Open main menu

Wikipedia:Teahouse

  (Redirected from Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions)

Contents

Most recent archives
887, 888, 889, 890, 891, 892, 893, 894, 895, 896, 897, 898, 899, 900, 901, 902, 903, 904, 905, 906

Tracking down items in my WatchlistEdit

I just found this

20 January 2019
(Deletion log); 04:58  Drmies (talk | contribs) changed visibility of 3 revisions on page Wikipedia:Teahouse: edit summary hidden ‎(RD2: Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material)
(Deletion log); 04:57  Drmies (talk | contribs) changed visibility of a revision on page Wikipedia:Teahouse: content hidden and username hidden ‎(RD2: Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material)
(Deletion log); 04:57  Anna Frodesiak (talk | contribs) changed visibility of a revision on page Wikipedia:Teahouse: content hidden, edit summary hidden and username hidden ‎(RD2: Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material)
(Deletion log); 04:57  Anna Frodesiak (talk | contribs) changed visibility of a revision on page Wikipedia:Teahouse: content hidden, edit summary hidden and username hidden ‎(RD2: Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material)

and would like to follow up on what it means, but I haven't found a way to gain access to the material. Have tried various ways of searching the Wikipedia:Teahouse page (by RD2, by Drmies, and by date).

Could someone please give this newbie a step-by-step guide?

cheers Tarkiwi25 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarkiwi25 (talkcontribs) 20:28, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

The idea of changing the visibility is so that you can't gain access to the material. Only administrators can see the information which has been deleted. The relevant part of the article history shows that the edits in question took place, but the material which was deemed to meet revision deletion criterion RD2 is now not visible to normal editors. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:48, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi Tarkiwi25. As above, the content is hidden so you can't see it, but if you want a more direct way of viewing the history of revision deletions and other actions taken with respect to any given page, navigate to it logs, e.g., here are the logs for the Teahouse, and here are the logs for it restricted just to deletions. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:41, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you both for your responses. I can't imagine what was "grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive" and would never intentionally have written anything of the sort so I'm deeply troubled by those deletions. The idea of making the material invisible seems a bit ominous. I did obviously look at the history of edits, and it seems that these deletions connected with something I added to the page. So I'm still looking for the explanation with regard to the deletions themselves. Fuhghettaboutit, I will try your links. And this time I'll remember to sign my post and complete the publishing process. Tarkiwi25 (talk) 19:37, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

OK, yes, I had gone to the log, but had no joy of it. I'd tried filling in the blanks but got no response. I'll keep at it, and thanks again for responding. --Tarkiwi25 (talk) 19:41, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

@Tarkiwi25: Hahaha! I'm sorry Tarkwi, but this is hysterical. I hope after reading this you'll find it funny too (maybe also a bit relieved). I – and I'm 99.99% certain David Biddulph also – thought that you asked your question out of curiosity, because if we thought you didn't know how watchlists work, and understood that you were worried about why your edit had been hidden, as flagged as grossly offensive, etc., we would have relieved you of your misapprehension. Tarkiwi25: this had nothing, NOTHING, NOTHING , NOTHING NOTHING NOTHING to do with you! You watchlisted this page, just like me and a few thousand other people have watchlisted it. Every one of us who has this page on our watchlists has the edits that are made to this page pop up on our watchlists when made. Every one of us—the few thousand people mind you—if we looked at our watchlist at the right time, would have seen that revisions had been hidden for "grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive" edits, just like you did. The edits at issue were made by some bored, likely male adolescent who giggles when bodily parts are mentioned. He added a bunch of vulgarities and sexually explicit nonsense to this page, after choosing a vulgar account name. That user was quickly indefinitely blocked and the vulgar edits hidden. And you've been sitting here all this time thinking that because you saw the revision on your watchlist, the edits in question were somehow about your edits! Sorry, but, LMAO.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:53, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, this just confirms my sense that I'm some circle of hell where I'm doomed to be repeating episodes of my earlier life. That is, it is now appropriate for me to say that I am only here to amuse you. (As I once found myself saying in French at the local greengrocer's where the radish was so big that I didn't recognize it for a radish and rejected it saying that I didn't feel like cooking that night. The French family behind the counter, by then many months into finding me bemusing if not amusing, looked at me and started laughing. Recently I have learned that in fact there are recipes that involve cooking radishes. And their greens. So take that, you French grocers!--OK, never mind, that was a longwinded story in an attempt to be both clear and amusing. Or rather to continue to amuse you.)

OK, I know I have some setting ticked for watchlisting. Are you saying that some git messed up the Ann B. Ross page and that's what got picked up? Or is it this teachouse (how's that for an apt typo) that got messed up and some bot/person caught the offensive material? I'm guessing the latter, but if so I don't understand why what I copied at the beginning of all this would have appeared on the Ann B. Ross editing history page.

Either way, yes, I am relieved.

I also understand what "meta" means and the sort of infrastructure necessary for Wikipedia to function. But I'm also finding it surprisingly difficult to navigate the complexities of this infrastructure. Lots of rabbit holes, when what I want to be doing is editing as well as creating a page or two. I'm in New Zealand and we have a Wikipedian-at-large who's trying to boost NZ's representation within Wikipedia.

Erm, could I impose upon you from time to time with direct queries? If I can figure out how to do that? My initial queries in this teahouse went unanswered, so ... well, this looks like too good an opportunity to pass up. (By way of being a thank you for helping me to understand some part of the chaos.)

Btw, given your user name, would you happen to be from/in Noo Joisey? cheers,--Tarkiwi25 (talk) 03:52, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

  • @Tarkiwi25: Noo JAW-saY? Fuhgedaboutit! They're just the imitation Brooklyn, where I'm from.
  • Well, what exactly did you think the mutant radish was?
  • Please drop directly by my talk page anytime at all, to ask any specific question you have whatever.
  • I don't know what you mean about Ann B. Ross? Since I see you made some edits to that page, I assume you also have it watchlisted, but none of the hidden edits have anything to do with that page. Are you understanding that edits made to all page you have watschlisted show up in your watchlist together, ordered by the time they were made? I'm guessing that, here, when you looked at your watchlist, you saw an innocuous change to Anne B. Ross in your watchlist, right above or below the hiding of an edit to this page, and didn't notice that they were two separate entries on your watchlist—no edit made to Ann B. Ross by anyone has ever been hidden.

    Anyway, what happened here was that a user who was not an administrator noticed a bunch of spree vandalism being made to this page; they reported the user to WP:AIV for a block and in the meanwhile, reverted their edits a few times; an adminstrator came along and indefinitely blocked the user and revision deleted the history; when you came back to your watchlist, you saw the log of the revision deletions in the history of this page, because you have the Teahouse watchlisted. Though we do try to deny recognition to vandals, because they feed off of reaction – the worst thing you can do to them to defeat their whole purpose in vandalizing is to simply block them with no reaction; when they look for the reaction, their edits are just gone and their account locked; no muss no fuss – but it's no big deal to tell you more specifically what was hidden on January 20. First, here's the log of the indefinite block. See the vulgar username? Now you know why the name of the user was hidden, not just their edits. And the edits were things like adding under the headline "Would anyone like to suck my [0[K?" this darling little post: "Would anyone like to suck on my [0[k tonight? It's getting long and hard." In sum, just a bored 14 year old looking for a reaction.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:43, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Re List of Thermal Conductivities and Featured List CriteriaEdit

Greetings Everyone:

When I looked it up I noticed that a good list is supposed to have an engaging lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria and then when I tried to do that another editor said that I was "off topic" and also that I was expressing "personal opinions." He reverted my edit (January 14) and now in retrospect it seems that my way of trying to introduce a subject and a scope had really been clumsy.

I don't know how to talk about the very different programs of editors who would make two different kinds of lists in the same article (in the particular case there seems to be one of them who would do ANYTHING to make a sortable list of answers to everything and the other one would do ANYTHING to sort out the questions) without inviting someone to say that you're off topic and worse yet that everything you say is your opinions and maybe I will come back to that again but right now it occurs to me that the reasons why I bothered to look for any finalities to start with and also why I eventually added things that can never get finished (and such things could eventually get involved with tectonic activity and wherever the hills came from) could be clarified some by posting a landscape painting with some rocks and some trees or maybe a photograph with some plutons in Arizona, for examples, or both.

I don't know how to do that nor whether it is allowed and all of this is about the List of Thermal Conductivities and I would be inclined to maybe post a photograph which I took in Arizona and I couldn't care less about any copyright on it and if I post the landscape painting then it would be my own artwork. It occurs to me that I might want enough of a copyright on that to make my name go with it wherever it goes... maybe.

Can someone tell me whether a right to get credit on the artwork would be practical (its fine with me if everyone wants to copy it and hang it in their living rooms) and may I upload an artwork and or a photograph and post it at the top of the article?

Also I don't yet know how to do that.Patriot1423 (talk) 08:33, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

@Patriot1423: I didn't fully understand what you are asking, but have reformatted your question to help others read bits of it more easily. In answer to your later questions, if you upload to Wikimedia Commons a photo you took, you always retain ownership and the right to be credited for it, even though you'll have granted permanent permission for others to re-use that image. i.e. it's a condition of the CC-BY-SA licence that you are credited as the photographer. That said, you should never put the photographer's name in the caption for a photo inserted into a Wikipedia article. By clicking the image, the hyperlink back to Wikimedia Commons is what gives the photographer the credit for that work. Is that what you were asking about? Nick Moyes (talk) 13:15, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you Nick and the cc-by-sa-4.0 deal is good and I put up a photograph to illustrate the scope of the list. You might have noticed that I had several questions heaped up and I might get back to another one later but right now what would help is if I could post more than one photograph without putting one of them one of them on top of the other. Is that possible? Can I put photographs where I want them?Patriot1423 (talk) 07:12, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi Patriot1423. You can learn more about adding images to articles from Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images. While an image's copyright status is important, you also should remember that Wikipedia articles are not really intended to be image galleries. Link textual content, you can be bold in adding images; however, another editor can be just as bold in removing them. If such a thing happens, you may need to follow Wikipedia:Bold, revert, discuss cycle and establish a consensus for adding the images on the article's talk page. Uploading an image to Commons doesn't automatically guarantee that image will be or should be used in a Wikipedia article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:27, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
@Marchjuly; Yes I noticed that Wikipedia is not an art gallery and that is one of the reasons why I started out with a photograph instead of an artwork. Also I noticed that that is not going to guarantee anything and maybe there are some people who would think that a list of thermal conductivites should have a steam iron instead of some plutons in Arizona. If so then I will look up the link that you mentioned. Thanks for the information and the links.Patriot1423 (talk) 01:10, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello again Teahouse. thanks for all your help and I just noticed that the List of Thermal Conductivities which lined up in Google Chrome does not line up right in Microsoft Edge. For example the Ice section is out of alignment in Microsoft Edge. Would anyone have any advice on how to get the listed conductivities to line up on every browser? (I don't know the syntax of the table and I only learned how to get things up on it by trial and error).Patriot1423 (talk) 23:40, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

