Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1064

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1060

←

Archive 1062

→

What is the best way to create a wiki article for a person?

My uncle recently passed away and as a memorial, I want to create a wiki page in his honor. He was a 2-time academy award-winner for the Disney CAPS system and Digital archiving respectively, and a pioneer in digital imaging technology. This would be a great way to memorialize him and am looking for the resources into how to format, content, and getting the article approved. please let me know.

https://www.pasadenanow.com/main/jim-houston-dies-engineer-and-two-time-oscar-winner-was-61/

Below is my initial write up for the article.

James D. Houston, Upper Darby High School Class of 1977 (2002 Hall of Fame) Cornell University, 81 Astral Physics, and Computer Science James D. Houston was a pioneering digital animation designer and engineer, awarded the Technicolor, Herbert T. Kalmus Award in 2014 “For his leadership and contributions in the application of digital technologies to motion picture production processes. Mr. Houston played a key role in the development of standards related to the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and sciences’ Academy Color Eroding System (ACES), as well as production and design.” S.M.P.T.E. (Starwatcher Video) Academy Awards, Scientific and Engineering Award 2007 Academy Awards, Scientific and Engineering Award 1992 “James D. Houston received the Academy Scientific and Engineering Award for developing CAPS (Computer Aided Production System), which revolutionized computer animation. This system was the first that allowed artists to color penciled artwork in the computer and digitally merge it with painted backgrounds. He has worked to define the Second Golden Age of Disney Animation in such movies as Little Mermaid, Rescuers Down Under, Beauty and the Beast, and Aladdin.” UDHS Filmography Volcano, 1997, Visual Effects, The Net, 1995 Visual Effects Alladin 1992, Miscellaneous Jingle All The Way, 1996, Visual Effects Fantasia 2000, Visual Effects Trail Mix Up, 1993, Visual Effects Beauty and the Beast, 1991 Visual Effects The Rescuers, 1990, Visual Effects Drewski120 (talk) 16:07, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to The Teahouse Drewski120 Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements. Theroadislong (talk) 16:20, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough, If two academy awards aren't notable I won't waste my time. He is named in a few other Wikipedia articles as well example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Animation_Production_System — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drewski120 (talk • contribs) 16:38, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hello, Drewski120. I'm sorry about your uncle, and I can understand your wish to create a memorial; but please don't do it on Wikipedia. People who try to create article for reasons other than improving Wikipedia tend to have a miserable and frustrating time (and I realise that you want to add to Wikipedia as well, but nevertheless, you have another motive as well). Furthermore, people who write about relatives and other subjects they are close to tend to find it difficult to write sufficiently neutrally: we refer to this as editing with a conflict of interest.

Wikipedia only accepts articles about subjects that are Notable in Wikipedia's sense, which is less about what they have done, and more about what has been independently written about them. If your uncle meets those criteria, then there could be an article about him; it will not be your article, you will not have control over its contents, and indeed you will be discouraged from editing it directly, though you will be welcome to make suggestions. All information in the article should come from reliably published sources: your personal knowledge cannot be accepted. So, perhaps you can see that, whatever your intentions, it may not come out as the memorial you would choose. Sorry. --ColinFine (talk) 16:21, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Plunged to Guaranteed Jackpots to $20 million dollars for both Mega Millions and Powerball

How come Powerball and Mega Millions have to change their jackpot drop to $20 million dollars if someone wins this jackpot? Mariokart581 (talk) 16:59, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello Mariokart581. This is a forum to ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia, if you have any such questions feel free to come back here and ask. Kind regards, Hillelfrei ^talk 17:20, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

List of Pakistani Peace Laureates

Hello Aguy777, I saw your message on my Talk page ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Saqib_Jamshaid ). Can you explain which editing has been undone/ reversed? I could not get your point. Please explain so that I may continue make further additions in the page. Saqib Jamshaid (talk) 17:52, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I believe this is now explained on your talk page. RudolfRed (talk) 18:36, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

how to create a page on wikipedia for my website?

hello,, I have a website (www.inside.ps) and i want to create a page on wikipedia for my site, how can i do that? please support. Issa.3esa2 (talk) 12:00, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

If your website is notable, then other people, unrelated to it, will want to create an article about it. Please don't attempt to do this yourself. Please read WP:COI. -- Hoary (talk) 12:45, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Please also be aware that you may not use Wikipedia to create a CV on your userpage - it will be deleted if you try. I advise using LinkedIn for that purpose. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:48, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

@Issa.3esa2: Please also see WP:NOTPROMO. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 18:43, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Page denial

Hello,

I am new to wiki and trying to create a page for a person i am a fan of. I cited most of the sources i could find and a short bio. Can you help it get approved? Davidmurrietta (talk) 21:12, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Davidmurrietta. I gather this is about User:Davidmurrietta/sandbox. Currently the tone of that is totally unsuitable for a Wikipedia article. Such phrases as: she fell in love with acting and modeling; Alexandra enjoys modeling but acting is her biggest passion.; She is a very creative person ; Alexandra enjoys sharing her fashion, lifestyle, beauty tips and other posts; Her YouTube channel has really taken off and has become one of the hot premier viewing channels ...; With her growing success, Alexandra stays focused; Alexandra has taken a piece from each project with her on her journey, and much of the other language in this draft is quite unsuitable for Wikipedia. It sounds like a blog post or a magazine article much influenced by marketing efforts. Oh and the subject should be referred to by last name only after the initial mention, never by first name.

A Wikipedia article must be strictly factual and neutral in tone. It must not express opinions abo9ut the merit or value of the subject, although it may report such opinions expressed by named persons who can be cited. And a Wikipedia article must certainly not speculate on the future activities of the subject, or indeed o9n anything. The only possible way to make this a possibly valid article would be to delete the whole text, and start from nothing.

I looked very briefly at the sources cited. IMDB is not considered reliable. Other Wikipedia articles should never be cited. Neither should Amazon pages. Pinterest is rarely a reliable source. None of the other sources cited seem to be independent published reliable sources that each discuss the subject in some detail. If the sources you cited are the best that is out there, Creteau is not notable and drafting an article about her is a waste of time, IMO. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:21, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Changing font type and size

I copied and pasted text fron notepad into an existing Wikipedia page, and the font typeand/or size that I pasted in was incorrect. How can I change the font type and size? Brianmarkle (talk) 20:24, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Brianmarkle and welcome to the Teahouse. Notepad edits generic plain text, and never exports any font settings when text is copied from it. The font family (Mono-spaced, sans-serif, or serif) used by the Wikipedia editing window is controlled in a user's Wikipedia Preferences, on the Editing tab. The exact font and the font size are controlled by a user's browser settings.

It is possible to use HTML tags to change the displayed font of rendered pages (that is after a save, not during editing) but it is almost always wrong to do so. By not trying to control these, one lets the user select appropriate settings for the user's own device. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:02, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Brianmarkle. The formatting and syntax used by the Wikipedia software for pages often seems to move in mysterious ways, but I believe it does what it does by design. So, instead of directly copying-and-pasting content you’ve been working on using other types of software onto a Wikipedia page, perhaps try adding it to your user sandbox first. You can work out any formatting or syntax issues in your sandbox, and then add it to the relevant Wikipedia page when things seem good to go. — Marchjuly (talk) 21:40, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Brian, thanks for working to improve our information on Einstein's publications. I can’t see how this edit would have fixed the font size. The previous one looks like a copy-search-replace-paste including format via Visual Editor. @Brianmarkle: was it definitely Windows Notepad? Or did you copy-paste in Source and then switch to Visual mode? Just trying to get a picture of the process to understand how it might have produced unexpected results. Pelagic ( messages ) Z – (08:40 Mon 08, AEST) 22:40, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I see below that you re-typed it by hand. Pelagic ( messages ) Z – (09:14 Mon 08, AEST) 23:14, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

can anyone send me link to learn or pay how to create a business page

Ab441846 (talk) 00:48, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia is not for promotion. It is an encyclopedia with articles on subjects which are notable by Wikipedia's definition. --David Biddulph (talk) 00:51, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Who is sbrwv2? I’d like to correspond with him about the royal laundry article. Thanks

151.196.12.109 (talk) 00:50, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

The best place to discuss that article is at Talk:Royal Laundry. -- Hoary (talk) 01:02, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

First proper article already up for deletion ...

Hi all. I have some experience with Wikipedia, have been contributing little fixes here and there, and spent this weekend writing my first proper article here: fast.ai. After just a few hours it's already up for deletion and I'm a little discouraged. The reason for deletion would be the "promotional" tone which is unintentional, as I have no affiliation with this research institute at all. I just know and respect it for the MOOC they provide online, and thought a page would be appropriate as both founders also have a wikipedia page (Jeremy Howard and Rachel Thomas). I'm not sure how to proceed. I've been trying to edit the article and removed some stuff, but now it feels like maybe it's gotten too short? I guess I don't really understand the inclusion criteria. Could you please guide me on how to improve the tone, or help editing it so it's more neutral? (because honestly I don't really see the problem). Any advice on how to avoid this in the future? I'm not sure I'd want to spend another weekend on a new article, researching references etc, just to get it deleted :( Any help would be much appreciated! Paritalo (talk) 18:57, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Fast.ai -- puddleglum^2.0 19:20, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

References should not be the company's (or person's) own website except for the most basic of facts. David notMD (talk) 23:26, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

@Paritalo: Welcome to the Teahouse! The inclusion criteria can be found at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). It looks like you're receiving good feedback on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fast.ai and your talk page. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 01:29, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Layafette Square article has become a venue for discussing "2020 Attack on Protestors"

Concerning the Appropriateness of the section "2020 attack on protesters" in the Layafette Park article

The following was posted to the Layafette Park talk page on 05:26, 5 June 2020 (UTC). It presents my concern and a suggestion to resolve my concern.

I think this issue needs attention but in the Wikimonolith I am not sure where to address it. So I seek out the Teahouse council.

I was interested in information about Lafayette Square in order to "get the lay of the land". That is, I wanted to understand what Lafayette Square is to better understand the situation involved with the situation of June 1, 2020.

