as it was at that time, almost 4 years ago.
By the way yoiur userpage now describes you as freelance wikipedia editor. That phrasing could be taken to imply thatyou accept work editing Wikipedia for pay. If that is in fact that case, you must disclose that celarly as described in our paid editing policy and our Terms of Use. If you are not open to editing for pay, i advise yoiu to reword the userpage statement so that it does not carry this implication. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:01, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
@Uzthegeek: DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:03, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Searching name on WikiEdit

Hi there -

when someone searches the name "Steve McIntosh" on Wikipedia, it lists him as “American businessman.” Is it possible to change that to “American writer?”

Thanks for your help.

Ileana — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iwachtel (talkcontribs) 22:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

@Iwachtel: Is this about Steve_McIntosh? It looks like the lead sentence already mentions he is an Author. RudolfRed (talk) 22:12, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but when you search his name on the landing page of Wikipedia it says "American Businessman." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iwachtel (talkcontribs) 22:14, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

@Iwachtel: When you say "landing page of Wikipedia", I assume you mean where it did indeed say "American businessman". That's presumably because it is pulling that information from his Wikidata entry at, which I have now changed to "American author and businessman", based upon his English Wikipedia entry. Is that better? Nick Moyes (talk) 22:57, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. I have another question. I added new information on Steve McIntosh's page and saved it now it is all gone. What happened, do you know? I spent like 2 hours added updated information. Is there anywhere it is saved? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iwachtel (talkcontribs) 00:37, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Iwachtel The revisions were removed with Revision deletion by admin Sphilbrick as violatiosn of copyright, apparently being copied from You must not copy and paste text from outside sources into Wikipedia unless it is marked as a quotation (see also WP:QUOTE).
also, please sign posts here or on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). The wiki software converts this into yoru signature and a tiomestamp. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:53, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Iwachtel (talk) 01:07, 15 December 2019 (UTC)@DESiegel Gotacha. If I mark as quotation mark will they be accepted? And, if I try again,are my edits which were removed accessible anywhere? Or gone for good? Thank you for your help.

@Iwachtel: Every edit that everyone has ever made to an article can be found by clicking on the relevant date for that edit in the View History Tab. (See here) The only exception to this is where either grossly offensive comments or copyright violations have been permanently deleted. Because we take copyright violations very seriously, you'll see that those particular edits have been struck out, and aren't visible. Out of interest, do note that each saved edit change has a 'radio button' next to it. You can select any two edits and view a comparison of the differences - something that's really useful at times. So, although all your edits were reverted en masse, you can find the other ones and select content that you may wish to utilise in future edits. (see here).
But I would like to make two further suggestions in the way you edit. Firstly, please would you include an edit summary to briefly explain what changes you have made in each edit? This can be really helpful to yourself and others when you're trying to understand why an edit has been made. And secondly, I noted that you'd added or changed a small number of sub-headings. Our so-called 'Manual of Style' sets out this rule that we only capitalise the first word in headings. Unless a proper name, all subsequent words should be in lower case. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:43, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Iwachtel In this case the copied content was not, in my view, appropriate for use as a quotation, so I will not restore it nor provide a copy to you. Please do read WP:QUOTE. Note that every quotation mus have three things: 1) In-text attribution showing the speaker or writer, and usually the publication in which the quote appeared, or the occasion on which a verbal statement was made ("As John Doe wrote in Articles for Citation...") 2) The quote must be marked with quotation marks or with <blockquote>...</blockquote> tags. 3)Immediatly after the quote, there must be an inline citaton to a source where the quote appears, showing clearly who said or wrote the content. In addition, the nature of the quoted content should be such that it is better and more clearly presented as a quotation than by restating the facts. It is this last requirement which does not apply in this case, as I see it. Thus you will need to rewrite the content in your own original words, to re-include it. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 03:55, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
DESiegel, FYI, I concur with DES's excellent summary of what is needed to include as a quote. S Philbrick(Talk) 11:49, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Iwachtel (talk) 19:09, 15 December 2019 (UTC)I am back with more questions. 1. If I want to cite a blog post from a website by the person who's wiki I'm editing is that considered appropriate? 2. How do I find some of the edits I made yesterday that were removed to fix them and try to restore them? I don't see where they are stored. 4. If there is information about a person's history or personal/early life that is impossible to find a citation can that be included? 5. Does information on a website for the person's organization who's page I am editing count as an outside source? Thank you so much!!