How does a 'draft' article get published?Edit

Hello Teahouse, You certainly have been very helpful to many people. Thank you. I have a question for you. I have recently drafted an article title "Sacred Attention Therapy". How does a 'draft' article become a 'published' article? I have tried to find an article (or articles) on Wikipedia about this subject and I cannot find any. At this early stage it feels like a mystery as to how a draft article becomes published. Any insight and/or experience you can share would be greatly appreciated. --RobMeagherSAT (talk) 00:16, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, RobMeagherSAT. Please read and study Your first article for an excellent overview of how to write an acceptable Wikipedia article, and also read Articles for Creation for information about how to get a draft reviewed. As for your draft, a Wikipedia article should summarize what reliable sources independent of the topic say about the topic. Your draft seems to be based largely on the work of Harvey and people closely associated with his project. Then, you have a few refererences published long before Harvey began his work, which are of no value in establishing the notaby of this topic. In my opinion, your draft needs a complete rewrite before it should be submitted, to focus on summarizing what sources completely independent of Sacred Attention Therapy write about it. That's how Wikipedia works. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:26, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello Teahouse. Thank you very much for your helpful comments. I appreciate it. I have read 'Your first article' numerous times. The reference to 'Article for Creation' was helpful and provided me with some of the information I was looking for; so thank you! Regarding your sharing about reliable sources in the current draft. Five (5) of the 15 sources are reliable sources that are completely 'independent' of Sacred Attention Therapy. These five (5) sources are not from people close to the topic/project. Eight (8) of the references are from verifiable, reliable sources published by Richard Harvey. Is it okay to have 'some' references to Richard Harvey's work? Or should I remove all of them? Two (2) of the references are to works by author's (yes, long before Richard Harvey began his work) that support something stated in the article. Are they really of no value? I really appreciate your feedback, Teahouse. It has taken me weeks to find someone who is knowledgeable enough and willing to help. --RobMeagherSAT (talk) 20:18, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, RobMeagherSAT, it is OK to have some references to Primary sources, but they can be used in limited ways, and only a small part of the content of the article should be derived from them. Wikipedia generally isn't interested in what the subject of an article, or people closely involved with the subject, say or want to say about that subject. By far the greater part of any article should be derived from independent sources; and if there are not enough independent sources to ground an article, then by definition, the subject does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability.
I recommend you read again the policies on NPOV, Verifiability, and PUFFERY before you submit your draft for review. --ColinFine (talk) 22:05, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello ColinFine. Thank you for your very helpful comments. Based on your helpful comments, I think I will remove all the references for Richard Harvey, and the two references to authors before Richard Harvey began his work. That will leave me with 5 verifiable resources. In your experience, is 5 verifiable references enough to make it 'notable'? If not, how many are needed? Is there a hard and fast rule for this? Thank you also for the links to the NPOV, Verifiability and PUFFERY articles. I have reviewed those. May I ask you some other questions?--RobMeagherSAT (talk) 01:28, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
The draft was a blatant copyright violation from this pdf and other sources and has been deleted accordingly.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:56, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Different personEdit

Greetings - I think I am doing something wrong when I try to get Help from other Wiki contributors. I post items at my Talk link, with the usual "signature", and then I never hear anything, ever, even after a year or more (see the Seauton Talk, if it is available to logged-in Wiki people). What am I doing wrong? For example, I needed help putting an image into a Hungarian wikipedia page, so I posted a request for help at my Talk page. No response, after months of waiting. I must be doing something wrong. Please help. Thanks (in advance).

Seauton (talk) 01:39, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Your Talk is for other editors to send you messages, not for you to post questions.David notMD (talk) 02:32, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello Seauton and welcome to the teahouse. You can use the {{Help me}} on your talk page and then add your question. Another way to deal with this is to add {{Request edit}} to the talk page of the article which you wish to add the picture to. In either case you will recieve a reply but it may not be immeadiate as editors and admins are busy around here. One more thing if the article in question is on the "Hungarian Wikipedia" rather than this one you will have to make your request there. The English language WikiP is not involved with other language Wikis. MarnetteD|Talk 02:48, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Seauton, on Hungarian Wikipedia use {{Segély}} rather than {{Help me}}. —teb728 t c 04:18, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

This was very helpful, and a few other users responded also with helpful suggestions. Thank you.

Seauton (talk) 02:00, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Need help with Arbitration (Don't want to Edit War)Edit

I'm having an issue with another editor on this page: RDF/XML. It started when I noticed a reference that looked to me like a blog article. It turned out to be a dead link but I found it on Wayback and it was a self published blog article and hence not a valid reference for the claim. I deleted the claim and the reference. Another editor added the claim back with a second reference which was also a self published blog. I have issues both with the claim itself (not so much that I don't agree there are serious issues with RDF/XML but I think the claim about "many users choosing other formats" is vague and unencyclopedic. But mainly I think neither of those blog articles, both by people who clearly have an agenda, are good references. The other editor has essentially been ignoring my detailed comments in the Talk page (see the section "Claims at end of Intro" here: Talk:RDF/XML and just insulted me instead. Rather than revert his change yet again (I think that would get to Edit War status) I thought now was the time to bring it to some sort of arbitration. I looked up wp:arbitration but I seem to recall there is something less drastic that people usually try first, something called a request for a 3rd party or something, but I couldn't find that page. Looking for some guidance on how best to deal with this, thanks. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 00:36, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi MadScientistX11. Without having actually looked at the details of the dispute itself mind you, the page you're alluding to is Wikipedia:Third opinion, but see more generally Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, which will tell you about that option, and others. Meanwhile, from what you said, it sounds like the most important policy section to know and cite is WP:BURDEN – a subsection of the verifiability policy that provides that any fact in an article may be challenged (for example, by a talk page post) and removed and it may not be returned to an article without the person providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the fact, with the burden to do so being on the proponent of keeping in the disputed fact, and not on the challenger to prove the negative. Here, given your premises, the issue appears to devolve on whether the source being cited is reliable. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 08:34, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Fuhghettaboutit That is what I needed. Nice to hear from you, I used to answer questions here a lot a while ago but then had to cut back due to health issues. Anyway, thanks for the response, that was just what I was looking for. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 16:12, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Without having actually looked at the details of the dispute itself Don't you think that might have been useful?
Here's the ref itself: Tennison, Jeni (15 August 2007). "Things that make me scream: RDF "QNames"". Note the bluelink to the author's name. Note the OBE after her name, for services to this subject. Yes, it's a blog post. But it's also a blog post by someone who meets Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources exactly as described. But hey, MadScientist has used Protege a bit, so they're definitely the expert on all this.
Maybe we could ask Aaron, another one who was there at the outset of this? – but WP has hatcheted that article so that it now only resembles the Hollywood version of the story. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:42, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
No, there was no need. I addressed my post the the premises as given. Having now looked at the page, I would leave exactly the same post.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:29, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Changing main photo in an entryEdit

The portrait image in the entry for David Hartley (philosopher) is actually of his son, David Hartley (the Younger). There are images of David Hartley, the philosopher, in Wikipedia Commons. How do I replace the existing image with the correct one? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RCA48 (talkcontribs) 15:35, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, RCA48.
Step 1. Go to Commons and find the appropriate category. This may be accomplished by scrolling down the article to the External links section and clicking the link in the "Wikimedia Commons has media related to David Hartley (1705-1757)." frame at the right side. You should land at c:Category:David Hartley (1705-1757).
Step 2. Chosse appropriate image, say c:file:Portrait of D. Hartley, 17thC Wellcome L0002618.jpg.
Step 3. Store its name somewhere: Portrait of D. Hartley, 17thC Wellcome L0002618.jpg.
Step 4. Go back to the article, scroll to the top and click the Edit this page link.
Step 5. Find the beginning of the {{Infobox philosopher}} template (close to the top of the page) and the parameter image in it. Replace the value with the stored file name.
Step 6. Supply a relevant edit summary (say, 'replaced the portrait with the correct one' or something) and click Show preview.
Step 7. Review the result and click Publish changes.
Done. :) CiaPan (talk) 15:52, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

@RCA48: Good work on replacing the image! --   CiaPan (talk) 16:49, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! RCA48 —Preceding undated comment added 16:54, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Do you know of someone who can help me write article?Edit

Hello Teahouse, I am new to Wikipedia. I am in the process of drafting an article (Draft:Sacred Attention Therapy). My early efforts suggest/indicate I may benefit from having an experienced editor (?) or someone who has published some article/pages (?) help me write the article. I have read many articles on Wikipedia about how to write articles (some were helpful, some were not) and I have received a lot of feedback so far (some helpful, some not). But I think I would benefit most from having someone to work with. Do you know of anyone who would be interested in helping me write the article? Or is there somewhere/someone I can ask if anyone is interested in helping me? --RobMeagherSAT (talk) 16:37, 13 February 2019 (UTC)been

You first submitted a draft article on this topic in 2015, so 'new' does not apply. David notMD (talk) 19:37, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment David notMD. Do you know of anyone who would be interested in helping me write the article? Or is there somewhere/someone I can ask if anyone is interested in helping me?--RobMeagherSAT (talk) 23:51, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Not me. My point was be honest. Good luck. David notMD (talk) 04:23, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi RobMeagherSAT. You can try posting a request at Wikipedia:Requested articles. You could also check to see if there's WikiProject which deals with the subject you want to write about and asking for assistance on the project's talk page. Just going by the name of the draft and your username, it appears that you might be connected in some way to the subject matter. That doesn't mean that you cannot write an article about this subject, but it does mean that you're going to be expected to do so in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines.
Since the draft has been deleted per WP:G12 by an adminstrator named Fuhghettaboutit, you might want to review Wikipedia:Your first article, Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide, Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources and Wikipedia:Notability before attempting to recreate it.
FWIW, one of the main reasons articles are deleted seems to be that the subject doesn't appear to be sufficiently Wikipedia notable enough for a stand-alone article to be written in the first place; in other words, it lacks the significant coverage in independent and secondary reliable sources expected for a Wikipedia article. So, if you can establish that such coverage exists, then someone might be willing to try and write an article; if not, then you're going to have a hard time finding someone to even want to try. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:04, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Accuracy of InformationEdit

Namaste,

This is Sanjay Raturi from Rishikesh, India.

Does WikiPedia allow us to edit the content which is not correct by its accuracy or numerical data?

There may be so many mistakes in data and I can see them as I am local in Rishikesh.

Kindly allow me to {edit} the knowledge.