I read the article, and at the end, there was a section entitled "2020 attack on protestors" (NOTE added today, June 5: On June 5, the section title was revised today to "2020 Protestors" by an anonymous editor who "noted" in the edit summary that "This was not an “attack" (lacking any support for this claim considering it is a fact recorded in many reputable sources.)

The section's initial sentence is "Main article: Donald Trump photo-op at St. John's Church" followed by a brief very dense Synopsys of what occurred concerning the "photo-op" situation.

The event of June 1 is noteworthy; however, the addition of the section "2020 attack on protesters" in the Layafette Square Wikipedia article is not appropriate.

In lieu of a dedicated section, a reference to this attack on protesters (which is contained in an existing Wikipedia article in detail) should be used to note and provide the explanation of the attack. Most likely a "2020 attack" section, if retained, in order to keep up-to-date, will need to be revised and revised and revised which undoubtedly is not a desirable Wikipedia method (I don't have a reference for this particular situation but I imagine there is one somewhere.)

I looked to the Wikipedia article about Pearl Harbor as a "template" of how a notable historic event that occurred at Pearl Harbor was handled. The "Day of Infamy" attack on Pearl Harbor was not presented in a section of its own, but as follows in a section entitled "See Also".

Pearl Harbor attack

I propose that the Layafette Square article be modified so that the subject "2020 attack on protesters" is handled in the same manner as the "1941 Attack on Pearl Harbor" was handled in the Pearl Harbor article.

This change would be to remove the "2020 attack on protesters" section and replace it with a new "See Also" section containing the following reference link.

See Donald Trump photo-op at St. John's Church which provides information concerning police and National Guard troops using tear gas to clear peaceful protesters from Lafayette Square and surrounding streets in Washington, D.C., to create a path for President Donald Trump to walk from the White House to St. John's Episcopal Church on June 1, 2020.

(Hmmm. Perhaps this long explanatory sentence could be edited into something a bit briefer.)

Normally, before making this edit, I would contact the editor of the original entry of this "2020 attack on protestors" information to obtain a consensus to the best course of action. Unfortunately, the editors ShayShayd and 73.85.202.217 do "not exist" so no direct communication is possible.

I could make the change I propose but might encounter a undo revert. So I make this Talk Page entry in anticipation that an Editor or Editors would assist in obtaining consensus help in drawing the appropriate action.

Lacking dissent or other comments, at some point, I will return and implement my proposed revision.

Osomite (talk) 05:26, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

No one seems to read or write on the Layafette Park talk page. Today, June 5, so far there have been five edits made on this section. As I pointed out above, this section will be continuously revised and revised per the whim of anonymous editors. Layette Park, as a Wikipedia article, does not need to be a literal field of attack and parry.

Restating my resolution briefly: If a "See Also" section reference is good enough for Pearl Harbor, a "See Also" section reference will certainly be good enough for Layafette Park.

Please help me on how to proceed. Osomite (talk) 21:38, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Osomite. My suggestion to you would be to post your concerns about this at Talk:Lafayette Square, Washington, D.C. because that’s really going to be the best place to try and resolve this. The Teahouse isn’t really a suitable place to try and sort out things like this and it might actually make it a bit harder for others interested in subject matter to participate.

Editors interested in the park will most likely have its Wikipedia article on their watchlists, not the Teahouse; in addition, future editors interested in the square’s article will most likely be checking its talk page, not the Teahouse archives, for previous discussions about the article. Even if you think nobody is going to respond to a post on the article’s talk page, it’s still generally better to start there and make that your “base of operations” so to speak. Give the discussion a little time to breathe and others a chance to respond; if after a few days nobody does, then you can be WP:BOLD and make the changes that need to be made or you can seek opinions elsewhere per WP:CANVASS#Appropriate notification.

Now, if you do decide to be BOLD, just mention the talk page discussion in your edit summary since that will let others know why you made the edit. If someone disagrees with what you did and reverts you, they’ll be able to explain why in the discussion you started. — Marchjuly (talk) 22:01, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Marchjuly I appreciate the rapid reply to my query.

However, it seems you missed the crux of my issue while giving me a lecture about Talk Page etiquette.

What I posted here on the TeaHouse today was what I already posted to the Layafette Park talk page yesterday on June 4. I did not intend for the TeaHouse archive to become the "Location of Record" for my concern. I just wanted advice on how to proceed as the current situation of the Layafette Park page is really really annoying (yes, it might just be my ACD issues).

I came here for advice because the current "Layafette Park" "editors" are merrily editing without any attention to the niceties of the Talk Page purpose or of the overall intent for the article. And by the way, there really aren't any "Layafette Park" Editors involved in this recent spate of "2020 Protestors" event edits; it seems these anonymous editors are only interested in creating a second, substandard account for of the situation involving the "Trump Photo-op with a bible" contretemps that only they can explain. Clearly, as they are anonymous, they won't be providing the rationale.

So at some point, I will be WP:BOLD. In the meanwhile, the league of anonymous editors will continue to spin their wheels, round like a circle in a spiral, like a wheel within a wheel. Never-ending or beginning on an ever spinning reel. . .Yada. . .Yada. . .Yada.

Osomite (talk) 22:50, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

My apologies to you (Osomite) if my reply appeared to be lecturing to you. Lots of new editors come to the Teahouse for help so sometimes replies are also written with that in mind since others might also find the extra information, by chance, to be helpful. Anyway, I missed that you’d already posted on the article’s talk page about; so, again my apologies for not realizing you were just copying-and-pasting what you posted there into your post here (for future reference just in case you don’t know, it’s often sufficient to just post a wikilink to the discussion instead). I mistook that part of your post for being something you wanted to ask, not something you’d already asked. An oversight on my part that I wouldn’t have made if I had checked your contributions history. Anyway, I’m glad another host came along and was better able to answer your question. Hopefully, things will now be resolved through talk page discussion. Best of luck to you. — Marchjuly (talk) 00:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

PS: Just for reference in case you didn’t know or for anyone else who might not know this, both ShayShayd and 73.85.202.217 do exist and you can post messages to them on their user talk pages if you like. They might not answer, but they may. Some registered editors have red linked user pages simply because they haven’t created one. You can also WP:PING ShayShayd to the article talk page discussion if you want (ping doesn’t work for IP accounts unfortunately) and perhaps they will see the notification the next time they log in and will respond on the article’s talk page. — Marchjuly (talk) 00:20, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you (Marchjuly). This is some good information. I have been involved in editing Wikipedia for some time, but I have never fully understood much of the various capabilities such as WIKILINK (I am so clueless I did not realize that there was documentation for the Wikipedia markup language until about a month ago). I have my difficulties with the totally on-line world of Wikipedia having started with computers way before there was an internet and I did my coding on punch cards which ran in batch processing on the IBM 7094 and CDC 6400 which had 32K of memory (no kidding, I still have my last Fortran program I punched into "IBM" cards from back in the 1970s (OMG, that was almost 50 years ago) and I worked with a man who was on the COBOL development team with Grace Hopper). Osomite (talk) 21:06, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi again Osomite. When you tried to correct a spelling error in your post with this edit, you accidentally introduced one in mine. My spelling of the park’s name was correct, and your change made it so the link I added to the article’s talk page no longer worked. While I believe this was unintentional, please try to be careful when editing or adding talk page posts. In some cases as explained in WP:REDACT, it’s OK to go back and correct/clarify your own posts, but you need to be very careful per WP:TPO about even accidentally editing posts made by others. Here at Teahouse, editors tend to be a little more understanding about such things when they happen, but on article talk pages in the middle of an ongoing discussion that might be a bit heated, such a thing can cause problems. Sometimes a good thing to do is to click “Show changes” before publishing a post, just to double check. Anyway, I’ve undone your edit and restored my post back to what it was before. If you’d like to go back a re-reccorect the spelling error in yours, you may. — Marchjuly (talk) 20:56, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

(Marchjuly), you are correct. I should have left well enough alone, but let a little ACD paranoia affect me. I didn't realize I was editing your post, I am sorry. I will leave the Lafayette or is it Layafette typo remain lest I create more unintended mischief.Osomite (talk) 22:12, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

It's OK to go back a correct or clarify your posts (especially if you're just fixing a typo) if you think it's necessary. Just try and follow WP:REDACT if what you "fix" could indirectly affect the meanings of anything posted in response to the post your "fixing". That wasn't the case here and I wasn't pointing out what you did because I was angry. I realized it was almost certainly done by accident, but even so we should try be careful that we only change on own posts and not someone elses (except when we've got a really good policy or guideline based reason for doing so). Nine times out of ten, the other person will realize it was just a simple mistake and most likely not make a big deal about it; however, it can be the kind of thing that really can irritate someone, particlulary if the discussion is heated and you and they are on opposing sides of the fence and have been going back and forth at each other for a bit. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:32, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Osomite: You did the right thing posting on the talk page. Give it a chance for feedback. I like the way it is now, with a summary and also pointing people to the Trump photo op article. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:03, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

TimTempleton Thanks for the advise, I will give it a chance for feedback and will try to calm my ACD tendencies.