Iwachtel (talk) 20:45, 15 December 2019 (UTC)My other question is were the other publications removed because they didn't have the proper Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). ? I will correct those and reinsert the publications if that is the only reason. Thank you.

Possible to create a page that has several sub-pages with relevant info?Edit

I'm trying to create a page that documents the worlds fastest race times for a certain athletic activity, and i feel the full data is too extensive to cover on one page. Is it possible to create one page summarizing the fastest world times with links to sub pages showing the fastest times from different world regions and competitions? Is this just a matter of simply creating several pages, publishing them, and providing links to them from the main page? I'm a novice and any assistance is much appreciated. Dragonboat Ronin (talk) 02:15, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Dragonboat Ronin. Conceptually, please think in terms of an "article" as opposed to a "page". An encyclopedia article can contain much more information than what is normally considered a "page" of information. Please read Wikipedia:Article size for good advice, including what to do when an article grows too large. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:21, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Username changeEdit

Recently I saw a user (link: who has changed usernames. I was wondering what the process is and if I could request one as well. Thanks to anyone in advance! RayDeeUx (talk) 00:09, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, RayDeeUx, and welcome to ther Teahouse. You certianly can. See Wikipedia:Changing username for detailed description and the several ways in which you can request a change. You should have your proposed new name in mind before asking. Response is usually fairly quick, hours to days. But like almost all processes heere, it is run entirely by volunteers, so the speed of respoinse varies and please be patient. Note that old signed comments will not be updateds with a new name. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:19, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Article still a Draft after weeksEdit

Hi! The article I have written on Guardian Digital is still a draft after many weeks:

Do you have any idea why it is not being published, or how long I should expect the publishing process to take?

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cereus123 (talkcontribs) 00:12, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Cereus123 You have not submitted the draft (not yet an article for reveiw by the Articels for Creation process. It will not be reveiwed or moved to the main article spacve by a reviewer until or unless you do this (or someone else does it).
You can do this by adding {{subst:submit|Cereus123}} to the top of the draft.
However, if submitted and reviewed as it now stands, the draft would surely be rejected. This is because it cites only two sources, and one of those is by the marketing director of Mautic, and so is not Independent. There must be multiple published independant reliable sources, usually at least three, that discuss the topic in some detail to demonstrate notability which is required. See our guideline for the notability of buisnesses. At least two more like the Bloomberg article would be needed.
Once submitted, by the way, there may be a significant wait. The pool of drafts awaiting reveiw is now over 3,700 deep. Two month delays are common.
In addition, the draft at presaent reads as rather promotional, text such as uccessfully solving a universal problem with cohesive, centrally hosted open-source solutions. The company’s transparent, collaborative approach to software development fosters passionate community participation, rapid innovation and thorough review of code. simply does not belong here. Wikipedia articles must be neutral and factual. They must not express opnions, evaluations or judgements unless those are clearly attributed to a named pereson or entity, in a statemetn cited inline.
Do you have any connection with Guardian Digital, Cereus123? If you do please decalre it in compliance with our conflict of interest guideline.
I hope all this is helpful. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:44, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Hello, Cereus123, and welcome to the Teahouse. You have not yet submitted Draft:Guardian Digital for review, so nothing will happen to it until you do. I have added a header to the draft so that you can submit when it is ready. However, it is not ready. It reads like an advertising pitch, not like an encylopaedia article. Wikipedia has no interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say: it is only interested in what independent sources have said about it. I don't know whether the Bloomberg reference is independent or not: it won't let me open it. But the Mautic one is evidently based on interviews, and so is not independent. You've also not formatted the section headings properly, but that is a superficial issue: the sourcing and tone are crucial issues. Did you read your first article before embarking on the very difficult task of creating a new encyclopaedia article in Wikipedia? --ColinFine (talk) 00:46, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Stopping page vandalismEdit