Thanks! Sanjay Raturi https://yogainrishikesh.in/

--Yogainrishikesh (talk) 17:12, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Yogainrishikesh, You can edit any page by pressing the edit button at the top. Do you need help with a specific page? WelpThatWorked (talk) 18:03, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Appears you made 12 edits to Rishikesh, most/all of which have been reversed. The place to discuss this is at the Talk page of the article. David notMD (talk) 19:24, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia requires WP:Reliable sources for information that you add. Your own personal knowledge should not be added unless you can confirm it by adding appropriate citations. You should not add your own website. Dbfirs 20:01, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Adding ImagesEdit

How do we add images? I know “fair use” won’t do. How do we add images properly? I’m not used to adding images like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IdeaFan128 (talkcontribs) 17:59, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

IdeaFan128, what in question are you trying to add? WelpThatWorked (talk) 18:02, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
I want to add the cover to Mega Man (Archie Comics), but I can’t find a way to do it. I’ve tried sending a release notice and nothing works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IdeaFan128 (talkcontribs) 18:04, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
IdeaFan128, fair use is acceptable in this case: see WP:NFCI and WP:NFCC. Basically, you just need to upload a fairly low-resolution version of the cover and tag it appropriately (the upload wizard will help with this). Eman235/talk 22:56, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Identifying which sources enable subject to meet WP:GNGEdit

Hello, i am attempting to publish the following page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jeff_Ayeroff https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Symphony19#Your_submission_at_Articles_for_creation%3A_Jeff_Ayeroff_%28February_13%29

I feel that i have supplied reliable sources (Los Angeles Times, Rolling Stone, Billboard, New York Post, etc.) but have nonetheless been denied, with the comment: "Please identify which sources enable him to meet WP:GNG"" I am unclear how i would specifically identify that within the editor and/or why these sources are inadequate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Symphony19 (talkcontribs) 18:11, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Symphony19. Basically, for WP:GNG interviews with the subject and bare mentions won't help much. Since this is a WP:BLP New York Post (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources) may not be seen as having much weight. Try adding these to the equation, that may help: [1][2][3]. You may be able to find more at googlebooks. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:17, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Is there a good way to notify experienced editors of page that needs help?Edit

Hi,

I'm a relatively new editor and I am still figuring out the ways to improve a Wikipedia article. I have come across some dreadful ones sometimes that I try to fix, but I just cannot completely fix the errors. I was wondering if there is a way to notify an experienced editor of a page that needs a lot of fixing.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nik.461 (talkcontribs) 21:53, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

@Nik.461: Thanks for helping. The best and easiest way to flag articles for needing edits is to add a cleanup or copy edit template (a.k.a. hatnote) to the top. Here's more info Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup#General cleanup. Then people who skim the articles will see that they need to be fixed. This also allows the articles to get attention during the guild of copy editors' editing drives. More info on that here Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 23:31, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

DraftsEdit

I've contributed to 2 drafts and I was wondering when they would be official pages. The two pages are https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:GDPC_music_hall_of_fame https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Meteorite_(Band) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scurvy G (talkcontribs) 21:57, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

You haven't submitted them for AFC review. But there's no point in doing so yet, as you have provided no references to published reliable sources to demonstrate the notability of the subjects. Please read the advice at WP:Your first article. --David Biddulph (talk) 22:03, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

veterans organizationsEdit

How do I add a veterans organization to the List of Veterans Organizations, currently listed in Wikipedia? Our Military Order celebrated its 100th Anniversary in 2018. It was established by General of the Armies, John J. Pershing, in 1918. The Military Order of the World Wars; www.moww.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:1517:4281:C5D3:D8F3:2A34:D567 (talk) 22:43, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

  Done Military Order of the World Wars added to List of veterans' organizations#United_States TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 23:21, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Editorial Intolerance, Lack of Transparency and Accountability - "2019 North Korea–United States Vietnam Summit"Edit

Invited here by Hostbot, thank you. Re: myContribution in the Topic: "2019 North Korea–United States Vietnam Summit" (now "suspended" by JFG) Complaint Reposted for your response, please: [I have no intention to engage in any "edit war", JFG. As you must know, I have only just begun to contribute to Wikipedia. This initial experience has been very disappointing. Your editing actions - "unsourced" and "off topic" - are totally baffling, arbitrary and untransparent, especially for a Commons encyclopedia. I have some experience in writing and editing for top-class refereed journals. You (and all the purported unknown editors? who?) now decided to delete the entire "Reactions" section of the "2019 North Korea–United States Vietnam Summit" - why? What's left are just fluff and dry stuff. An encyclopedia should contain much more facts-based, credibly-sourced perspectives - just compare with the Encyclopedia Britannica (assuming you and other self-appointed editors, truly with due respects, would accept it as a gold standard). And you threatened in a message to "ban" me? Sounds very China's and DPRK's intolerance of free speech and diverse thinking, eh? Why/what are you so afraid of in the "Reactions" contents? They provided interesting background information to inform Wikipedia users of the complex issues of the Summit. JFG, you could have simply pointed me to the proper formatting of the contributions instead of brushing it off as "unsourced" (which of course it is not but contained multiple sources) or "off topic" (which indicated that the 'editors' did not read and/or understand the contents and embedded links). And your "best way" to consider the NationalInterest and my materials is to censor/delete them off? Seriously, people? Your latest action WILL discourage other contributions who would have richly added to the Topic in the run-up to the Summit. myEndNote - Wikipedia processes are well-written and respected, but I think they are being abused and misused by "humans" who are knowingly or unknowingly arrogant in their self-importance and un-selfconsciousness of their own bias and prejudice. You DO NOT have to censor or delete multiple & credibly-sourced materials - however disagreeable they may be to you and then some. Just trust your readers' intelligence to form their own conclusions - isn't that's why the Commons and Wiki movements are about? written by: DrMikoWise (talk) 10:43, 13 February 2019 (UTC) ]

Please DO NOT throw me your beautifully written policies or "processes"; I have NO ISSUE with them.

I hope to see the "conversations" among the editors who concluded that myContribution was "unsourced" and "off topic", both misconceived and untrue. And why did you accused me of initiating a "edit war" and threatened to "ban" me (like some totalitarian regimes)?

In the 1st instance, myContribution was simply off-format - it should be simply pointed out and guided. And when MULTIPLE sources were properly formatted and introduced, your editor(s?) decided that it was "opinion and conjecture", again without substantiation, and decided to DELETE and CENSOR it altogether with an earlier NationalInterest article. Your editor(s?) now awaits some "Neutral Text" (what this?) so as to restore the unreasonable edits. The ORIGINAL contribution was under the "REACTIONS" heading of the Topic - please explain and elaborate on the oxymoronic "Neutral Reactions".

I hope JFG and other editors involved in this seeming editorial intolerance could kindly educate me, a newbie to Wikipedia but very familiar to well-sourced writings, with SPECIFIC reference to myContribution. Your transparency and accountability are extremely CRITICAL to the integrity of Wikipedia. Thank you.