Osomite (talk) 22:54, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Draft:IXL Learning

I have written and submitted an article about parent company IXL Learning. Inside, I wrote about its divisions and acquired divisions, and one of those acquired divisions is ABCya.com. ABCya.com already has its own official article, though, so how should I overcome this? Should I summarize on on my article, just link to the article on its own, or leave it out? I asked this question before, but I didn't get the answer I was looking for specifically. Thank you for your time. Le Panini (talk) 20:20, 7 June 2020 (UTC) Le Panini (talk) 20:20, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

@Le Panini: Usually, it's appropriate to just have a section starting with a hatnote: {{Main|ABCya.com}} and then a summary paragraph. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 22:16, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

That's what I've got. Thank you! Le Panini (talk) 01:13, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

@Le Panini: Presuming Draft:IXL Learning becomes an article, then it would also be appropriate to add a link from the ABCya.com article to IXL Learning. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 01:35, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Adding relevant material

how do I add relevant info without it being removed? Mirett (talk) 00:07, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Start by behaving like a grown-up, and not making additions like this one. -- Hoary (talk) 01:00, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

As IP 219.88.224.229 you were blocked for a month on 3 June for vandalism (there was also a prior one week block). Creating the account Mirett and editing a draft started as 291.88.224.229 is sockpuppetry. A sockpuppet investigation has been created. SeeWikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/219.88.224.229. David notMD (talk) 02:36, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

updated wiki page with biography template

i am a new member with the username david murrietta. I created a page with a biography template, but i am unable to edit. How can i lower the level of protection so that i am able to edit my own page?? Davidmurrietta (talk) 00:50, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Theroadislong has stated that Alexandra Creteau doesn't merit an article in Wikipedia. You are able to edit your sandbox (as long as you do so in compliance with policies concerning sandboxes and the like). -- Hoary (talk) 01:08, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Your draft is at the bottom of User:Davidmurrietta/sandbox. You can edit it by first clicking on Edit on the top bar menu. The proper way to use the draft template is to replace content in it with your content, rather than putting your content at the bottom. In its current state, your draft is so NOT an article that the suggestion was to delete everything and start over. Minimally, as you write about this actress, references go in each section, and all the subjective wording about her stays deleted. David notMD (talk) 02:43, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Davidmurrietta Please also note that Amazon, IMDb, instagram YouTube, resumes.actorsaccess.com, Pinterest and Wikipedia are not reliable sources and will need to be replaced. Theroadislong (talk) 07:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Newry

I'm having a disagreement with another edotir regarding my edit, Newry being awarded city status is a very important event in the history of Newry and it deserves its own paragraph to highlight its importance. Another opinion would be appreciated. Devokewater (talk) 08:47, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Comment left at Talk page of article, where you had already appropriately opened up a discussion. David notMD (talk) 09:54, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Devokewater (talk) 10:14, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Formatting

Draft:Nokia C series (Cricket wireless)

In the aforementioned draft, I have a formatting issue; The second section starts before the first infobox ends. How does one ensure that the section starts after the first infobox ends (by automatically adding blank lines)? I couldn’t find any information on that... RedBulbBlueBlood9911Talk 09:55, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

@RedBulbBlueBlood9911: Use {{Clear}} —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 12:23, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, @AlanM1:! RedBulbBlueBlood9911Talk 12:48, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Just checking I am doing edits OK!

Hi,

I love Wikipedia, and as you can see have done some edits over the years. I'm sure they're all OK.

I was going to do some today (on BBC Radio 2), and I noticed the page's Talk page had comments in it, describing various issues.

Should I have been adding anything to the Talk pages of ones I have done in the past? Or are my notes that I submit with a change enough?

Many thanks for any advice. Uk.seedy (talk) 10:53, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Uk.seedy - welcome to the Teahouse. The answer is held in the essay BRD. You're never normally required to discuss a change on the talk page before making it; but if anybody disagrees with it, that will probably come to the talk page for discussion anyway, so if you sense that your change might be at all controversial, it is a good idea to discuss it first. You never need post on the talk page just to say you've made a change: anybody who's watching the artice will see it in their Watchlist anyway. (Make sure you use informative edit summaries, though). --ColinFine (talk) 12:04, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Uk.seedy, and welcome to the Teahouse. If you make a major change to an article or one dealing with controversial issues in an article, or one whose purpose is likely to be unclear to other editors, it is not a bad idea to explain your intent on the article talk page. But as long as you are using good edit summaries, you do not have to explain edits on the article talk page. If you wish to discuss how any issue should be addressed in an article, the article talk page is the best place in most cases. And if someone reverts one of your edits and you disagree, follow the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle and discuss the matter on the article talk page. That is my advice. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 12:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

OK many thanks indeed for your help!

Uk.seedy (talk) 13:40, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

issue with a flagged page

I am trying to set update a page which has been flagged in the past. How can I do that? GeorgeBowers19 (talk) 12:45, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi GeorgeBowers19. If by "flagged" you are referring to "maintenance tags", you are free to fix the problem at hand and then remove the tag. The only article you have contributed to which contains such a tag is Patokh Chodiev, which is tagged because a major contributor to the article in 2017 was somehow connected to the subject of the article. This is one of the hardest tags to be removed, because you have to ensure that the connected contributor has not edited the article in a long time, and that the article is, by now, written neutrally, and this is difficult if you don't know the story of how the tag got there originally. Hillelfrei ^talk 14:34, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Missing Information

I frequently go to the link below which is the information for the brand Hard Rock Cafe - on that page here on Wikipedia, there used to be a list of all the Hard Rock Cafes around the world & the dates when they opened, closed, moved, re-opened - it is now gone, the information is no longer on the page & I feel this was an essential part of the information provided - where did it go? why was it removed?

Hard_Rock_Cafe HRC WORLDWIDE (talk) 15:01, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

HRC WORLDWIDE Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. There is nothing wrong with you asking here, but the best place to ask this question is the talk page of the article, in this case, Talk:Hard Rock Cafe, only because the editors that follow that article may be more familiar with the subject. In addition, if your username is that of an organization, you will need to change it at Special:GlobalRenameRequest. 331dot (talk) 15:05, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

HRC WORLDWIDE Seems it was removed a couple of weeks ago: [1]. And if WP:COI applies to you, please follow that guidance as well. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:11, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I wonder why this information was removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HRC WORLDWIDE (talk • contribs) 15:20, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

HRC WORLDWIDE The edit summery said Other restaurant articles don't have a massive list of locations, especially unsourced; and this has been tagged for three years. Probably very outdated. The place to discuss this would be the article talk page, as mentioned above. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:28, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Cannot find the page I created yesterday

New Page: Georges Kugelmann Created a page, clicked 'publish' and closed the computer. Cannot find it today. Never happened before. Where is it? Svarshavsky (talk) 18:24, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Svarshavsky, and welcome top the Teahouse. You have not saved any edit to Wikipedia since 12 November 2019, at least not under this account, until the above Teahouse post. It is possible that there was a communication failure between your amd the Wikipedia servers, or that you misclicked. computer. I can't tell, but it was never saved. (nor was i9t saved and then deledted.) I am sorry for any time and effort lost, but there is nothing that I can do to help. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:34, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Svarshavsky, maybe your article that you write yesterday was deleted by Wikipedia !

this is written by Usernameformeisthis |———|___~" 02:43, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Actually, moved to draft, allowing you to improve before resubmitting. David notMD (talk) 15:36, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

does 1/4 annealed loos its stength after 50 years

2603:9001:B03:EAD7:55DE:ABD7:84F5:DD6B (talk) 15:57, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

This page is for asking questions about how to use Wikipedia. For other questions, try WP:RD. RudolfRed (talk) 16:00, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Stigmatizing of some of my contributions

Good morning; I have now and then contributed from my field of expertise, ophthalmology; and have created 5 pages: three about (living) major innovators in ophthalmology, one about a new surgical technique introduced by one of these three and another page on a syndrome described by another of these physicians; a term that has become widely acceepted in medical terminology over the last years.

The pages are: Josef Flammer, Daniel Mojon, Burkhard Dick, Flammer syndrome, Minimally invasive strabismus surgery

These 5 contributions have been marked with a COI notice by a major "Wikipedian" who goes as Doc James. I have tried to make clear that I do not have any connection to these individuals other than knowing them (ever eye doctor in Europe and many in the rest of the world do), have not worked for them, do not work for them etc. To no avail. The stigma - yes, that's what it is - remains on these pages and, frankly, it is a blot on the reputation of these scientists ! My declaration of having no conflict of interest on talk pages elicited no reaction, Doc James did not anser my emails. This is very frustrating and tempers the motivation to do something on Wikipedia EN. I would apprecitate your advice. Is there some place on W where I can file something like a complaint ? Best 15:04, 5 June 2020 (UTC)George G Milford (talk)

As you are the person who created the articles, not appropriate for you to remove the COI tags, even if your connection to the people and topics are related to your shared profession, and you have attempted to contribute via neutral point of view. You were correct in stating your lack of close connection on the Talk pages. In time, other editors with add/subtract to the articles, and in time an editor will decide the tags should be removed and will do so. A COI tag does not disparage either the creator/contributor nor the content of the article. It only cautions readers that the article may have conscious or unconscious bias because of the creator/contributor's connection to the topic. David notMD (talk) 16:08, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@David notMD: is there any reason you posted about referencing on George's userpage, rather than on his talk page? That seems most unusual. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:06, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@George G Milford: Just adding a big "thank you" for wanting to bring your expertise and knowledge to Wikipedia, and please don't in any way feel "stigmatized" by someone putting that notice on an article that you created. (It's even worse when someone puts it up for deletion on the grounds of non-notability - I know, as it has happened to me and to probably to every other experienced editor who has been around for some time here.) Just to reassure you: our Conflict of Interest page states right up at the top: "That someone has a conflict of interest is a description of a situation, not a judgement about that person's opinions, integrity, or good faith." But I do tend to agree with you that, at first sight, none of the articles you created or edited seem biased towards promoting someone or something, though, as suggested above, it is best if you let other editors remove the COI notice in due course. And I also agree with you that it is unlikely that anyone without specialist knowledge of some very technical areas is ever going to write about them with any competence. In my own capacity as an experienced editor, but a non-geologist, I have currently 'adopted' a retired professor of marine geophysics and we have worked together, with me helping them understand how we edit here so as to encourage them to mobilise the maximum knowledge with the minimum of pain. I've guided them in how to declare on their userpage (see here) their own specialist connection with people they know or the areas of their work they have contributed to; I'd be happy to show you how to do that too, if you would like me to. It really is nothing to feel insulted by, and declaring that one knows someone who one is writing about is perfectly OK, and quite normal. It takes just a few moments of adding a little template code to one's userpage to ensure full openness.