I'm looking at an article (for politician Jeff Van Drew that seems like it's being vandalized. I see that someone has already listed it on Wikipedia:Requests for Page Protection - just wondering if there's a way to know what the status of a request like that is, or if there's something I can do to help things along. Surrogami (talk) 00:27, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Surrogami, and welcome to the Teahouse. I looked at the page history, and I have declined the request for page protection. This is not vandalism, this is a content dispute between people apparently editing in good faith. It seems that there is some rumor or report of Van Drew switching parties, but it has not yet been officially confirmed. Whether this should be included in the article depends on thr quality of the sources that support such a statement. In any case, several of those making this change are registered users, and semi-protection only stops non-registerd (or non-autoconfirmed) editors from changing the article. This will be a matter of article talk page discussion, it seems. I will post to the talk page, Talk:Jeff Van Drew, as I see you have already done. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:09, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Please be careful in using the term "vandalism". It should not be used for any edit or action where the intent was to improve the encyclopedia, even if incorrect, or misguided, or agaisnt policy. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:09, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, DESiegel. Since I see that there is a recent good faith editing exchange in the body of the article text (where someone responded with sources and some language was changed), I want to clarify that I'm not asking about that. It's the simple change to Van Drew's party listing, which has been done and undone several times. Many people have undone this change with comments explaining that he has not officially changed parties, only to have the same edit made again within minutes without any engagement. It seems silly to just keep doing this every five minutes. Surrogami (talk) 01:50, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Indeed it is silly, Surrogami but it isn't strictly speaking vandalism, and some of tht is beign done by registered editors also. I've jsut posted to the talk page, and will take further steps. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:52, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
I see what you're saying about vandalism DESiegel, and thanks for your help. Surrogami (talk) 02:09, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Take a look at Talk:Jeff Van Drew now or try to edit the article, Surrogami, to see my solution. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 02:52, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Question about proper citationEdit

Hello, I'm attempting to add a second sentence to follow the single sentence which currently resides under the "Uses" section of the Methylphenidate page. The sentence I'd like to add is as follows:

"According to the American Society of Clinical Oncology, methylphenidate may also be used to manage severe cancer-related fatigue in adult patients with advanced disease or in patients receiving active cancer treatment."

I already know how to add this, however, I'm confused about how to add my citation such that it appears in the References section at the end of the page & is hyperlinked by a numbered superscript at the end of my sentence. I'd greatly appreciate any explanation as to how I should do this. The following URL is my source, which also gives the citation of the article: — Preceding unsigned comment added by ConduitPharmacy (talkcontribs) 04:05, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, ConduitPharmacy, Please seee Referencing for beginners and Citing sources on how to format citations in general. In this specific case, i would insert the following:
<ref>{{cite journal |url= |doi=10.1200/JCO.2013.53.4495 |date=June 10, 2014 |title=Screening, Assessment, and Management of Fatigue in Adult Survivors of Cancer: An American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline Adaptation |first1=Julienne E. |last1=Bower |first2=Kate |last2=Bak Ann Berger |first3=William |last3=Breitbart |first4=Carmelita P. |last4=Escalante |first5=Patricia A. |last5=Ganz |first6=Hester Hill |last6=Schnipper |first7=Christina |last7=Lacchetti |first8=Jennifer A. |last8=Ligibel |first9=Gary H. |last9=Lyman |first10=Mohammed S. |last10=Ogaily |first11=William F. |last11=Pirl |first12=Paul B. |last12=Jacobsen |work=[[Journal of Clinical Oncology]] |volume=32 |issue=17 |publisher=American Society of Clinical Oncology |pmc=4039870 |pmid=24733803 }}</ref>
which would render like this.[1]


  1. ^ Bower, Julienne E.; Bak Ann Berger, Kate; Breitbart, William; Escalante, Carmelita P.; Ganz, Patricia A.; Schnipper, Hester Hill; Lacchetti, Christina; Ligibel, Jennifer A.; Lyman, Gary H.; Ogaily, Mohammed S.; Pirl, William F.; Jacobsen, Paul B. (June 10, 2014). "Screening, Assessment, and Management of Fatigue in Adult Survivors of Cancer: An American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline Adaptation". Journal of Clinical Oncology. American Society of Clinical Oncology. 32 (17). doi:10.1200/JCO.2013.53.4495. PMC 4039870. PMID 24733803.
I added the PMCID and PMID to the cite above, since it hasn't been inserted in the article yet. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 05:29, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

The thing about my draft...Edit

Right, so I made a draft about this obscure mobile game, Russian Rider Online. I first asked if anyone know about it on my user talk page and got no response. So I go ahead and make the article about Russian Rider Online and it gets rejected not long after I submitted it. I even included a reference in there (and by reference I mean a link to it on the App Store because I don’t know how to cite). Is it because that many people don’t know about it, because it’s so obscure? I mean, it can’t be that unknown, right?