Whither Editorial Intolerance, Lack of Transparency and Accountability - "2019 North Korea–United States Vietnam Summit"? DrMikoWise (talk) 23:39, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi DrMikoWise. It appears that you've found Talk:2019 North Korea–United States Vietnam Summit and have started a discussion about this topic there. That's really the best place for a discussion about the content of 2019 North Korea–United States Vietnam Summit since that it where those interested in the subject matter are likely going to be found. In addition, when you're WP:BOLD and make changes to an article which are subsequently reverted by someone else, the general thing to do is follow Wikipedia:Bold, revert, discuss cycle and engage in article talk page discussion. Please try and remember that the ultimate goal is to the improve the overall quality of the article, not to try and have the article reflect our own personal viewpoints, etc., and any disagreements among editors as to how to achieve this goal are expected to be resolved per Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. So, you're going to have to establish a consensus in favor of making the changes you want to make by showing how the changes comply with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If you're not familiar with how article talk pages work, you can find some more information in Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines and Help:Talk pages. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:20, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, MarchJuly, for the the sensible advisory reminder to one and all. Your fellow editors should also read AGAIN the Wikipedia Guidelines before rushing to judgement and delete the "disputed" content. Acting contrary to your own Wiki-Guidelines, they DID NOT first attempt to edit or improve on the content but simply dismissing it WRONGFULLY as "unsourced" and "off topic". Neither did any of the arrogant self-righteous editors follow the CONSENSUS guideline to "take into account all of the proper concerns raised, (so as) ... to arrive with an absence of objections ...(or) ... settle for as wide an agreement as can be reached". And since "there is (YET) no wide agreement, consensus-building ...(SHOULD)... involve adapting the proposal to bring in dissenters without losing those who accepted the initial proposal". In accordance with the Guidelines, I had in fact "DISCUSSED" why I made the Contribution and then "REVERTED" the wrongful edits, before being threatened with a "BAN" for daring to start an "EDIT WAR". Such behaviors by your editor(s) are reprehensible and should not be condoned by the rest of us who feel more ordinary and less self-righteous. How indeed can you build CONSENSUS, as advised by the Guidelines, when the purported "offending" content have already been removed so arbitrarily by a few editors before any Consensus decision, thereby preventing others from viewing them (with their multiple sources which also contained other multiple embedded sources!) so as to adjudge publication suitability. Up to this very moment, the editor(s) involved HAVE NOT even bothered to explain and shared their thinking driving their rush to "delete" instead of building the recommended "Consensus" in the Wiki-Guidelines. Do the said Wiki-Guidelines NOT apply to these "editors"? Did they have special EXEMPTIONS from the Wiki-Guidelines because of some superior "editor" status? Their stubborn refusal and failure to explain their actions denies critical accountability in editorial decision-making and constitutes a DANGEROUS and blatant disregard for basic and decent human respect accorded to every Wiki Contributor. Suggest the edits be restored for others to read and to debate further HERE so as to build the needed Consensus ... in accordance with the Wiki-Guidelines.
The proverbial ball is clearly now in the hands of those few editors (JFG /and others) who are guilty of gross editorial negligence by disregarding Wiki-Guidelines and acting prematurely in haste without first the requisite due diligence and mutual consultations.
DrMikoWise (talk) 07:57, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
@DrMikoWise: Firstly, I'd advise you, strongly, to stop WP:SHOUT'ing. It doesn't help convince anyone of your viewpoint, and only gives the impression that you're throwing a tantrum over this (even if that's not your intent).
You seem to have read a lot of pages, but was one of them WP:NPOV? Even reliably sourced opinions are still opinions, and when not clearly the overwhelming overwhelming majority of opinions, especially on political matters, we should not state them as fact. Therefore, your edits were removed entirely – also because of WP:BRD wherein the burden is on you, not them, to develop consensus for your edit. Any editor has the right to challenge an addition by reverting it, and the other editors in your situation have chosen to do so.
See also WP:NOTTABLOID: paraphrases of opinion pieces do not belong here.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:10, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Dear Jasper, thank you for rushing to advise me. Truly appreciated. No, I am NOT "shouting". Yes, read NPOV. And if my "disputed" Contribution could be read in its entirety, together with all the multiple sources and their corresponding embedded sources, you would also discover that they complied largely and squarely with the NPOV Guidelines governing writing from "a (balanced and) neutral point of view". You will see that the supporting sources "represented fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on or related to the Topic entitled: "US Holds Key to Korean Peace". The sources which even included admittedly controversial wall street journal (wsj.com) and politifact, among others, also do not point to any particular editorial bias. I also noted that the "editors" has earlier already allowed an article by NationalInterest whose bias is well-known. I am a deep believer in even handed and balanced perspectives, and to allow my intelligent readers to form their own conclusions. While the Title may suggest a particular stand for effect, the arguments contained therein relied on many "reliable published sources" dating as far back as 2014. True, opinions are not facts; and the facts of informed opinion whatever their degree of consensus can only be taken prima facie, nothing more and certainly not to be equated with scientific facts. The "editors" who first concluded my materials erroneously as "unsourced" and "off topic", and then changed their mind to ""opinion and conjecture" did not clearly ground their conclusion in the material facts. They should be held accountable by explaining their decisions referring to SPECIFIC statements and sources which informed their "factual" conclusions. That when their edits were legitimately challenged in accordance with Wiki-Guidelines, they have been unable or unwilling to do so tarnished all Wiki editors, notwithstanding beautifully written guidelines which they apparently did not apply to themselves and adhere to eg Consensus.
Indeed, Jasper, instead of confining to just a few of us, why not just restore the edits - even temporarily - for others Wiki Readers to weight in and debate @ Teahouse?
Why do you and just a couple of editors object to this? WE must and should have faith in the wisdom of the Commons which FACTUALLY provides the soul to the Wiki movement.
DrMikoWise (talk) 09:18, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Because this is not the place to debate anything, DrMikoWise. Because the way content disputes are handled is outlined in WP:BRD and that is not it. Because the content you added and another editor rightfully removed is still visible in the article's edit history and there is no need to restore it. And stop shouting. John from Idegon (talk) 09:35, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
@DrMikoWise: Clearly you did not actually click my link, so here it is again: WP:SHOUT. Specifically, your overuse of all-capitals and boldened text, as well as not being concise, makes it very hard for others to want to work with you.--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:42, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Dear John and Jasper, it is not my intention to hurt your sensitivity with CAPs and bolden text. Pls accept myApologies. They are usually use for respectful emphasis, not rudeness. Will use less of them in future here. Have you et al actually read fully my article together with all the sourcing and their embedded sources? Don't be offended by my question. Let me explain. It usually takes me some time to read thoroughly and referee an article fairly and giving it the due consideration; that is, checking and reading the references as well as lookup the sources and sourcing of quotes, in addition to grasping the thrust and logic of the arguments. From the discussions so far on the "disputed" Topic, it does not seem that the primary editors had actually fully read everything before making their erroneous decision to exclude. I sense the other editors are merely "protecting" the primary editors out of commendable collegiality. I can understand that. Correct me if I were mistaken here. There is no need to "protect" them - they are under no threats of harm from anything. In fact, I think they would become better editors if they were encouraged to fully explain their decisions by referring to specific material statements and facts from my "disputed" article and sources which had informed their final decision. I do that with any author whose article has been rejected, without even being asked. That's being professional, respectful and polite. Can we afford to be less than professional and respectful in Wikipedia? The most impolite and disrespectful is to throw the proverbial book at them, quoting verses and chapters of policies, processes and rules. Again, I must reiterate that Wiki policies and processes are beautifully written and I do not have any issue with them. Your editorial transparency and accountability however leave a really sour aftertaste to this newbie to Wikipedia. Thanks for all your good intention and advice.
DrMikoWise (talk) 11:00, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I have responded to this editor's complaints on talk after reviewing their edit and JFG's reversion. That is the proper place for this discussion, though I'm afraid it's not going to get very far if DrMikoWise doesn't calm down and learn how to engage others without all the hyperbole I've been seeing in their comments so far. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:35, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Dear MjolnirPants et al, don't worry. I am very cool and calm. I am not the basic problem focus here. The primary editors who arbitrarily decided to edit off my voluntary Contribution is Wikipedia's main problem for refusing to explain their thinking driving the final decision to exclude. That's accountability and editorial transparency, which should be the key cornerstone of Wikipedia should you value integrity in your media. Why is it none of you fellow "editors" getting JFG (and others? involved) to just respond to my query? Their silence is deafening indeed. And your strange brotherly conspiracy of silence simply emboldens and encourages their irresponsible and intolerable editorial misbehavior. Trust me when I say that I have never encountered such a poor editorial standard, notwithstanding beautifully written Wiki policies and processes. Seriously, I am mulling giving up on Wikipedia as a serious and credible "encyclopedia" given my newbie experience with your "editors" who evidently lack a sense of professional accountability and the value of editorial transparency - both key ingredients of familiar highly professional editorial boards deserving to be taken seriously. Clearly, I am engaging with some of you more mature ones who are responding very positively, except those who first created the issues and seem to lack the personal credibility or professional locus standi to engage and rebut my allegations of their editorial incompetence. I am however prepared and willing to accept their remorse and regrets for admitting being wrong in this instance. Know that Silence is a self-defeating guilty option. DrMikoWise (talk) 15:15, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Okay, let's try to examine your argument. I'm going to quote your response here. I will highlight false statements in red, logically unsound arguments in green, unnecessarily emotive language in blue and spurious and irrelevant claims which are not verifiable in yellow.
Dear MjolnirPants et al, don't worry. I am very cool and calm. I am not the basic problem focus here. The primary editors who arbitrarily decided to edit off my voluntary Contribution is Wikipedia's main problem for refusing to explain their thinking driving the final decision to exclude. That's accountability and editorial transparency, which should be the key cornerstone of Wikipedia should you value integrity in your media. Why is it none of you fellow "editors" getting JFG (and others? involved) to just respond to my query? Their silence is deafening indeed. And your strange brotherly conspiracy of silence simply emboldens and encourages their irresponsible and intolerable editorial misbehavior. Trust me when I say that I have never encountered such a poor editorial standard, notwithstanding beautifully written Wiki policies and processes. Seriously, I am mulling giving up on Wikipedia as a serious and credible "encyclopedia" given my newbie experience with your "editors" who evidently lack a sense of professional accountability and the value of editorial transparency - both key ingredients of familiar highly professional editorial boards deserving to be taken seriously. Clearly, I am engaging with some of you more mature ones who are responding very positively, except those who first created the issues and seem to lack the personal credibility or professional locus standi to engage and rebut my allegations of their editorial incompetence. I am however prepared and willing to accept their remorse and regrets for admitting being wrong in this instance. Know that Silence is a self-defeating guilty option.
Once one eliminates all the fluff and -frankly- bullshit from your statement, what we arrive at is something like "I'm upset I got reverted."
Well, I explained why you were reverted at talk. JFG used the thank button to endorse that explanation.
If you come here preaching that WP lacks integrity and professionalism, all the while ignoring the people trying to help you, then I'm afraid it is you who lacks professionalism and integrity, and we will quickly stop trying to help you. So go read my response and talk and try to take my advice. If you can't or won't, then you will need to stop complaining about this before an admin decides you've caused enough disruption and blocks you. I hope this helps. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:42, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Dear DrMikoWise, Wikipedia is a complex social construct that has remarkably managed to deliver a sensible presentation of over 5 million topics while relying only on the good will of volunteer editors like you and me. Our five pillars and our core policies were not imposed from high on by capricious dictators, but rather painstakingly refined by the same community of volunteer editors over many years and many disputes regarding content or behaviour. Those rules and guidelines are very, very far from arbitrary, and they are actually designed to welcome and embrace contributions from all good-faith editors, old or young, experienced or newbies, rich or poor, academics or amateurs. Your initial contributions did not by themselves cause trouble, but your attitude after your edits were rejected is the main reason why several people are going out of their way to explain how things work here, in an effort to help you come to terms with the Wikipedian ethos. In my own communications with you, the only sin I will confess to was perhaps coming through as biting the newbies due to my use of standard warning templates on your talk page, and for this I do apologise.
However, when several editors revert your content, point out in their own words how it was not appropriate, advise you on policy, try to engage with you in various forums, and still you remain perched on your high horse, accusing people of "gross editorial negligence" and pretending to teach us how to uphold "editorial transparency and accountability", you do come out as daft, and we have a humorous guideline that may help you come to your senses. Finally, while pondering your next reply here or elsewhere, you may wish to meditate on the First Law of Holes. Rest assured that there is no cabal against you.
Now, if you still would like to discuss the merits of inserting some content into a particular article, I and other interested editors will be happy to debate on the relevant talk pages of said articles. While such discussions are ongoing, the disputed content temporarily stays out, because the WP:ONUS is on the initial contributor to convince his/her fellow editors that said content should remain. Only this way can we ensure the best possible experience for our readers. — JFG talk 21:00, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Wow does DrMikoWise understand? A lot of effort was made. This question and answer should be saved and refer future editors to read. Opinion and point of view are hard subject for new editors. Eschoryii (talk) 07:24, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Duplicate name, Different EntityEdit

Hi TEAHOUSE!

I'm trying to create a new page for my company, called Artspan. There is already a page called Artspan. How do I go about creating my page without conflicting the existent page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EECCCA (talkcontribs) 23:43, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, welcome to Wikipedia! The existing article is actually ArtSpan (note case). An article Artspan could co-exist with it. Suggest you check this article about creating an article. Please be sure to declare your connection with the subject at hand. --Cornellier (talk) 00:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi EECCCA, You probably should carefully read through Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia:Ownership of content and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) before you do anything else because those things tend to be where most persons trying to write Wikipedia articles about their company seem to have the most problems. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:06, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Page CreationEdit

Hi! I would like to ask how many edits would be required for you to create a page on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jadon Halen (talkcontribs) 23:52, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi to you! Is the question "how many edits must a user have done before being able to create an article"? If so, the answer is: "you must have an account more than four days old and have done at least 10 edits". If the question is "how many edits to an article does it take to get it created", then the answer is: "uh, one?" I believe an experienced editor could create an article in one shot, that would make it through the new articles review process. --Cornellier (talk) 00:24, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Repeated citationsEdit

Hello,

I am trying to write my first article which is a daunting task. I have been using inline citations but I don't know how to re-reference a citation without adding it to the reference section again. I personally don't like seeing the same item repeated in the reference section but I also don't know how to remove it.

Can anyone give me a quick rundown on how to deal with this?