Finally, it's worth saying that directly emailing another editor is unlikely to elicit any more response than pinging them directly in a discussion. (One does have to include the other user's name and sign the post correctly in the same edit if they are to know that you've replied to them. See this for how notifications work). As you've probably also realised, Doc James, is a practicing ER doctor, so I think they can be forgiven if they missed seeing your replies, or were simply too busily engaged elsewhere to respond. If you're willing to leave it a while longer, I'll take a look at each of the articles you mentioned in more detail and see if we can resolve some of this. It would also be good to improve your citations, especially as including hyperlinks to the online articles really helps other people find the sources more efficiently, and would be a good thing to see in your future contributions here. Kind regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 19:06, 5 June 2020 (UTC).

Thank you so much Nick Moyes, your advice is much appreciated ! Best George G Milford (talk) 14:12, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

In answer to Nick's question, I commented on George's User page because my comment there did not have anything to do with his question here. David notMD (talk) 19:38, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm struggling to understand your answer to Nick's question. Isn't George's user page the place for him to tell us about himself or his Wikimedia-related activities, and his user talk page the place for other editors to communicate with him? Have I misunderstood? --David Biddulph (talk) 19:48, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. Of course I meant to leave my comment on his Talk page. Have moved it there. David notMD (talk) 00:27, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

@George G Milford: we'd define a close connection as (a) knowing the people personally or (b) personally using a niche procedure or (c) citing your own work. Do any of those apply? Guy (help!) 08:31, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Guy as stated above: in a small field like ophthalmology, most of those who are active - like attending meetings and conventions while this was still possible - know most of those who contribute, invent, research. And you talk to them during the break etc. That's the "knowing personally". BestGeorge G Milford (talk) 14:20, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

George G Milford, understood. Small pond, not that many big fish. So be conservative, post the content on Talk first so others can have a look, and that fixes the problem. Guy (help!) 16:08, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Guy, much appreciated ! Best George G Milford (talk) 12:12, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

"As you are the person who created the articles, not appropriate for you to remove the COI tags" I thought we'd put this canard to rest a long time ago.

A cursory examination shows that at last one of the articles has nothing on its talk page to comply with the long-standing, present-by-consensus, requirement in the template's documentation (highlighting in original; and present there for obvious reasons) "if you place this tag, you should promptly start a discussion on the article's talk page to explain what is non-neutral about the article"; that warning is immediately followed by the equally-long standing notice: "If you do not start this discussion, then any editor is justified in removing the tag without warning".

Note that the requirement is to explain what is non-neutral about the article, not simply to assert a COI; and that anyone may remove the tag if that is not done.

I also note that, from past discussions, Doc James is well aware of this requirement; it ill behoves a member of the WMF board to repeatedly ignore it.Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:37, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Andy !George G Milford (talk) 14:20, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Someone has died

FIXED

Added to article with source by CommanderWaterford and others. Guy (help!) 16:12, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

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

An anon user posted this to my bot's talk page. -- GreenC 19:57, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, GreenC. I'm not sure how to respond to this, as it's not really a question; except to suggest that you could post on the IP's usertalk page, thanking them for the alert, and maybe asking why they thought you needed to know. But if you can't think of any particular reason, just the acknowledgement on your own page seems sufficient. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:04, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi GreenC. The IP probably read that this person had died (maybe they even knew the person), and then checked Wikipedia to see if there was an article written about them or if the existing article had been updated. The IP probably didn’t know how to update the article or didn’t want to try and update the article themselves because they were worried about making a mistake. So, the looked for someone who recently edited the article and that happened by chance to be you. Ideally, it would’ve been OK for the IP to be WP:BOLD and update the article because even if they made a mistake in the process it would’ve probably caused the article to be flagged for review and the mistake might’ve been caught by someone. For future reference, the same applies to you as well in that it’s OK for you to be BOLD and update articles if you feel you can; if you make a mistake, someone should catch it. Sometimes when the claim being made is unsourced, Googling the subject’s name (particularly for people who’ve recently died) can lead to reliable sources which can be cited.

Anyway, thanks for bringing this to the Teahouse’s attention. Someone has already updated the article, perhaps after seeing your post. — Marchjuly (talk) 21:25, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, GreenC. It does look like the IP saw your bot as the most recent editor and didn’t realise it wasn’t a person. And they say noobs can’t find a History pages! It’s unusual, but the Teahouse regulars have probably seen weirder. Pelagic ( messages ) Z – (08:09 Mon 08, AEST) 22:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Question about citations

Hi, I was wondering about some citations I have made on an article I made. My draft was declined initially due to bad referencing/citing. I was helpfully informed by the editor who declined the article that I should avoid references to self-published sources (by the band in question I am writing about) and YouTube videos. I have a couple of references to YouTube still cited and a few self-published sources but mostly from Discogs and AllMusic. The self-published sources are purely the band giving information about their own members, is it ok for me to keep these citations? Thanks.

--Isaac B (talk) 15:50, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Draft:Lucky Chops

@Vgj843df: There is a comprehensive list of commonly-discussed sources for music-related articles: Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources. You will notice there that Discogs is considered generally unreliable because its content is user-submitted/self-published, as is YouTube.

That leaves one reference to Allmusic, which is considered "generally reliable" (with exceptions). However, a single reference to a reliable source does not a notable band make. You'll need to find more independent sources with significant coverage to show that this band is notable enough for inclusion. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:15, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Translate to English + add an association logo

Hello dear community,

I am used of publishing articles in the French Wikipedia but I am new in the English one. I would like to publish the translation in English of an article written in French, and I have two questions:

- firstly, I am not familiar with the translation tool. I have begun to translate my article with it but I had then to do it with a classical draft, an submit it to review. Is it the easiest/right way ?

- secondly, I would like to illustrate my article with the logo of the association, as it is done in the French version. But I am lost in the legislation of the English Wikipedia at this point: can I do so ?

French article: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/F%C3%A9d%C3%A9ration_internationale_de_football_corporatif

English one (draft): Draft:International Federation of Corporate Football

Thank you for your help,

Warmest regards

TheSkimask (talk) 10:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

You'll find advice at WP:Translation and at WP:Logos. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:20, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you David for your answer ! --TheSkimask (talk) 16:30, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Publish article

how many edit I have to do. For creating article ??? Bijoyonline30 (talk) 17:25, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Before you can create an article, your account needs to be autoconfirmed, which requires not only at least 10 edits but also at least 4 days since account creation. I notice that you have added a large number of red links to the encyclopedia. Have you read the guidance, and have you convinced yourself that each of those subjects satisfies Wikipedia's definition of notability? Before you try to generate a new article, please read the advice at WP:Your first article. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:40, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you sir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bijoyonline30 (talk • contribs) 17:46, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

page "reviewed"

Hello, I received a notice from another Wikipedia user that a page I created "has been reviewed." As best I can tell, the user made no substantive changes to the page, nor can I find any indication on the page that it "has been reviewed." What does "been reviewed" mean in this case? Is this a regular thing that Wikipedians do for each other's pages, or does it just mean they read it? FWIW, the page is: East Side Freedom Library Thanks! NuthatchYogi (talk) 17:13, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

You can see evidence of the review in the page log. This review is carried out under the new page patrol process, and one significance is that new articles are NOINDEXed until either they have been reviewed or 90 days have expired. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:29, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, David Biddulph. As an editor, do I need to think about intentionally creating logs for certain actions, or does this happen automatically? NuthatchYogi (talk) 20:29, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Actions which need to be logged are logged automatically. As an editor you don't need to worry about it. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:35, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

How to make an article I wrote not seem like promotion

I really hate having to keep doing this (I have incredible social anxiety), but I am an English Teacher in Hanoi.

During the height of COVID-19 measures here, I was without work and had little to do, so my neighbor suggested I write an article about his company (I am a blogger in my spare time), in order to keep myself busy. And for your reference, no, I am not being paid. It was a half-hearted suggestion that I thought was interesting.

So, I spent many hours looking at every resource I could to write my article. I used articles on this site about similar companies in other countries (Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sibers) as a reference, in order to keep myself objective and neutral.

So, my article is up for a while and then it gets taken down as a draft for being "Promotional" and "Not detailed enough". I'm very frustrated at this very vague reason, get very upset at my hard work having been upset, and after the user who took it down refused to answer me, I go to User talk:Oshwah and User talk:Yngvadottir to try and find answers for what I can do. I try to be as transparent as possible (I dislike it as it makes me anxious, but I do so anyway because I hate having hard work wasted), and make the article even more detailed. Satisfied with my work, submit it for review, I go off to take a short break and I come back to see it has been rejected almost as soon as I had left my computer with the reason being "Promotional".

So, my question is: What else can I do? Again, I have made every effort to be transparent, have used multiple articles on this site as reference, and have tried as hard possible to use as neutral language as I can.

I had very much wanted to join this community, but with standards that are (to me) very inconsistent and who have people unwilling to answer me, I find it very difficult to justify having to do hours of citation gathering, hours of writing, and hours of proof-reading to make an article. I found this site lacking very much in Vietnamese business (in contrast with other countries), so I wanted to do something, but I find myself frustrated and confused.

What can I do? How can I put my article up? Can someone please explain to me these standards in a way that is simple because I really just want to contribute and not have any of my work put to waste?

I apologize for being rude, but I'm really trying and it feels like only a few people are willing to help me.

Thank you. KyleVietnam (talk) 10:48, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy: Draft:Rikkeisoft. Created as article, moved to Draft, then Rejected. David notMD (talk) 11:31, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

KyleVietnam, it's not easy to write an article here. One of my first articles was immediately deleted after I published it, (not moved to draft, deleted altogether). I actually only wanted to contribute to Wikipedia and had no reason to want to write about one topic over another, so I completely dropped writing about things of questionable notability which could be seen as an effort at promotion. Wikipedia is, of course, not for promotion. For a year, I focused on writing about topics with obvious notability, while I learnt the ropes of various notability and content guidelines. So, if, as you say, you are interested in becoming a Wikipedian, I suggest you choose uncontroversial topics that no one could conceivably be paying you to write about and whose notability is without question also.