SgtMikhail (talk) 05:45, 15 December 2019 (UTC)SgtMikhail

Hello, SgtMikhail, and welcome to the Teahouse. There are several issues here.
  • First, just posting at your own talk page when you haven't been in conversation with anyone particular on the the topic is like mailing aletter to yourself. No one else is likely to see it, so the lack of response doesn't mean much. One might ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject Games, but that doesn't seem to be very active.
  • Second, while Wikipedia does have many articles on topics not very well known, all topics must be notable. Thius usually means that there must be multiple independent published reliable sources that discuss the topic in some depth. Your link to the AppStore isn't independant, because they distribute the fame, and in any case is only a passing mention. Now if ther were several published reviews of the game, not from fansites or blogs or fora or wikis, then those mighyt demonstrate notability. In this case the reviewer belived that there were no such sources to be found. which is why the draft was rejected, not just declined. The reviewer is saying that you would be wasting your own time, and that of future possible reviewers, by trying again. If you seriously disagree, try to find at least three independent reliable sources that discuss the game in detail. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 07:01, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
More geneerally, when creating a new article, you nneed to be careful and diligent. Here are some steps which, if followed carefully, often lead to success:
  • First, review our guideline on notability, our policy on Verifiability, and our general notability guideline (GNG). Consider whether your subject clearly meets the standards listed there. Also, check if the topic is already covered, perhaps under a different spelling or in a section of an article about a wider topic. You will waste a lot of time, if you create a new article, and then find that the encyclopedia already has an article about that.
  • Second, read how to create Your First Article and referencing for beginners and again consider if you want to go ahead.
  • Third, If you have any connection or affiliation with the subject, disclose it in accordance with our guideline on Conflict of interest. If you have been or expect to be paid for making edits, or are making them as part of your job, disclose this according to the strict rules of the Paid-contribution disclosure. This is absolutely required; omitting it can result in you being blocked from further editing.
  • Fourth, gather sources. You want independent, professionally published, reliable sources with each discussing the subject in some detail. If you can't find several such sources, stop; an article will not be created! Sources do NOT need to be online, or in English, although it is helpful if at least some are. The "independent" part is vital. Wikipedia does not consider as independent sources such as press releases, or news stories based on press releases, or anything published by the subject itself or an affiliate of the subject. Strictly local coverage is also not preferred. Regional or national newspapers or magazines, books published by mainstream publishers (not self-published), or scholarly journals are usually good. So are online equivalents of these. (Additional sources may verify particular statements but not discuss the subject in detail. But those significant detailed sources are needed first.)
  • Fifth, use the article wizard to create a draft under the articles for creation project. This is always a good idea for an inexperienced editor, but in the case of an editor with a conflict of interest it is essential.
  • Sixth, use the sources gathered before (and other sources you may find along the way) to write the article. Cite all significant statements to sources. Do not express opinions or judgements, unless they are explicitly attributed to named people or entities, preferably in a direct quotation, and cited to a source. Do not use puffery or marketing-speak. Provide page numbers, dates, authors and titles for sources to the extent these are available. A title is always needed. Submit the draaft when you thimnk it is ready for reviewq. Be prepared to wait a while for a review (several weeks or more).
  • Seventh, when (well perhaps if) your draft is declined, pay attention to the comments of the reviewer, and correct the draft and resubmit it. During this whole process, if you face any unresolvable editing hurdles, or cannot comprehend any editing issue, feel free to post a request here or at the help desk and ask the regulars. Repeat this until the draft passes review.
Congratulations, you have now created a valid Wikipedia article. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 07:01, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Editing an Infobox TemplateEdit