Thank you! Mellowish126 (talk) 00:00, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

@Mellowish126: Welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for citing your sources. Check out WP:REFB, there is a section there on using a reference more than once. And lots of other useful info, too. RudolfRed (talk) 00:05, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
I will check it out and edit appropriately! Mellowish126 (talk) 00:40, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
@Mellowish126: well done - I see that you have got it working just right. The article looks great; good luck with the submission.--Gronk Oz (talk) 02:46, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Can I make a Wikipedia article a Good Article? Or is it just for administrators?Edit

I would imagine that it's just for admins but I just want to be sure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nik.461 (talkcontribs) 00:41, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Nik.461. Good Articles and Featured Articles typically go through a formal review process as explained in Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates before they are granted such status. All editors are welcomed to participate in the reviews, but it's going to be expected that you have a good understanding of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines as well as a sufficient experience in editing/creating articles. It probably also helps to actually have had a few of the articles you've created recognized as being GAs or FAs. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi Nik.461. It has nothing whatsoever to do with being an administrator, nothing at all.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:04, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
I've upgraded five articles from C-class to GA. What helps is to look at GA articles for models, pick an article where you know a lot about the topic, work hard to improve it. This likely will take hours of work. When ready, nominate it. You can continue to work while waiting for a reviewer. The reviewer will identify the shortfalls. You just joined. Most of the time editors try to have 1,000 edits experience before essaying a GA. David notMD (talk) 04:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
P.S. There is a guide for referencing. Accessdate can be 13 February 2019 but not February 13, 2019. I fixed the Shreeves refs. David notMD (talk) 05:43, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
@David notMD: I'm pretty sure that the month-date-year format is an acceptable one for access dates and is often used; so, not sure where you found that it cannot be used. Could you clarify that? In some cases, MOS:DATEUNIFY and MOS:DATETIES might be an issue, but at the same time changing from month-date-year to date-month-year simply out of personal preference is not always warranted per MOS:DATEVAR. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:13, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
It was the comma. The editor had used "February 13, 2019" David notMD (talk) 11:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
The comma is required if using mdy format. I suggest that you read MOS:DATEFORMAT. As it happens, the article in question uses dmy format. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:23, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

One keeps on learning. David notMD (talk) 15:41, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

On DraftEdit

Good day, Teahouse! I have another question on how long will it really take for someone to approve your draft article on Wikipedia. Is it true that it will really take six weeks? That would be pretty long.

Here's the draft article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Miyuki_Beads and I already submitted it for review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jadon Halen (talkcontribs) 01:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

@Jadon Halen: It might, it might not. The backlog of draft articles is very high, and since the articles aren't reviewed in any specific order it could just as easily be reviewed tomorrow as next month. -A lainsane (Channel 2) 03:40, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Already reviewed and declined. Work on complying with the reviewer's comments before trying again. David notMD (talk) 04:38, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

CAPTCHA for citations?Edit

I was told I could ask questions here. I frequently am prompted for a CAPTCHA for including a url in citations. Is this normal? Is there some way I can stop it, I have had to fill out many of these while editing. Shofet tsaddiq (talk)

Hello Shofet tsaddiq and welcome to the Teahouse.
Those confirmations should stop once your account is autoconfirmed, should be some time in the next 24 hours, I think. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 03:09, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
As jmcgnh mentioned, the captcha prompts will no longer appear when your account is four days old and has made 10 edits. Your account was created on 11 February 2019 at 19:59. This is an automatic spam-prevention measure and is normal for very new accounts and unregistered users. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 03:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I want to edit a subjectEdit

I watched a recent movie- Guardians of the Galaxy- which included a song by the Runaways- "Cherry Bomb". The WIKI article about the song, the band, and writers haven't been updated in a couple of years. I would love to have that updated. I have never edited any WIKI "resource" in my life. But as a movie & music lover this article should be updated. I have no idea how to that. Well- suggestions? Thanks for your help- I feel like an idiot especially after being a fan in WIKI for many years. WIKIPEDIA Lover.

Here's the URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_Bomb_(The_Runaways_song) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trehartgrove (talkcontribs) 03:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Trehartgrove. I suggest starting by taking a careful tour through the Wikipedia:Tutorial. This will teach you the fundamentals of editing. If you have any questions after doing so, please do return here and ask. By the way, this site is called Wikipedia, not wiki. A wiki is any website using wiki software; there are thousands of them. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:04, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

DraftsEdit

I have two doubts.

i)Someone had started a draft page Draft:Calicut Heroes to which I have contributed as well.Can I submit someone else's draft ?.

ii)A page named Calicut Heroes has already been made in the mainspace.Does the draft have relevance now and still be submitted ?.

Curnews (talk) 06:25, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Curnews.
i) Techinically you can, but you probably should at least discuss this with the draft's creator first to avoid any unnecessary problems. We don't have any claim of ownership over the Wikipedia pages we create/edit, even over our user pages; however, editors can sometimes become possessive over pages they create. Pages in the draft namespace are there to be worked on by the enitre Wikipedia community, but the creator of the draft might have a certain vision for its development and might wish to receive credit for creating it. So, discussing it with them first seems like a courteous thing to do.
ii) There's really no need to create a draft for an already existing article; instead it would be better to work on improving the existing article instead. If the draft content can be used to improve the existing article, then adding it to the article can be done. Just make sure that you properly attribute the content of the draft when you add it to the article. You can find out more about how to do this in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.
-- Marchjuly (talk) 07:07, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Actually the draft was created first(but not submitted),either the draft or article wasn't created by me.My interest in both is as a wikipedian.My doubt is what should the guy who made the draft do now ?(academic interest).

Curnews (talk) 07:26, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

@Curnews: IMHO a proper way of joining the work of all the contributors is Wikipedia:Merging. However I can see important differences between the two pages, e.g. in infoboxes they differ in foundation date (2018 vs. 2019), owner name and colors (blue vs. red and white). Those must be resolved during the merge, or even better prior to merging.
BTW, isn't it too early to write about the team which exists at most one year...? Does it fit Notability requirements? Do there exist any reliable, independent sources writing about the team? --CiaPan (talk) 07:45, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, It fits notability criteria.Many mainstream media,including newspapers have covered this.They play in the top Volleyball League of India approved by FIVB and organised by Volleyball Federation of India.I feel the relevance is same as a team which plays it's debut season in a top league of any sports.

Curnews (talk) 08:46, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Then I suggest to use at least some of those many mainstream media for reference. As for now the Draft page links only to the provolleyball.in page... --CiaPan (talk) 11:27, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Internet Archive "site can't be reached"Edit

What's up with the Internet Archive? It's been producing the error message "site can't be reached" for a long time. --Espoo (talk) 11:06, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

@Espoo: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. This board is for asking questions about editing or using Wikipedia; we can't speak to why another site might not be working. You might try the Reference Desk. 331dot (talk) 11:08, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
@Espoo: It's something on your side, or your ISP. Internet Archive works for me, also https://down.com/ and https://downforeveryoneorjustme.com/ confirm archive.org is up. --CiaPan (talk) 11:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
The reason i asked here is because archive.org is one of the most important tools used by Wikipedia editors. So i figured someone here would also know the answer to my question or a solution to the problem, both of which would probably take much longer to get straight from the website. At least i got the hint to look and try to find the solution on my device.
In case someone else runs into this problem, one or all of these steps were required to fix the problem in Chrome on Android: 1) turn off dater saver 2) go to site settings > all sites > search for "archive" and remove all permissions and settings for all sites containing archive.org --Espoo (talk) 15:16, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
I went to https://archive.org/index.php, the main page of the Internet Archive, and it is working again. Since I see you have both posted on the same date as I have, I suggest actually looking at your internet and Wi-Fi and check if it is working. :::If it still does that, then I think it is loading a website that might also be dead. TheSmartPersonUS1 (TSPUS1) (talk) 03:23, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't really understand what you're saying (especially with "Since I see you have both posted on the same date as I have"), but apparently you didn't understand what i said either :) What i tried to say is that i fixed the problem by adjusting the settings of Android Chrome as described above. And i didn't have a problem with any other website. --Espoo (talk) 18:53, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

navigating wikipediaEdit

I've often needed to find a wikipedia: page -- help, vandalism reporting, teahouse, whatever -- and found the fastest way I could find it is to just search on google (which is imperfect because I often can't remember the exact title of the page I'm looking for, so I'm sometimes scrolling through a list of results and finding the right one via trial-and-error). Some pages I use often, I bookmark, but my WP bookmarks are getting out of hand. Is there an easier way to find the non-article stuff I need? Thanks for any help! valereee (talk) 12:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Have you tried searching WP:whatever or HELP:whatever (on WP)? That sometimes helps, there are plenty of redirects. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:40, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
I have, and that does sometimes work as well as googling -- but your suggestion makes it occur to me that maybe the solution is for me to make redirects when my own wikipedia:search terms don't take me to the correct page the first time, thanks! I hadn't thought of that. DUH. :) valereee (talk) 12:46, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
You could just maintain a user subpage with links to the pages you often use. It might take some time to build but then you can easily navigate from there. Regards SoWhy 13:35, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
@SoWhy: good idea, my own little nav tool :) valereee (talk) 18:21, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
It's not something I use much, but one can search in specific namespaces, like Help and Wikipedia, that may narrow the result.[4]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
@Valereee: Almost everyone one of the pages you seem to want to search for will already have shortcuts to them - just look for the little shortcut box at the top right of each page or section. Sometimes there are more than one shortcut for the same page (e.g. WP:VD, WP:VAN, WP:VAND or WP:VANDAL) - so look for the one that you find most memorable; the pages shortcuts will soon stick in your mind. I think the only shortcut I've ever felt the need to create was to go straight to the bottom of this Teahouse page to look for the latest post. Instead of WP:TH, I now use WP:THF. For everything else I've done two things: Firstly, I have a section on my user page to which I add useful page links and other stuff that I regularly want to go to or use (See User:Nick_Moyes#Tools_&_Useful_Pages). Then, much later on, I installed a Page Collector script which functions a bit like a Watchlist, but I only add pages like policies, guidelines, essays and obscure templates that I discover and might want to read in-depth later on. It adds them in sequential order, so I come back later and sort them into relevant subsections - my own personal set of policies and useful pages, as it were. Hope this also helps a bit. Nick Moyes (talk) 18:07, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes: Oh, the fact there are always multiple versions is also helpful, thanks -- that lets me guess lol. (I suspect you may be a bit younger than I am -- the days when things stuck in my mind from fewer than three repetitions less than a couple days apart are behind me. :D On talk pages I have to hover over shortcuts to remind myself what they mean, even ones I might have hovered over yesterday.) @Gråbergs Gråa Sång: yet another option that I didn't even realized existed! valereee (talk) 18:19, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
@Valereee: Let's just say that I was in secondary school when the very first pocket calculators appeared on the market, and that I did my ham radio examination based on valve theory, not transistors. And the only reason I'm so good at multitasking is that I forget to finish one job before starting the next. You decide who's the youngest! Nick Moyes (talk) 18:26, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Nick Moyes, hahahahaha let's just say I came of age post-sexual revolution and pre-AIDS. A damn good time to be young. So we might be even :D 18:35, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Marking a Reference as brokenEdit

Hi Teahouse, I keep finding references whose link leads to a dead webpage. Is there a template to alert other users about this? Thanks! BladeRikWr 14:57, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