As for the draft in question, the notability guidelines for companies is at WP:NORG. You will need to demonstrate with sources that the criteria is met by the topic you are writing about. The article you say you are referencing for guidance is marked as an advertisement as well, by the way. If you disagree with the reviewers and are confident enough that you have satisfied NORG, you can request that the draft be accepted only to be put through a deletion discussion (see WP:AFD). I advised that this was an option to an editor once before, and the outcome was actually in said editor's favour.

Everyone is a volunteer here, and we see a lot of efforts at promoting people, businesses, views and so on. So, speaking for myself, I am happy to help an editor master the skills of writing Wikipedia articles while they write about History or Geography or socio-politics, etc. but I have learnt from experience not to invest in editors who want to first get a living person or a business on Wikipedia. That, those editors will have to figure out for themselves, with only minimal guidance.

If after reading WP:NORG, you have further questions about it, I will happily clarify it for you. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 20:28, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for responding to me, Usedtobecool

I had no idea how to check if something was an ad or not. I guess it makes sense that this site would be skeptical. What if I did just say my article was promotion? Granted, I'm not being paid for it, but I would like the world to pay more attention to Vietnamese business. I have been here since just before the outbreak and it really seems like it would be nice to put more money into this country's economy. My idea was that if I did this with many different types of large, local companies, it would help make Wikipedia a more diverse site (in terms of Vietnam).

So, in that sense, you could call it a promotion (of Vietnam). But I only want to focus on companies that are big here and which are in the news or Forbes, for example. The economy here is still very small (People often earn less than a dollar an hour for working), so this would really be good for this country, in my opinion. Of course, I want to be objective and fair as much as possible, and I am really trying, but I feel that the world (especially America) doesn't know enough about this country and how modern it is. So, I want to fix that.

Do you have any further advice? KyleVietnam (talk) 01:49, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@KyleVietnam: I feel like you're approaching this incorrectly. Thoughts like I would like the world to pay more attention to Vietnamese business and it would be nice to put more money into this country's economy are going to focus your contributions and editing towards glamourising Vietnam subjects you write about. You're going to go out of your way to make companies like Rikkeisoft sound appealing. This is great for ad copy, but not for an encyclopedia. You are going to have to separate yourself from your personal feelings about these subjects as much as you can and write just the facts. Stick with neutral verbs. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:02, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@Tenryuu:Thank you for your feedback. Speaking frankly, that's all fine. I, again, do want to be an unbiased editor. I have no intention of being overly glamorous for the sake of talking about how wonderful it is. But you will notice how I have tried to make it as unbiased in the article as possible (though I won't comment on the more obvious bias on other pages).

I will be frank. This site does not have enough representation. There is not enough diversity, in regards to Southeast Asian subjects, and it could stand to use more. If trying to improve the diversity on this site is a problem, then that feels like it's a race thing and I wouldn't be comfortable working within that environment, especially when I am dealing with subjects, while not notable within the West, are notable within the region itself.

It has been well-established that there is no conflict of interest. If I brush up my article and make it more neutral and just accept that it is "Promotion", can I have it back up? I just want to contribute without having any more problems. KyleVietnam (talk) 03:42, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@KyleVietnam: Wikipedia (English Wikipedia in particular) has very strict guidelines about what are reliable sources and paid editing (the latter had been a scandal a few years back). This may translate into a dearth of reliable Vietnamese sources or volunteers interested in the scope. While "increasing diversity" is a laudable goal, it is not the goal of Wikipedia: to spread knowledge that has been provided by reliable secondary sources. From the reviewer's comments, making the draft more neutral should resolve the issue. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:23, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

KyleVietnam, yes, there are people who are invested in getting some topics covered over others. That is how we make sure Wikipedia covers a broad range of topics. And, is therefore, to be welcomed. As you already know, I recommend against choosing companies, there are plenty of things undercovered about Vietnam or countries like it. It's ultimately your call, of course, but you ought to be prepared for all the pain of taking the more difficult road also. You can not ask the community to take it easy on you, or relax the standards for company articles from you, since, that is the worst area from which the integrity of Wikipedia is constantly under attack. You will need to figure out first which sources are WP:RELIABLE, and from among them which ones are independent (you should be able to filter out the paid-for pieces in those sources, WP:ROUTINE coverages, press releases from the companies, interviews, etc.) and from among the sources that remain, you'll need to make sure you have enough WP:SIGCOV left to support a standalone article.

Being from Forbes, for example, is not enough. It has to be the case that Forbes covered it because they genuinely thought the topic worth covering, and in their coverage, they presented enough encyclopedic information to support an article. Experienced editors who patrol the new articles and drafts can tell the difference by just reading a few sentences. So, if you are prepared for a baptism by fire, by all means, it's your call, but then it would be unfair to complain that other editors are being rough on you. Finally, be careful about the editor/article distinction. Reviewers called your draft promotional; the fact that, you, the author, would acknowledge a motive for promotion or declare a conflict if any, though a part of the equation is not the be all of whether an article is ultimately too promotional to be in mainspace (I inadvertently manage to write a completely promotional piece about a topic I had never heard of until that day, simply because the sources I was using were all promotional pieces, and I was not experienced enough to judge that fact). When the article is good beyond doubt, articles are accepted irrespective of creators' motives. In the case of your draft, it has no information that a regular wikipedia reader would be interested in. The information there is exactly of the type and format that a company's quarterly/yearly reports would include. It doesn't provide information to the general public, it provides information to potential customers and investors. It's not that that information is never to be included, but with only that, it is not really of any encyclopedic value. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:43, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi all. I am neither a new editor, a Teahouse host, or a new pages/AfC person (because I know I am too much of an inclusionist and would just be trying to save all the articles). I've also cut back sharply on my editing since last summer, so I may not be known to some of you, but I've written and improved articles on a very wide range of subjects. I've been trying to help KyleVietnam. I have to say that Wikipedia must not let "what we think the reader will be interested in" become our consideration. That's condescending to the reader: we aim to be more inclusive than dead-tree encyclopedias with editorial boards, not less. It causes unconscious bias to become more entrenched, not to mention causing editors with different backgrounds and interests to drift apart (personally I find video games and almost all popular music deeply uninteresting, and I'm sure most editors find architecture, þættir, and traditional knitting patterns equally unappealing). So we aim for notability, and we let everybody choose what they work on. And we try to encourage coverage of topics on which our existing coverage is weak. Although I understand trying to guide a new editor away from a topic where the gauntlet can be especially hard to run, there is nothing inherently wrong with having articles on businesses; that's why we have a specific notability criterion. There is also nothing inherently wrong with foreign-language sources, including languages that relatively few native speakers of English speak, although I advised KyleVietnam to provide title translations as a courtesy, which is good practise. In fact I agree 100% with KyleVietnam, we should welcome improvement of our coverage of Vietnamese topics, because it is indeed an area where our coverage is poor. The article needs to demonstrate that the business is notable; the most obviously applicable criterion is that it is a major player in its sector in its country, and another is that it has been recognized, in this instance by Japanese companies and press. Beyond that, it needs to reflect what reliable sources have said about it. If that happens to be boring business-type stuff, well, that's what the article should have in it. I cannot trawl through the cited sources looking for press releases, but they appear to me to include major Japanese and Vietnamese news providers, so I think assuming promotionalism is deleterious to the encyclopedia, and I believe KyleVietnam. (I am rather shocked the article was quick-failed with an assumption of bad faith, and had a "stop!" template applied to it that should be reserved for obviously inappropriate drafts and those that have been resubmitted a number of times wkithout meaningful improvement.) Perhaps it would be good if other editors who can read Vietnamese and/or Japanese examined the sources, and so I rather wish KyleVietnam had posted this at the AfC help board rather than the general Teahouse. But please, we should not only not assume bad faith as happened here, we should also welcome an editor who can read Vietnamese and Japanese (and Russian, too) and writes good English, and whatever articles they choose to write. We need such editors and we blatantly need such articles, if only so we reflect a bit less the unconscious biases of editors like me. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:27, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Yngvadottir, hello! Yes, I have seen your username in discussions before. I don't think I suggested there was anything wrong with writing about business; I only meant to make them aware of the painful reality (because they expressed frustration) that that is the area where we get the most WP:SPAs and spam, and as a corollary, that is the area where page patrollers and reviewers are likely to suspend good faith the quickest, and demand content standards atypical of articles that are just getting started, by new editors to add. My other point about whether the content is of interest to general readers, stems from the fact that the type of corporate facts that "would benefit investors and customers only" are the type of facts available on every single organisation. The fact that we don't indiscriminately cover companies but have a notability guideline means that that kind of information, even if it satisfies WP:V, does not add to notability, again, due to the fact that that's the kind of information you'd expect to be available for all companies. So, whether there is information available, and by extension, included, that's likely to be interest to the general public, is a short-hand to evaluating whether there is the type of coverage that satisfies WP:SIGCOV/WP:NORG. I have seen quality content contributors discuss the general accessibility of an article content with regard to the inherent quality that Wikipedia articles should strive toward (and the notion does find mentions here and there among the content guidelines), but that was not the reason I mentioned it. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:11, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Sulfurboy, I see that you declined that draft for being promotional. Promotionalism means writing things like "This is the best company", not factually reporting that a company won some awards. In other words, promotionalism is a problem that can be fixed by changing the wording. Can you tell us one sentence that you think needs to be re-worded, and give an example of how you would re-word it?

Also, do you have any serious doubt about whether the article would survive a trip to AFD? The WP:AFCPURPOSE has nothing to do with promotionalism. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:08, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, Cool. Thanks for the tips. I didn't know what AfC's purpose was.