Hi fellow Wikipedians, I want to edit the following infobox template. In the source of the page I can see the items numbered, like label1, label2, label3 and so on. If I want to add something in between the list, I have to increment all the labels below by +1. Is there any automatic way to do the task.--Sanyam.wikime (talk) 07:13, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Sanyam.wikime, and welcome to the Teahouse. Not that the edit notice on Template:Infobox India university ranking says, in significant part:
Do not add new rankings to the template without discussing them on the talk page, or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Education in India.
So please discuss your planned changes before worring about hopw to implement them.
If you did implement them I strongly suspect that manual renumbering would be needed. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 07:29, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
It's at label96 now. You could copy and paste the content into a file on your box. and create a one-liner script in the direction of for I=96 to x by -1 do; for S in "header", "label", "data" do; replace S || I by S || (I + 1); end; end;, and copy the edited content back if it looks good. Number x would be the place where you want to insert a new header or label. This template looks horrible, definitely discuss it on its talk page first. Porting it from the template to the module namespace might be better. – (talk) 08:00, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

What is the history and origin (and what is the meaning of it's name)...Edit

...of the city/town of unknown (2 of them, near each other) in Switzerland? It is located on Google Earth maps, but when I zoom in there is nothing there except that a road runs through one. No where else have I received any info about this town (including Google). Perhaps someone who has lived a long time in that country would have some knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:31, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Are you asking about a particular article? 331dot (talk) 13:34, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Hello IP editor. The information on Google maps is not always correct, but the Teahouse is here to help people actually edit Wikipedia, not to answer general questions. It sounds like your best bet is to ask the good folk over at our Reference Desk who love answering obscure or random questions like this one. But they're not mind-readers either, so you'll have to give them a url link to Google maps to work from! Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:20, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

publishing first articleEdit

hi, I have read in certain blogs that I need to edit 10 articles in order to publish an article on wikipedia, is that true? and also, how will I be informed that the articles i edited is confirmed and I can publish my own article on wikipedia? Is it possible to publish my own article without editing 10 wiki article? thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uzthegeek (talkcontribs) 15:08, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello Uzthegeek,
The first thing everyone gets told here, is that creating an entirely new article is possibly the hardest task on Wikipedia.
Users with less than 10 edits over four days have to have their articles reviewed by wp:Articles for Creation, where experienced editors check over them for you. It is true that after 10 edits you can publish an article directly, however, it will still be reviewed, but by a different set of users. It is recommended that new users use articles for creation, even if they don't technically have to, until they have a good understanding about policies.
Should you wish to start writing an article, you are also advised to follow the wp:article wizard, which guides you through the process. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 15:29, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Note that you have already had 10 edits over 4 days. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 15:30, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

you mean i have had edited 10 articles by now and i can publish my own article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uzthegeek (talkcontribs) 15:39, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but as you were told above, we recommend against that. 331dot (talk) 15:42, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
@Uzthegeek: For File:Mike_donilon.jpg I suggest to add a {{Db-self}} deletion request, unless you can release this photo under a free licence. On enwiki fair use isn't possible for non-free photos of living people. – (talk) 16:12, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

How to delete a 'Draft Rejected' message?Edit

I recently had an article rejected, and I have a new article prepared. How do I get rid of the 'Draft Rejected' message on my talk page and does recently having an article rejected disable your ability to submit an article to be published? Thenorthgoingzax (talk) 15:37, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Thenorthgoingzax Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You can simply edit your user talk page to remove the notice. Having one draft rejected does not affect your ability to submit another or to fix the issues with that draft and resubmit it. 331dot (talk) 15:44, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Article wrong.Edit

This Flag Semaphore article Flag_semaphore Has pictures illustrating the different letters from the Latin alphabet in flag form, the problem is, a few of them are completely different to other graphs I've found. One Google image search gives me a consistant graph of flag semaphores and whilst they are all the same as each other a good third of the letters are completely different from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:A04D:7400:C54A:A65D:7775:1DA5 (talk) 16:39, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Why do you think the Wikipedia article is wrong and not the other page?
  • Did you consider a possibility that both are correct (but maybe one of them is e.g. outdated)?
  • What is that other page?
CiaPan (talk) 16:51, 15 December 2019 (UTC)