BladeRikWr, There is {{dead link}} but the best thing to do is to find a replacement, such as through the InternetArchiveBot interface. WelpThatWorked (talk) 15:04, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello BladeRikWr, welcome to the Teahouse! You can place {{Dead link}} after the closing </ref> tag for a reference to alert other editors to the issue. There is also a bot that will attempt to fix dead links in citations by adding a link to the Internet Archive. In many cases you can fix dead links yourself by following the instructions at WP:Linkrot. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 15:05, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Hello BladeRikWr and welcome to the Teahouse.
Ideally such links should be replaced, either with a new reference that supports the related information or with an archived copy of the original reference. If you can't do one of those actions, you can use the template {{dead link}} just after the closing '/ref' tag to indicate to readers that the reference can't be followed and to put the page on a work category so another editor will see it needs cleaning up. Do not delete references (or the material they supported) just because the link has gone dead. For more information, see DEADREF. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 15:09, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
To correct what my 2 colleagues above have said, if you look at {{dead link}} you'll see that it should be placed before the closing </ref> tag, rather than after. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:37, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
It's true that the doc says the template should go inside the ref tags, so that the "dead link" notice goes into the reference section. There have been a few debates over the years (one at: WP:Village pump (policy)/Archive 104#Shouldn't dead link be an in-line template, like citation needed?). As evidenced above, this placement seems more natural to some editors. And the doc for the template also says you can use {{subst:DATE}} in the {{dead link}} but this trick does not work inside ref tags — I confess that this is the reason I quit trying to leave {{dl}} tags inside the ref. The earlier arguments about the placement being easier for automated tools have long since been overcome by improvements in the tools, so what remains is an argument about how visible or intrusive the dead link notice should be. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 18:00, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
@ WelpThatWorked, AntiCompositeNumber, jmcgnh thank you all for the advice, and for helping a new editor! — BladeRikWr (talk) 16:23, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Add someone's profileEdit

Hey, I am a carrom player . Came 2nd at ICSE national sports and games representing Bihar and Jharkhand. How can I register myself on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jigyasu Baranwal (talkcontribs) 16:08, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

@Jigyasu Baranwal: You have already registered your user account.
As for creating an article, see User:Ian.thomson/Howto. Follow those instructions exactly or the page will be deleted. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:11, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Jigyasu Baranwal: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I think that you have a common misconception about what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not social media for people to "register" and tell the world about themselves. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is only interested in what independent reliable sources with in depth coverage state about article subjects that are notable as defined by Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not interested in what an article subject wants to say about itself, only in what others state about it. Please also read the autobiography policy; writing about yourself is strongly discouraged. If you truly meet the notability criteria, someone will eventually take note of you and write about you. Also keep in mind that a Wikipedia article is not necessarily desirable. Anything, good and bad, can be in a Wikipedia article as long as it appears in an independent reliable source. 331dot (talk) 16:13, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

StoryEdit

Hello everyone I would like to find out if anyone would help me creating my story. I'm new on this, my apology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jriosgracia (talkcontribs) 18:05, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jriosgracia and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is not the place to tell your personal story. We only have articles which must be based on published WP:Reliable sources. The best way to write an article is to collect the citations first, then summarise what they say, rather than trying to write "what you know". Dbfirs 20:45, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Alex in Pawn Shop Pawns Wikipedia help!Edit

Hello, I need your help, I keep trying to post Alex in Pawn Shop Pawns to the wikipedia site, but it keeps getting denied, I know i'm doing something wrong and I need your help to get it right, thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexBd25 (talkcontribs) 21:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

@AlexBd25: There are two problems, and I'm afraid both are insurmountable.
First, this game does not come anywhere near meeting our notability requirements. In order for a game to have an article on this site, it needs to have significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Your game simply doesn't have that.
Second, you have a conflict of interest when it comes to writing about your game. It is strongly discouraged for people to write about a subject they have any financial ties to, and people with such COI's should, instead, limit themselves to requesting edits at talk pages.
If you have any more specific questions or would like more details about something I said here, let me know and I will respond as soon as I am able. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:43, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
AlexBd25: :@ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants:, hello! Thanks for reaching my problems to me, sorry if I was being conflict of interest. I'll try to do better with that, btw thanks for not deleting it :) i'll try to fix those issues.— Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexBd25 (talkcontribs) 22:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
As M-Pants noted, this game is not known or written about yet, so it is too soon for it to be the topic of an article. No amount of revision will change that. David notMD (talk) 15:23, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

DraftEdit

How do I submit a draft to the AFC review?

The page is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Meteorite_(Band) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scurvy G (talkcontribs) 22:17, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

BandLab, YouTube and the band's own website are not acceptable as references, so you still have no references. The fact that their record label has established its own 'Hall of Fame' does not make Meteorite notable by Wikipedia's standards. What is needed is independent, published articles about the band. David notMD (talk) 22:57, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Article with "extra" categoriesEdit

Greetings, While doing category additions to articles I found Jeevanadi and am curious where are the two extra categories coming from? I added 20th-century films category. Unable to see/find category 1970 films and Tamil-language films. Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 22:29, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi JoeHebda. They are added automatically by this:
{{Infobox film
| released       = {{Film date|df=yes|1970|1|14}}
| language       = Tamil
}}
{{Film date}} adds 1970 films by itself. {{Infobox film}} adds Tamil-language films. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
@PrimeHunter: - Thanks for 'splaining about these templates. I did not know they had that kind of functionality. Always enjoy learning something new on Wikipedia. Cheers! JoeHebda (talk) 00:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

EditorEdit

I think you should define what an editor is in this century. My understanding is that an editor checks spelling, grammar and verifies facts. I am old. I can definitely check grammar and, of course, there are so many spell checkers out there. How does one verify facts these days, if not through Wekipia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.170.184.147 (talk) 23:08, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your interest. Quoting from Wikipedia:Glossary#E, an "Editor" is "[a]nyone who writes or modifies Wikipedia articles. That includes you." This last part is important: Everything you read here was written by people just like you that got interested and decided to help out here. So, please do check spelling, grammar, verify facts, etc. If you are interested in doing so, I think a great introduction is provided at Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia, and you might also take a tour through the Wikipedia:Tutorial. By the way, while you don't need to log in to edit, signing up for an account takes only a minute and has many benefits. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:27, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
About About verifying facts, this guy has some thoughts on that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:08, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Well I really have no idea what I am doing on here but I couldnt find any kind of media that would allow me to make a point or make my voice heard.Edit

I saw Mr Whales on Question time tonight. For the last 5 or 6 years I have contributed a few quid every year as I regard (did regard) that wiki was a great source of general knowledge, sometimes a fascinating amount of knowledge and felt it incumbent on me to attempt, in my own small way, to keep it going for both myself and others. After Mr Whales contribution regarding Brexit 2 things will happen immediately - Mr Whales begging mail for my regular funds to keep it going are cancelled forthwith and secondly I shall look elsewhere for my general information. In the great scheme of things it wont make a difference to Mr Whales or wiki - but it will to me knowing I am not supporting the opinion of a blinkered one trick pony. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redthommo (talkcontribs) 23:30, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Redthommo. The Teahouse is really a place for people to ask questions about Wikipedia editing; it's not really the place for posts such as yours per WP:NOTFORUM. Not only is it highly unlikely that Jimbo Wales (no "h" in his last name) or anyone else from the Wikimedia foundation will see it; it's also highly unlikely they would respond here even if they did. So, if you want to contact the Wikimedia Foundation directly to express any such concerns, you should take a look at WP:CONTACT. You might also be able to leave a message at User talk:Jimbo Wales (he does appear to respond to posts there), but you should do so according to Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:30, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Redthommo. I assume that you are talking about Jimmy Wales. Wales is entitled to his own personal opinions as is everyone including you and I. When he comments on issues, he is speaking as an individual unless he makes it clear that he is speaking on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation in an official capacity. As far as I know, the Wikimedia Foundation has not taken a stand on Brexit. If you want to withhold your donations, that is your right, and you can also look for your information elsewhere if you want to. I recommend your local library. But please make your decisions based on accurate information and not false assumptions. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:36, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Wales recently said this on his talkpage:
Unless an issue has some direct bearing on Wikipedia/Wikimedia or the free culture movement, I don't think there's any good reason to have a political discussion on my Wikipedia talk page. You want me to offer a general opinion about wealth inequality and mention my role on the WMF Board but I see zero relevance. The WMF is not going to take any position on what the appropriate level of taxation is, obviously. On certain other matters where I am involved in diplomacy or negotiations, I must deliberately sometimes hold my tongue if speaking is not in the best interests of the movement. I defer to the WMF on such things. A good place to ask me about random political issues would be twitter or quora. But as I am not a political candidate running for election, and have no intention to ever be one, I do reserve the absolute right to speak or not speak on various political issues as my personal mood strikes me. So no, I don't think volunteer editors - or anyone else - has a "right to know where I stand" on such things as marginal tax rates. On the other hand I'm a friendly and open person and I might answer just about anything that I'm asked - in the appropriate venue!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:05, 14 February 2019 (UTC) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:02, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Alex Oates page and IP editsEdit

Hi, I just looked at the history for the Alex Oates page and spotted three edits from an IP from the same theatre which is currently running a play by the same playwright. The play has created controversy of late in both media and social media. Am a bit stumped if this page needs more experienced eyes to look in to this. Chricon79 (talk) 02:23, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Nominated page for deletion - can't create discussion pageEdit

I put in code to this page to nominate for deletion - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanessa_Bley I'm stuck on the instructions #2 (Create the article's deletion discussion page). The AfD box isn't looking how it's described here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion

Can you help walk me through it or explain what I may have done wrong with the original edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Actaudio (talkcontribs) 02:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Actaudio I stumbled across you issues and I wanted to help (Although I don’t work for the help desk nor do I have any special credentials) I do know some about editing and if your submission template is not working out more than likely a bot or someone else would fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigRed606 (talkcontribs) 03:19, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Actaudio . Do you see the red link in the AfD deletion template you successfully saved at Vanessa Bley that says ... this article's entry ...?

 • Click on that.

 • On the resulting page, paste:

 • {{subst:afd2 | pg=Vanessa Bley | cat=B | text=YOUR NOMINATION TEXT}}--~~~~

 • Save the page.

 • Follow the next instruction at WP:AFDHOWTO.

Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:56, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't say "this article's entry" - that's the issue. I've created an AfD page before and it didn't look like this one. Actaudio (talk) 04:01, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Nevermind - now it's there. Weird! It wasn't 10 minutes ago. Thanks! Actaudio (talk) 04:02, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
@Actaudio: Aha! I bet you were in some type of cache loop and needed to purge the page cache and/or your own cache (see WP:PURGE and WP:BYPASS). This can be one of the most bewildering experiences – with people, for example, fooled into thinking they didn't save when they did, and so reverting back to a prior version and down the rabbit hole they go.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Can you delete stuff off your talk page?Edit

Can you delete stuff off your talk page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigRed606 (talkcontribs) 03:11, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, with very limited exceptions. See WP:OWNTALK and WP:BLANKING. Note that removing a warning form your talk page does hide it. It can still be seen in your history. Meters (talk) 03:15, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
(e/c) Hi BigRed606. You can delete almost anyhting from your talk page (including the warning notice you received). The few exceptions – things you cannot remove – are: i) A notice (template) informing any visitors to your talk page that your talk page itself is being considered for deletion through Miscellany for deletion; ii) if you are currently, blocked from editing, you cannot remove any unblock notices where the responder declined to unblock you; and iii) speedy deletion tags and requests for uninvolved administrator help. Please note that though it is not mandatory, it is considered much better practice to archive the content you remove, rather than to just remove talk page content outright. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:24, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
So how would I delete just like I would regularly delete something or do I have to request something — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigRed606 (talkcontribs) 03:26, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes. Read the links. Meters (talk) 03:37, 15 February 2019 (UTC).
I Read the link it doesn’t say pacifically but I got a good ideal of what I can and cannot delet. But the Question is that do I need to request to delete or can I just delete it — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigRed606 (talkcontribs) 03:44, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi BigRed606 Techinically, you'll be blanking content from your talk page, not deleting it. All you need to do is go into your talk page's editing mode and simply remove the content you want removed. There will still be a public record of the content in the page's history, and anyone checking that history will still be able to see who posted what and when (this is necessary because of Wikipedia's licensing requirements), but the content will no longer be visible on the latest version of your talk page. You only need to make a request if you would like the content removed from your page history as well as explained in Wikipedia:User pages#Deletion of user talk pages. However, this is not commonly done and typically requires a really good reason like those given here. Even in this latter case, the content might only be hidden from public view and still capable of being viewed by an administrator or others specially approved to see such content.
Now, if you're asking about this just because you want to keep your user talk page as clutter free as possible, you can archive your user talk page instead like many editors do. There are a couple of ways to do this, but you can find out more information at Help:Archiving a talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:37, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

status on article submitted September 10, 2018Edit

I wrote an article for Wikipedia on September 10, 2018. It was for a group doing submissions on women composers. I have heard nothing since. Apparently the article was not submitted.

How would I learn what the status is?

If by mistake it was not submitted, how do I get it submitted?

here is a link:

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

thank you,

Mark (justintunes)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Justintunes (talkcontribs) 04:02, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Justintunes. Draft for articles are not automatically reviewed; you need to actually submit the draft for review. I will add a template to the top of the draft. You can click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button if you feel it's ready to be upgraded to an article. I wouldn't, however, suggest you do that right at this moment because there some issues with the formatting, etc. which might lead to the draft being declined by a reviewer. You might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Your first article and Wikipedia:Manual of style for some general information on how to write and format articles. You can find some good examples of how this can be done in Wikipedia:Featured articles or Wikipedia: Good articles. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:49, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! I have some updates to make since September 2018. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justintunes (talkcontribs) 01:15, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I Have A Question!Edit

Hello! I have a question. How do some of Wikipedia's editors became admins? I'm not asking to be one, and I don't want to be one. (No offence.) I'm just asking. Thanks for responding (hopefully) quickly! From, Username Goes Here 062805 (talk) 05:04, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Username Goes Here 062805. You can find out more about this at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship (or RfA). Basically, it's kind of a election in which someone either submits their name as a candidate or is nominated by another editor. Members of the community then discuss the candidate's qualifications, etc. and comment on whether the candidate should be granted administrator priviledges. There is currently one RfA ongoing; so, you can take a look at it to get a feel for how it actually works. You can also look at some recent RfAs for reference as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:15, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Follow-up to This page is about Tasty tibet.Edit

Hello I am trying to create a page called Tasty Tibet. But my previous attempt on the same was deleted saying it has promotional content. Can you please have a look at the content and references I have complied in this new draft and tell me about any changes this draft needs to be approved. :) Thank You.

[Tibet Draft]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mot1992 (talkcontribs) 07:27, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your work. I've added some suggestions on the article's talk page. Good luck :) --Cornellier (talk) 18:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Help with EditingEdit

I would just like some help with creating a Wikipedia page that will be accepted as I have made one and it was declined and I am not sure why it was? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpc1981 (talkcontribs) 09:40, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Bpc1981 Welcome to Teahouse and I believe you were referring to Draft:Danny Searle. Pls note that the reviewer have left you a note (the gray/pink panel) atop of the draft and also a comment below the panel. Pls click on the blue highlighted texts for further info. Also pls read WP:Your First Article, referencing for beginners to familiar yourself what is needed and how to provide inline citations in Wikipedia. Also checkout Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything for your question in a nutshell.Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:56, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

London Skolars 2019 seasonEdit

@RHaworth:, please may I request you restore this page I deleted in error yesterday.

Thank you

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gary Calder1966 (talkcontribs) 10:02, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Edited. --CiaPan (talk) 10:14, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

There is some confusion here. There is an article London Skolars which Gary Calder1966 has edited, ditto 2019 London Broncos season, but not London Skolars 2019 season. Maybe someone else can solve this, as well as GC's undeletion request. David notMD (talk) 15:41, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps 2019 London Skolars season? --David Biddulph (talk) 16:06, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
If that, then GC created it on 2/15, blanked it on 2/15, then built it up again, but smaller. Still does not address apology for deletion. David notMD (talk) 21:06, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Prior to the current creation it had been deleted once yesterday and once earlier today: see logs. --David Biddulph (talk) 23:42, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

How to change a page titleEdit

I made an account to get the features to change a title, but I don't know how. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quiz shows (talkcontribs) 10:09, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Quiz show Welcome to Teahouse. You have only made one edit (to Teahouse). May I know why you want to change a article title? and what is the name of the article you were referring to? Also pls sign your post at the end of your comments by inserting type four tildes (~), like this: ~~~~.Thank you CASSIOPEIA(talk) 10:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Okay, I went to the move page and now I think they can test a move I offered to submit, but I want to remove names from titles, like on some other discussions of pages where they discuss this. Quiz shows (talk) 10:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Quiz show Hi, sorry but I dont understand who is "they" you refer to above and pls provide the article name for us to understand how to help you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 10:40, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
It is the requested move page, that's they. Sorry, I don't truly understand the words to use, but I want to take out the phrases in brackets from some articles, like that is discussed on the requested move page sometimes. I think I have figured it out though, I put a notice on one page to see if people can agree to move it, and I might try some others tonight, if people are not opposed to my first idea. Quiz shows (talk) 10:48, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
For other Teahouse hosts - I believe the page is Derek Luke (actor) that Quiz shows mentioned above. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 11:00, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
In which case, the reason that it's titled Derek Luke (actor) is that there is more than one Derek Luke with a Wikipedia article. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:15, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
... but the OP may wish to argue primary topic, on the basis of evidence such as this. Evidence would need to be supplied to support a requested move. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:14, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

LockedEdit

How do I make a page locked? Quiz shows, 10:35, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Quiz shows, What do you mean by "make a page locked", could you pls explain a little in detail? CASSIOPEIA(talk) 10:42, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Just when you make a page that can't be edited. I don't want to do this right now but it's the feature that makes people make accounts. Quiz shows (talk) 10:49, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Quiz shows. You don't (unless a page is subject to a high level of vandalism). Wikipedia is a community project, and we don't lock anything to the way one person wants it. --ColinFine (talk) 10:58, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
ColinFine. So who is deciding when a page becomes locked? Quiz shows (talk) 11:00, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
A Wikipedia:Administrator, either on their own or as a result of a discussion somewhere. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:10, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi Quiz shows, please see these pages:
for information on WHO, HOW and WHY can decide on 'locking' some page, perform such lock and release it. --CiaPan (talk) 11:12, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
(e/c) Hi Quiz shows. Page protection is what it's called and is requested at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Applications will only be granted if they meet the dictates of Wikipedia:Protection policy.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:15, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Fed gov website citingEdit

what is the best way to cite a Federal Government agency's website if you are using content either directly from their website or paraphrasing their content? The links that were provided were helpful, but I would like to know how to cite something I pulled from the first paragraph on [1]. Thanks - Scott8905 (talk) 15:20, 15 February 2019 (UTC)Scott A-C


Hi, Scott8905, I think I would do it like this:
<ref>{{cite web| url=https://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/mission-and-functions| title=Mission and Functions {{!}} USAO {{!}} Department of Justice| publisher=US Deparment of Justice| date=December 9, 2014| access-date=February 15, 2019}}</ref>
to get a result like this:
EOUSA was created in 1953 to provide for close liaison between the Department of Justice and the 93 United States Attorneys[1]

References

  1. ^ "Mission and Functions | USAO | Department of Justice". US Deparment of Justice. December 9, 2014. Retrieved February 15, 2019.
--CiaPan (talk) 18:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
BTW, Scott8905, have you seen Wikipedia:Citing sources guidelines? There's lots of information there, most of which will be helpful sooner of later. --CiaPan (talk) 19:00, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

What do you do if sources disagree about when/where someone was born?Edit

I'm working on an article draft, but two sources disagree about when Hughes was born. One source says she was born on November 12, 1876 and another source claims November 20, 1876. The first is an electronic biographical source with copyrights associated with the University of Toronto and the latter is from the media club of Ottawa (a source I haven't yet cited but can be found at http://www.mediaclubofottawa.ca/Profiles-Katherine_Hughes.html. I would tend to think that the first source would be more reliable, but Hughes was one of the founding members of the club that wrote the later source. It doesn't make much sense for the latter source to falsely claim that Hughes was born 8 days later than the other source, but I'm not sure which source would be considered more reliable and how I should write about it in the article. The other thing that differs is where she was born - mainly with some sources being more specific than others. The aforementioned sources agreed that she was born in County Line Emerald Junction, Prince Edward Island, Canada but some other sources state Emerald, Prince Edward Island. Clovermoss (talk) 19:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

What's more confusing is that the first website acknowledges that she was one of the founding members of the Canadian Women's Press Club (and some of its connections to the media club of Ottawa) in a seperate article found here: https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/canadian-womens-press-club. Clovermoss (talk) 19:37, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: The club is officially called The Media Club of Ottawa in both sources, not the media club of Ottawa (my mind rearranged the wording for some reason). Clovermoss (talk) 19:40, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I dealt with two issues of this stripe through in text attribution at the article on Rudolf Wanderone a/k/a Minnesota Fats. See the second paragraph at this revision of the article (we later found better sourcing and pinned down his exact date of birth and death).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:05, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
@Fuhghettaboutit: Ok, I'll take a look at it. Thanks for the advice :) Clovermoss (talk) 21:32, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Some questions following your messageEdit

Hi

First, I have a horrible feeling I have two sandbox articles of the same name. I started one ages ago and was contacted by A Haworth in January when I went back to it (New Year's resolutions etc.). I wasn't sure how to restart and evidently got it wrong. Is it possible to delete that edit or is that even necessary, if the edit here is the latest?

Second, I don't want to pester you with submissions while I find proper links to works and mentions and other relevant links, plus I will check in with the tutorials for layout when I have my ducks in a row. Please could you tell me how I can save without submitting, which is the only button offered.

Third, and this is only small, would it be overplaying it to insert a second portrait from his army years in that section, while keeping the elder man for the main portrait?

That's it. Thanks.