Facepalm Sulfurboy (talk) 20:21, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Sulfurboy, do you have any specific examples of what should be improved in this article? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:56, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I keep forgetting what to do

Hikari04 (talk) 21:14, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

@Hikari04: It would help if you could tell us what you are forgetting to do. Interstellarity (talk) 22:04, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

editing or adding to a story

How to I get someone to help me edit a story? 194.179.61.173 (talk) 17:41, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello IP, if you want to have a go at editing yourself, see WP:TUTORIAL. About asking, use the talkpage of the article in question, or you can try the wikiprojects listed on that talkpage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:47, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello Gråa, Thanks for responding. I meant more to pay and have an IT person do it for me. The page already exists but there is a lot is missing, it's quite a huge story and honestly, I don't have the energy for it, I'm retired. Thought there might be experts who would do it as a service — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.179.61.173 (talk) 18:41, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm afraid that is not how it works here - incredibly, Wikipedia is written and maintained only by volunteers. If you mean story as in the plot of a story, you could place the {{no plot}} tag at the top of the article to draw the attention of editors. Hillelfrei ^talk 18:53, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello unregistered (IP) editor. There are people who will edit Wikipedia articles for a fee. Many of them are dishonest, and will "guarantee" that an article will be accepted and remain live, when they have no power to ensure anything of the sort. All paid editors must disclsoe that they are paid, whom pays them, and for what articles. Many reviewing editors tend to apply rules more strictly in cases of paid editing. I*f the requirement of disclosure is not followed, the undisclosed paid editor is very likely to be blocked indefinitely, and the article may be deleted, although this is not required. Some paid editors do make many positive contributions, but most are not well thought of. Depending on the exact subject, you may be able to interest an experienced volunteer editor. That will not cost anything, and may well get you a better result, but there is no way to know in advance if you can attract such interest. The advice by Gråbergs Gråa Sång above is good. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:59, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Forex scandal is the article that the IP editor is referring to [2]. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 21:45, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Given this is an existing article, you could create a new section on the Talk page of the article, explain what changes you think are needed, and provide references. Volunteer editors may or may not look at what you provided and decide to incorporate changes into the article. (Big) problems are that the article does not get a lot of readers, the Talk page fewer, and editors have not really been active in editing the article or discussing it on Talk. Your best path is to register to be a Wikipedia editor, open up the article by clicking on Edit at the top menu, and making the changes yourself - adding references as you go - and then at the bottom write a brief Edit summary of what you did and click on Publish changes. David notMD (talk) 23:08, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Help with updating images on two living persons biography page

Hello, I am asking for help with changing the images on two individual biography pages. Both images are outdated and if possible would like to have them refreshed to new images. These images are the correct photos to be used and permission has been granted by the photographer and musicians. I can answer any questions relating to the image and/or provide proof if required.

I hope somebody can help me.

The first article name is [Dimitri Vegas & Like Mike] and wiki page link is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimitri_Vegas_%26_Like_Mike

This is the currency image which is many years old: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimitri_Vegas_%26_Like_Mike#/media/File:Dimitri_Vegas_&_Like_Mike_in_TomorrowWorld_2013.jpg

This is the new image which is the current photo: To use the file in a wiki, copy this text into a page:

To link to it in HTML, copy this URL:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dimitri_Vegas_%26_Like_Mike.png

The second article name is [Lost Frequencies] and Wiki page link is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Frequencies

This is the currency image which is many years old: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Frequencies#/media/File:2016_Open_Beatz_-_Lost_Frequencies_-_by_2eight_-DSC_5232.jpg

This is the new image which is the current photo: To use the file in a wiki, copy this text into a page:

To link to it in HTML, copy this URL:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lost_Frequencies.jpg

Hope you can help me please :) Alex R101 (talk) 13:26, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the teahouse, I have left you some info on images on your talk page, both of these new images have been tagged for deletion because they are labelled as copyright "EDOUARD JANSSENS" and there is no evidence that the copyright holder has released. Theroadislong (talk) 13:46, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Note: No need to display apparently-copyvio images. I've commented them out. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 00:10, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Need help with new wikiproject: List of police killings of unarmed Black U.S. citizens

Hi! I'm a long-time user (lurker), new contributor to Wikipedia. I'm made a suggestion for a new wiki page at the village pump - "List of police killings of unarmed Black U.S. citizens" - that was moved to Wiki projects by a longtime user.

It's been 48 hours and I haven't seen anyone jump on it so I'm soliciting help here.

There were over a 100 cases in 2015 alone, and will entail creating pages like 'Killing of Elijah McClain' (this incident has no record on wiki) so this is not a small undertaking. I'd rather not do it alone. Anyone interested?

If you need persuading here are some reasons this is useful and important:

the only known database is mappingpoliceviolence.org, therefore this list will serve as an important cross-reference
there are individual pages for 'Shooting of Tamir Rice' and a few others but no list that gathers all the known police killings of unarmed black US citizens
the most of the information I found on killings are on news websites that may stop hosting that information resulting in the details of the cases disappearing from easily searchable public record on the internet i.e. google
many of the officers responsible were either never charged, prosecuted or convicted, in the event their cases are reopened this will serve as public record Mobius278 (talk) 01:28, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

File Gheorghe Buzoianu.pdf

I uploaded the file as a pdf format. Why did it come as a jpg rather than the normal wikipedia format? I don't know how and where to create the copyright licensing template. There is so much info, its quite overwhelming. Domnica Lungu (talk) 01:32, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Regardless of the file format, this doesn't look like something that belongs in Wikipedia (or Wikimedia Commons), so I suggest that you just let it be deleted. I notice that you are creating User:Domnica Lungu/Gheorghe Buzoianu. The PDF/JPEG would not serve as a source for this. Instead, you need independent, reliable, published sources for everything that an article says. (And for this purpose, mere publication via Wikimedia doesn't count as publication.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:51, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Signature

36.37.194.89 (talk) 01:34, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Do you have a question? -- Hoary (talk) 02:51, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

About a program/page

Can anyone tell me what is The Wikipedia Adventure, Thanks - MRRaja001 (talk) 03:40, 9 June 2020 (UTC) MRRaja001 (talk) 03:40, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

MRRaja001, it is an interactive educational game with the goal of making it easier for new editors to learn how to contribute to Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:45, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks mate!!! - MRRaja001 (talk) 03:47, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I would want to appeal this from happening!

I wonder why both of my of previous accounts tlc6just and Just6ntlc got banned from editing other than User Talk? Mariokart581 (talk) 18:01, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

You need to return to your original account and request unblock, instead of creating new accounts. 331dot (talk) 18:32, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

The reasons are at User talk:Tlc6just and User talk:Tlc6just. Pelagic ( messages ) Z – (14:00 Tue 09, AEST) 04:00, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Non-free image upload

Hi there, I am trying to add a non-free image to a wiki page. I have permission to add the image to a wiki page, but not for others to use. How do I upload this with the copyright sign attached to someone else's page?

Thanks for your help. Wasuwatanabe (talk) 23:32, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

@Wasuwatanabe: Welcome to Wikipedia. Permission to use the image only on Wikipedia is not acceptable. If the image is not licenced in a way that allows for any reuse, then the image will need to meet all the criteria at WP:NFCC to be used at Wikipedia. RudolfRed (talk) 00:10, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Rudolf. The rationale (doctrine and policy) for NFCC is clear, my problem is not the comprehension of the rationale, but the physical loading of the image itself. Under the NFCC doctrine, I have an image which meets all the criteria of the wiki NFCC exceptions and now I wish to load it onto a wiki site but do not understand the cascade of steps needed to place the image next to the text in the article and need help to be guided through the image upload process. Any tips would be super helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wasuwatanabe (talk • contribs) 00:19, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Wasuwatanabe, If the image meets all relevant criteria, you may upload it at Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard. I think the final page will include instructions as how to insert it into an article, if it is unclear feel free to come back and ask here. (If the image does not meet the necessary criteria it will be deleted, so I suggest only uploading it if you are sure that it does to spare yourself the time.) Hillelfrei ^talk 00:23, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Hillelfrei ! I have managed to get to this stage, how do I then get it from that point to being able to insert it into the text? When I try to upload it using the 'image' button in the editing phase I can not seem to find it? Wasuwatanabe (talk) 00:29, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Wasuwatanabe Once the image is uploaded, you just need to enter the file name in the code. Here's more info: Help:Pictures TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:36, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! very helpful Hillelfrei and Timtempleton appreciate the advice Wasuwatanabe (talk) 00:56, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Wasuwatanabe. In the non-free image rationale, you said that the image would be used in an article called Wikipedia Henry Kulka. Obviously, there is no article by that name and the article in question is actually Henry Kulka. It is essential to accurately state the precise article name. I corrected that obvious error and added the image to the article. Your non-free use rationale is unconventional and quite lengthy. I hope that it will work out but if you run into any problems with the image, I will try to help you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:59, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Cullen328 appreciate your help!Wasuwatanabe (talk) 04:21, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

What Wikipedia is

(Even when it's good: a comment.)

Wikipedia "is, instead, an encyclopedia, like Encyclopædia Britannica or Encarta [...]."

I think I've read this or a similar claim several times in well-meant answers on this and similar WP pages. But I doubt that many of the people such comments are addressed to are familiar with either. Encarta was short-lived and is long dead. Britannica will perhaps be found in those libraries in English-speaking areas that haven't yet been closed and are still actually funded.

So the comparison would not be likely to be helpful even if it were accurate. And I don't think it is accurate. Today's FA is Wolf, an article on which appears/appeared both the other encyclopedias, I'm sure. But what percentage of the other FAs this month would have (had) articles there?

Are there better comparisons to offer to the would-be authors of promotional articles, genealogies, Deep Thought, crystal ball emissions, etc? -- Hoary (talk) 13:51, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

@Hoary: When I write that, I intend to just explain what an encyclopaedia is (if they don't want to follow the link), not to say they're equivalent in style, value, etc., the purpose being to mention encyclopaedias that two different age groups of people may have heard of. Encarta was quite a popular bundled product in the 90s, and Britannica should be familiar to anyone over about 40. I think it's a useful, different, approach than flinging alphabet soup that they won't read. If someone has a more popular and recent example than Encarta, I'm all ears. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 18:59, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, I'd guess that Encarta will be hazily familiar to a minority of people who are in their thirties or above, and Britannica (as bound volumes) to larger minority who are now in their forties or above and once had access to a good library. I have only the dimmest memory of Encarta, and am currently dissuaded/prohibited (?) from entering a library to refresh my memory about Micro/Macropædia, but I don't remember either as citing its sources. I'm pretty certain that Macropædia did so only exceptionally and the others not at all. The article "Gray Wolf" in Britannica online cites no source whatever and starts off with an ad for its paid service with the line "Trust the Experts"; whereas a good en:WP article never demands the reader's trust. Most people will, I think, be very much more familiar with en:WP than with either Encarta or Britannica. Of course en:WP contains a vast quantity of near-junk, but why not point people to its WP:FA and WP:GA? -- Hoary (talk) 23:07, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Good point, Hoary! When I was young, I would spend hours browsing through my grandmother's 1971 Britannica set (from before they split it into micro and macro). I also loved the wonderfully eclectic Pears' Cyclopaedia. Guess it's no surprise I'm now here on WP. And, yes, I'm over 40 years old! But not so old: the set was somewhat out-of-date by the time I was old enough to read it.

It is a problem: there are large groups of people who don't know what a traditional encyclopædia is, nor how to look up a print dictionary by alphabetical order, ...

It's not just "my kids' generation", but also an issue for what the WMF would consider "emerging markets". They commissioned a usability study (sorry, don't have the link handy right now) in Pune, India, and part of the feedback was that some subjects didn't know what an in-text hyperlink was. Presumably those users are more comfortable with visual sites like YouTube, Pinterest, and Instagram where the main clickable elements are big pictures.

I wish I had an answer; how do you explain an encyclopaedia in a world where Wikipedia is The encyclopaedia?

— Pelagic ( messages ) Z – (13:48 Tue 09, AEST) 03:49, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Pelagic, you point them to several good examples of what it does. FAs and even GAs may be too bulky, and I'd hesitate to recommend any list of model articles because these might thereby become more attractive as targets for vandalism. But each time one might grab a fresh handful from here. ¶ I too had a well-thumbed copy of the Cyclopaedia: a fascinating book, as befitted a subtly translucent soap. But unfortunately the Cyclopaedia didn't have space to cover such essentials as gunk or evil numbers. -- Hoary (talk) 07:23, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Article replaced with copyvio contents

When patrolling the dead end category, I came across the article on Bullwhip effect. The edit history shows that there was a fairly well-developed article there already, but in the last few days one editor has replaced most or all of the content that was there with what appears to be copypasted from elsewhere. I've inserted various maintenance tags into the article and asked the editor in question to explain themselves on the talk page, but I think the article should also be rescued somehow, possibly rolling it back to where it was before this editor got involved. However, I wasn't sure if that's the right approach, and if so how to do it (or whether I even can, myself), so thought I'd better come ask those in the know what should be done? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:31, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

DoubleGrazing I've reverted back to the last version without copyright violations, as our articles shouldn't be containing copyvios, even if it's just whilst we try and get the user to talk to us. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:41, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Mike Greenhaus

Thank you once again for all your help with my article on Journalist Mike Greenhaus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mike_Greenhaus) Last week an editor was kind enough enough to give me some feedback and, after some back and forth, they determined that I had enough sources to prove notability (three articles that met the criteria). I added the top 3 to the top of the page as they suggested and resubmitted and another editor immediately declined the article and said I did not have the right sources. This is my first bio so I want to make sure I get it right but wasn't sure what the best next move was Thank you so much for your help Caryplace7 (talk) 02:13, 3 June 2020 (UTC) Caryplace7 (talk) 02:13, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Caryplace7, if two experienced editors are giving you contradicting information, I'd recommend discussing it with the two of them. I could provide a third opinion, but then that would be just that. It sounds like the issue needs discussion among the three of you, not a fourth vote. Do note that a draft review provides an opinion of one experienced editor, not the official judgement of Wikipedia, so there is always room for further discussion and clarification. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:55, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much. How do I go about starting a conversation with two editors at the same time Caryplace7 (talk) 12:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@Caryplace7: Since this appears to be relevant to the draft itself and not advice in general, I suggest starting a discussion on Draft talk:Mike Greenhaus and pinging the two editors with {{ping}} (← read the documentation) there to notify them both. Just make sure to sign so that the notification goes through. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks again for your advice on how I can go about getting an article published. The editor who denied my request has not responded to my talk page, even after you pinged them. The other editor i brought into the conversation also confirmed again that he verified three independent sources. What would you recommend is the best next step to help the article get published? I have confirmed a number of independent sources, links to other wiki articles and worked to massage the bio itself. I am happy to do whatever is needed but feel a little lost Caryplace7 (talk) 19:22, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

You say that "The editor who denied my request has not responded", but I notice that the editor who most recently declined your draft was not one of the two whom you pinged in your message on the draft's talk page. That may be why he/she didn't reply. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:39, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Hey David. Thank you for speaking with me The editor who rejected my bio did so because they claimed I did not have enough independent sources which I did have. In fact, another editor had already verified that I had 4 independent sources and also verified that there was no conflict of interest. When I brought that up to the editor who denied my post they never reponsded and talk:Usedtobecool was kind enough to oping them to see if they could respond to my concerns. They have not responded in a week. I don't want to resubmit and then get rejected again so I was not sure what the best next step is Caryplace7 (talk) 21:07, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

As I said, the editor who most recently declined your draft was not one of the two who was pinged on the draft's talk page, so it's not surprising that he/she didn't reply. --David Biddulph (talk) 21:53, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

This is my first biography so please forgive me if I am following the rules incorrectly. While I was in discussion with an editor about the topics I mentioned, I resubmitted which I now realize I should not have done. Is it appropriate to leave a note on the bio I am working on listing that I had gone other and had multiple independent sources verified and that we had any conflict of interest issues vetted already? And, if so, where should I leave that information? Just trying to do things correctly so that I do not get declined again (at least for these reasons) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caryplace7 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 9 June 2020 (UTC) Caryplace7 (talk) 12:21, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:VPT#Is Special:Diff/961602526 kosher?

You are invited to join the discussion at WP:VPT#Is Special:Diff/961602526 kosher?. I hope it's okay to crosslink a new discussion like this. If not, please delete my message. Thank you, THQ volunteers. 🙌 Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 12:24, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Edit conflict BUT I WORKED SO HARD

I was editing a redirect page called List of diacritics, and I'd worked to make it an actual list, but then Edit conflict happened, but i don't want to lose my precious work!!! Bumsowee (talk) 11:05, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Bumsowee. An edit conflict does not mean you will lose your work. It means that someone else was working on the article at the same time and finished before you did. Usually, you can just merge the two using the Two Column Edit Conflict tool by activating it through the "Beta Features" section on your Preferences page (more info at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Help:Two_Column_Edit_Conflict_View ). However, you may have to work to merge both edits manually if the edits are to the same part of the article. RedBulbBlueBlood9911Talk 11:12, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

No, there wasn't an edit conflict. List of diacritics redirected to Diacritic#Types. This contains lists of diacritics. You started to turn the redirect into a list. Lord Bolingbroke reverted you. The lists within Diacritic#Types are greatly more informative than your list-in-the-making, so I'd definitely side with milord Bolingbroke on this one. That's not to condemn your ambition. If you think you can do something better, then I suggest you work on it in User:Bumsowee/Sandbox or similar, and, when you're confident that you've made it superior to Diacritic#Types, ask on Talk:Diacritic about substituting it for the redirect. NB it should treat diacritics for a variety of scripts (not just Roman), should name the diacritics, etc. Or you could work on improving the article Diacritic, which is not well organized. (A longish section on "Diacritics specific to non-Latin alphabets" is followed by a much shorter one on "Non-alphabetic scripts".) -- Hoary (talk) 12:07, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Hoary (talk · contribs). I will work on it :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bumsowee (talk • contribs) 13:26, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Query of attack page

Hello Wikipedia editors. My name is Mark Di Stefano, a journalist in the UK. I am looking for assistance relating to an attack page that was set-up after I recently left the Financial Times. You can see the page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Di_Stefano. Editors have already flagged that this looked like an attack page and seemed not to raise to the standards of the website's notability guidelines. I'd like to flag, as the subject of the page, these concerns are correct. Little to no biographical information of mine is included in the entry. This is just designed to attack me personally. The second to last paragraph also includes a defamatory claim that I used illicit means to gain private information. This claim is based on a single tweet. It is also incorrect.

I am posting here because I'm not sure how these things are usually done. I wanted to be as transparent as possible and not attempt to edit a page of which I am the subject.

Mark Markdistefano (talk) 13:47, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Markdistefano Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. As a guard against impersonation, please confirm your identity with Wikipedia by sending an email to info-en@wikimedia.org per the instructions at WP:REALNAME. 331dot (talk) 13:50, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

In answer to your question, I agree that Mark Di Stefano article is massively focused on the negative controversy, and as such I have started a deletion discussion. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:56, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

And I put a note at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Mark_Di_Stefano. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:58, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Font size too large in downloaded pdf file

Brianmarkle (talk) 23:59, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I edited existing text, initially by cut & paste from notepad. I deleted that text, and directly typed the new text. It looks good online, but the generated pdf has font too large. Brianmarkle (talk) 22:37, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@Brianmarkle: Please provide a link. I assume this is about List of scientific publications by Albert Einstein. Can you be more specific about what the issue is? TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:01, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

The text "There is also a separate reprint of Appendix II, it being the first published separate edition." is too large on the downloaded pdf of the article [List of scientific publications by Albert Einstein]. The online version looks ok.

The same applies to the text "Einstein: Antwort auf vorstehende Betrachtung", — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianmarkle (talk • contribs) 23:51, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm new, so just testing on how to sign a comment. ~~Brianmarkle~~

Brianmarkle (talk) 00:05, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

@TimTempleton

Please see my additions above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianmarkle (talk • contribs) 00:06, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Brianmarkle. If you want to practice how to WP:SIGN a post, please do so in your user sandbox; you can find your user sandbox at [[:User:Marchjuly/Brianmarkle}}. In addition, when you post new comments to any Wikipedia take page, please try and be careful to not accidentally edit or remove posts left by others like did here. Sometimes when we're in a hurry to post something, we may mistakenly edit or even worse remove post left by others. We don't mean to do so, but our edit might cause confusion or even worse been seen as a conscious attempt to change or delete someone else comments. There are some cases where we're allowed to edit another's posts (even remove them), but usually these have to do with serious policy or guideline violations, or because there are formatting or syntax errors that are affecting the ability of others to read the page properly. Probably a good way to check that you're not accidentally editing someone else's post is to click "Show changes" before clicking "Publish changes" so that you can actually see what's being added and what's being removed.