Best wishes, Rory — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rory Fellowes (talkcontribs) 19:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

If you click on the "Contributions" link at the top right of any page it will show you all your contributions. You only have one draft; it was moved from your sandbox to Draft: namespace. You can save changes using the "Publish changes" button without resubmitting for another AFC review. The button used to be named "Save changes" but the WMF changed the name of the button and confused everybody by so doing; it doesn't publish the draft to mainspace. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:59, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Page going liveEdit

After I submit my draft when will the page go live? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arielwilliams651 (talkcontribs) 20:11, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@Arielwilliams651: Hi, welcome to Wikipedia. I'm assuming you're talking about Draft:Dr. Dana Carson? If so, it will be checked by an articles for creation reviewer - if they believe it meets our criteria for inclusion, it will be "approved" (moved from the "draft space" to the "main space"). This could take a while. - TNT 💖 20:15, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Already declined. See what reviewer wrote. And resubmitted with minor changes. David notMD (talk) 21:08, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
And declined again. David notMD (talk) 00:50, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
And submitted again and declined again. Large sections of the content have no references. Much of the content is the opinion of the creator of the draft: "As his ministry continues to grow, we can only wait and see what more God has in store for him." All content not drawn from independent published citable references has to come out. David notMD (talk) 14:08, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Sending out thank you's after an edit-a-thonEdit

How do I use wikimedia images in a new section on a user's talk page? I am trying to use images in my thank you's after an edit-a-thon. --Egallaugher (talk) 22:27, 15 February 2019 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Egallaugher (talkcontribs) 22:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

If you're thinking of something similar to the box that Fishantena posted on your talk page, you can try the "wikilove message" button — found on user talk pages right next to the watchlist button. Eman235/talk 23:08, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi Egallaugher, welcome to the Teahouse. Images work the same way in talk pages and articles. Which problem are you having? Help:Pictures has general help. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:09, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Feature RequestEdit

I was reading an article on the english wikipedia. Then I decided I wanted it in Simple English. I tried to obtain pages "In other languages," where I discovered that, associated with any article, my browser shows a button labeled "{x} more" and clicking it gives a search feature. (It was new to me.) So, typing "Simple" in the search feature returned no good result (when I know the article is available in Simple English). Can this search feature be changed so an end user, like myself, can have Simple English Wikipedia as a result?

Sorry for posting this just here; I realize this request could get lost in the wind. I just don't know where else to start; Wikipedia's skeleton and nervous system seem so large. I haven't posted this complaint/idea elsewhere, this is my first attempt to make contact with anyone.168.179.217.67 (talk) 22:28, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

It's a known bug that Simple English is missing there, both from search and the list. For example, Ashdon should have linked to simple:Ashdon which is included in wikidata:Q1832065#sitelinks-wikipedia. Simple English is listed for registered users if they disable "Use a compact language list" at the bottom of Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering. This removes the language search feature. The bug is tracked at phab:T210840. A cumbersome workaround for unregistred users using the desktop site: Click "Wikidata item" under "Tools" in the left pane. Then manually examine whether there is a "simple" link under "Wikipedia". Your browser may be able to search for "simple" (or any other string on any webpage) with Ctrl+F. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Looks like developers have worked on a possible fix for this issue, but it's not quite clear when a patch will be finally released. But there's still hope. GermanJoe (talk) 00:21, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Accidentally moved page to user - not sure how to fixEdit

I created this page in my Sandbox and accidentally moved to a user, not an article. How do I change it back? I'm basically looking to publish or move to AfD. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Paula_Fairfield 05:03, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Actaudio (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Actaudio (talkcontribs) 05:02, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Actaudio. I have moved the contents to Draft:Paula Fairfield for you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:11, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! I see now it says "Warning: The page Paula Fairfield redirects to User:Paula Fairfield. Please ensure it is not a copy or that this page is located to the correct title." Can you help or advise what I need to do? Actaudio (talk) 05:18, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Someone tagged the main page for speedy deletion because of the redirect - the draft is still ok - so I think it's resolved... Actaudio (talk) 05:27, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
I have deleted the extra unneeded pages. Continue working on the draft, Actaudio. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:45, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

translate an existing page into another existing pageEdit

Hi,

I would like to add more content to the French page about the Fribourgeois - the language. The Swiss-German version of that page is really rich of information, has many useful tables etc. I would like to use the translation tool to make it easy to see both pages at the same time and to add the same headings, tables, etc in a simple way. However, the information about translation tool suggest to translate one existing page into a language that does not yet have a page for it. This is not my case. So, when I try to create a new translation, it bugs because a French page already exists and it believes I want to create a new one. How can I simply edit an existing page using the translation tool to make it easier and faster?

Regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.26.37.78 (talk) 08:17, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Need Help removing maintenance toolEdit

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sushrut_Badhe A maintenance template under notability was placed on this article and then removed and again replaced


The placer of the template had left this message,

Greetings Pavankum, I see someone else removed the notability tag per your comment at the Teahouse. After I approved your article for creation, I saw a number of prior attempts to create the article, which caused me some concern. I would propose to leave the notability tag on the article for 60 days to see if any editors disagree with my approval.--Milowent • hasspoken 14:29, 18 December 2018 (UTC)


I was told to wait for 60 days to see if any editors disagreed with the approval of the article. Now that 60 days are up, i dunno how to contact the placer of the comment to say no one has disagreed with the approval.

Can any other wiki editor verify independently for removal or will it always be vetoed by the placer

Thanks and regards

Feb 16, 2019 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pavankum (talkcontribs) 08:55, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello Pavankum and welcome to the Teahouse.
I suggest that the notability tag should remain in place. The referencing on this article needs work (work which I can't do just now) and the notability is, to me, still questionable. Goodreads is not a reliable source and the Indian Book of Records entries don't look like they are of much better quality. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 15:18, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Absurd map - expert neededEdit

Where's the problem?: The article Columbia Wharf, Rotherhithe

What's the article about?: A building in south London.

What's the problem?: The infobox displays a crazy map.

What do you mean, crazy map?: The map shows Ponders End – which is in north London.

Have you checked the coordinates?: Yes, carefully. The numbers are correct.

Then why does the map show Ponders End?: That's what I can't understand.

Has the map always shown Ponders end?: No, for a long time it showed Kiev, Ukraine. See the talk page, "Absurd map".

When did the trouble start?: When an editor created the infobox − on 3 February 2017 at 15:29.

Why can't you fix it yourself?: Because I don't understand how this mapping works. I can't see anywhere in the markup language that even tells it to show a map in the first place.

What would you like the expert to do? Ideally, make the map show the correct geographical area; if that can't be done, remove it.Ttocserp (talk) 11:02, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Hmm. I went to Google Maps and changed the coordinates in the infobox in the article to those Google Maps provides for Columbia Wharf, Rotherhithe, but it did not change the display. I wonder if this worked but it needs to rebuild and won't display correctly for a while?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:27, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
@Ttocserp and Fuhghettaboutit: I have tried to fix coordinates in WikiData (see here), but then Wikipedia failed to display any map. So I've restored previous, wrong data. Don't know what to do next.   --CiaPan (talk) 17:10, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello, Ttocserp. I suggest that you take this issue to Village pump (technical) where editors with more advanced programming skills may be able to determine the cause of the error. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:10, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
@Ttocserp: I think I have fixed this. I adjusted the coordinates in the article a bit (and emended them on Wikidata) and inserted Module:Location map/data/United Kingdom London Southwark in place of the stupid Wikidata map, which indeed wasn't showing up after the coords were emended. Deor (talk) 20:08, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Is there an easy place to locate stub articles or orphan articles which need work? Looking to help out when I have free time.Edit

Pretty much what the subject says. Is there a special location I can find a list of stubs and orphans to expand upon and cite better? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halfire101 (talkcontribs) 11:45, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Halfire101, and welcome to the Teahouse! You can find stubs here: Category:Stub categories. They are ordered by topic so that you can find the ones that interest you the most. Orphaned articles can be found here: Category:Orphaned articles, but they are ordered by how long they've been orphaned and not by topic. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 12:08, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Hey Halfire101. See also the Wikipedia:Community portal (a perma-link in the navigation panel to the left, under the Wikipedia puzzle globe icon), which contains a list of tasks to help out with. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:05, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Question about pronouns in service award templatesEdit

Hi Teahouse team,

I have a question about the default pronoun options in the Wikipedia:Service awards templates. I realise they're an opt-in, fun way to self-commemorate one's achievements, and can be very encouraging!

In the template I used on my userpage, it defaults to the text "...he or she..." - is this something I'm able to alter? If the pronoun "they" were the default instead, it would read much more clearly and not have a binary gender stipulation. Or, instead of a single change, is this something that I could ask about applying to the template as a whole?

Thank you for your time and advice. Best wishes, SunnyBoi (talk) 12:29, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

@SunnyBoi: Template:Service_award_progress has some instructions for how to override the default pronouns in the template. It looks like you add the parameter genderoverride and then specify your pronoun. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 13:46, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
(e/c) Hey SunnyBoi. Per {{Service award progress}}'s documentation, it has the parameter |genderoverride=. Unfortunately, though whatever you insert there will replace the default "he or she", it does not have a parameter to understand that if "they" is the override set, then "needs" must change to "need" to keep the text grammatical. That is, if you use, say, she as the override, it then states: "...she needs to meet the editing requirement", but if you use they, you get the ungrammatical: "...they needs to meet the editing requirement" (uggh). I'm sure someone better at template coding than I am could fix that. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:54, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
@SunnyBoi: I've made an alternate version, User:A lad insane/Gender neutral service award progress that you can use. It's probably not perfect, but I'm pretty sure it works. -A lainsane (Channel 2) 22:27, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Now it's my turn to ask for help ...Edit

It's a truism that none of the hosts know it all - and tonight I am really stuck. I need help to understand why I am not receiving notification alerts when someone posts to a talk page of a sub-page of my own user page. That's a bit mind-bending, so let me explain...

I've just adopted a new user, Clovermoss, so I decided to create a sub-page for all our activities and discussions. This is something I've not done before, and we've started discussing various subjects on the associated talk page at User talk:Nick Moyes/Adoption/Clovermoss. I had hoped I would receive an alert whenever she posted anything there. (Email notifications are of no use to me as I don't have email access on my mobile, which is currently my main form of editing.)

My question is: why am I not receiving on-wiki alert notifications when they post to that talk page? Are alerts only produced when a person posts to the primary user page and not to a sub-page? I can't see anything in my preference settings that would allow me to enable alerts for this scenario. Wikipedia:Notifications offers no explanation. I have, however, found this open Phabricator ticket], but it's so old and so complicated I can't deduce what, if any progress has been made on it, but it does sound like it might be a known weakness. Any advice or work-around is welcome, or suggestions for the best way to reactivate this ticket.

There's a free cup of tea and some special Teahouse biscuits for anyone who can help me get this working! Nick Moyes (talk) 23:56, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Reference section Link is brokenEdit

Some early history is reported in Giri L. Agrawal (1997). "http://www.rddynamics.com/pdfs/foil-97-gt-347.pdf — An Overview" (PDF). Publication 97-GT-347. American Society of Mechanical Engineers.