As for your question to @Timtempleton:, I've WP:PINGed him for you and perhaps he will come by and answer it or try and help you figure out the issues you still seem to be having. Please note for future reference that for a "ping" notification to work properly, you need to make sure the username is spelled correctly; so, in this case you'd ping "Timtempleton" not "TimTempleton" using the syntax {{ping|Timtempleton}}. This can sometimes be confusing because some editors have customized their signatures to appear a certain way even though their account names are different in someway; so, the thing to do would be to click on their signature and see check the name of their account.

Some more things about pinging someone. You don't need to overdo it: if they respond asap or at all, then great; if they don't, be patient, give them a chance to do so and don't keep "tapping on the bell" to try and get their attention. Some editors aren't online 24/7 and might not be around to notice you're pinging them, whereas some editors simply don't like to be pinged and just ignore them. Another thing to remember is that a ping will only work if you properly sign your post at the time of the ping. Pings won't work for unsigned posts even if you go back and try to add your missing signature later. So, you might want to click "Show preview" before clicking "Publish changes" just to verify that you've properly signed your posts. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:33, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I had a look at List of scientific publications by Albert Einstein, and was puzzled by all the empty span tags. <span id="schilpp_133"></span> even appears twice. What are these for? Are they necessary? Maproom (talk) 07:30, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Maproom, I am guessing other editors who've seen your question aren't sure either, nor am I. It's a featured list; I would not touch anything I was unsure about. I would post at the talk page, or try and find whether any of the major contributors are actively editing. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:24, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

It would function similar to <a name="schilpp_133" /> – the link List of scientific publications by Albert Einstein#schilpp_133 scrolls me to that row. I assumed {{anchor}} produced an "a" element rather than a "span", but checking, this gives me a span: {{subst:anchor|202006090754}} → [] (need to view wikitext to see the result). Pelagic ( messages ) Z – (07:30 Tue 09, AEST) 21:30, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Pinging Maproom and Usedtobecool re. answer about span tags. Pelagic ( messages ) Z – (08:03 Tue 09, AEST) 22:03, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Pelagic! I didn't get it the first time, but I came back today thinking I'd at least say thanks, and I think I actually got it this time. It's actually really well-explained when you pay attention. LOL! Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:01, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

@Brianmarkle: I see the font-size effect you're talking about in the PDF, but not in the "printable" rendition [3]

At "Antwort auf vorstehende" there are nested tables within the table cell; that paragraph appears in HTML as ...</table><p>Einstein: Antwort auf vorstehende Betrachtung</p><table>... and in wikitext as ...|} Einstein: Antwort auf vorstehende Betrachtung {|...

I assume the nested tables were unintended. Not sure if they are the result of a software glitch, or someone inserted them by mistake.

But at "separate reprint" it's just a <p> inside a <td>, which isn't abnormal.

I've lodged a report at Phab:T254836.

— Pelagic ( messages ) Z – (13:09 Tue 09, AEST) 03:09, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Next step for AfC?

Thank you for reading. I created a draft at Draft:KyleMcMahon that I worked with two of the more established editors to fix up. I did the edits that both of them suggested regarding swapping out a few links, etc. I'm just not sure what the next step is now? Does it automatically do something? Am I supposed to do something? I've done some minor edits on a few other pages but don't want to create new pages until I get the first one finished.

Thanks again for reading and for your help. FrankNSteinJr (talk) 19:11, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

FrankNSteinJr, welcome to the Teahouse although I am sorry to tell you that the mentioned draft is completely empty but it seems like you had a typo, found Draft:Kyle_McMahon and I added the necessary tag so it should be reviewed soon, although it can take some weeks because of a huge backlog. CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:29, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) - FrankNSteinJr - the sourcing in your draft doesn't demonstrate the subject's notability. There are a few dead links, blog posts and advertisements for podcasts, but no in-depth profiles of Kyle McMahon. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:35, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you both for your assistance. I've found a pretty in-depth piece from 05/2020 that is part researched article and part interview, but I don't want to mess up the work of the other editors so I'm not quite sure how to incorporate it. It's essentially going over parts of Mcmahon's life through quotes and research, but the facts are already in the Draft itself. So I'm a bit confused if I should include it or what to do. I left the link at the talk page of Draft:Kyle_McMahon for review and assistance.

Thanks kindly FrankNSteinJr (talk) 18:46, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring

Hello there, I recently came upon a page (The_Short-Tempered_Clavier_and_other_dysfunctional_works_for_keyboard) where there are evidence of edit warring. I would like to know how is this supposed to be handled. Thank you! The creeper2007^Talk! 19:00, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

The place to discuss is on the article's talk page: Talk:The Short-Tempered Clavier and other dysfunctional works for keyboard. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:03, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

The thing is that the users engaged in the war wouldn't

Hello The creeper2007, I haven't checked the history of the article but general advice would be, if someone is clearly edit warring, first step is usually to let them know at their user talk page that edit-warring is a bad idea, and that they should use the talk page of the article to resolve matters instead. If someone breaks the three-revert rule, you can report them to the edit-warring noticeboard at WP:ANEW. Sometimes, editors will engage in edit wars avoiding 3RR. In such cases, you can seek help from an individual administrator at their user talk page, or report the user/s to WP:ANI. Read the header at ANI carefully, and consider it carefully before actually starting a discussion at that noticeboard, since the standards for actionable misbehaviour is a bit high over there, and so is the potential for unproductive drama. Contacting individual admin has the added benefit that an admin's talk page is usually much like the Teahouse, where you can ask for general advice, or for action, and they will either help you or refer you to an alternative, if you are right, and if you are wrong, explain to you, why you are wrong. It's better to be proven wrong at a user talk page than anywhere else on Wikipedia, because of the marginally better privacy and less public attention given to that space. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:16, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

But the issue is that there are one person who insists on one change and there are multiple users that was agent it. any help? The creeper2007^Talk! 18:51, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Draft : Seyed Kazem Noor Mofidi

Hi, I translated article from Persian Wikipedia about Seyed Kazem Noor Mofidi, Can anyone help me to publish that as an article? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Seyed_Kazem_Noor_Mofidi Aflantwo (talk) 15:38, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Aflantwo Note that what is acceptable on the Persian Wikipedia is not necessarily acceptable on the English Wikipedia. As you were told by the reviewer, you are lacking independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject. I would strongly suggest that you stop attempting to create new articles until you have a better grasp of what is being looked for. There are millions of existing articles that need editing. 331dot (talk) 15:42, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

@331dot: you are here too man! haha! he is a representative of the Supreme Leader! I added rich and reliable sources now! I just asked he has general notability or not?! because I must spend time for him! also more people similar to him are on Wikipedia, look at this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assembly_of_Experts please first search more about him also about emam.com, thanks Aflantwo (talk) 15:48, 8 June 2020 (UTC)Aflantwo

I'm not saying this person is not notable, but you need the sources to demonstrate that and support the content of the article. 331dot (talk) 15:52, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

@331dot: man as an ayatollah his name written in Iran history he is Nancy Pelosi of Iran, haha. I added source from Imam Khomeini's comprehensive website (Iran previews supreme leader ) and also IRNA, ASR IRAN, but they are in Persian! 6 references is not enough for 3 lines about him? Aflantwo (talk) 16:00, 8 June 2020 (UTC)Aflantwo

@Aflantwo: Welcome to the Teahouse! I suggest you add references to the "Biography" section of Draft:Seyed Kazem Noor Mofidi as well before resubmitting your draft. For each of the non-English references, could you also please add an English version of the title in the |trans-title= parameter? Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk)

Aflantwo, Please listen to the advice suggested to you by 331dot and GoingBatty. Otherwise it may be declined again or rejected by the next reviewer. Thank you ~ Amkgp ✉ 16:22, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

@Amkgp:,@GoingBatty: Yeah, of course, I will add a reference for each sentence, I'm translating that from Persian version and it can take few hours before submitting again I will ask from youAflantwo (talk) 16:43, 8 June 2020 (UTC)Aflantwo @Amkgp:,@GoingBatty: Can you review my draft again? Can I resubmit now? Aflantwo (talk) 19:45, 8 June 2020 (UTC)Aflantwo

@Amkgp:,@GoingBatty:,@331dot: I edited and also I add reliable sources and official sources like "Ruhollah Khomeini Official Website" is it ok now? can I resubmit it? Aflantwo (talk) 11:09, 9 June 2020 (UTC)Aflantwo

@Aflantwo: Thank you for adding the |trans-title= parameter to some of the references. Could you please add it for all of the non-English references? Other parameters would be helpful too, like |date=. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 20:02, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

GoingBatty yes, sure Aflantwo (talk) 20:16, 9 June 2020 (UTC)Aflantwo

GoingBatty but I can't use |date= for all references because some of them like Ruhollah Khomeini's orders are for 1980-1985, which was not any internet at that time and not wrote on the website when they added. My mean is no date written on some of the sites(Just written orders dates). Aflantwo (talk) 20:24, 9 June 2020 (UTC)Aflantwo

@Aflantwo: Please populate |date= where possible, such as the newspaper stories. GoingBatty (talk) 20:28, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

GoingBattyOk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aflantwo (talk • contribs) 20:29, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Protocol for retiring defunct IP account and neutralizing sock concerns, after registering new account

Recently an IP address I had been using to edit (maybe 500-1000 total edits) went permanently extinct.

I've registered an account and started editing rather than use a new IP, but want to post in ongoing discussions that involved the old IP, without raising concerns of sockpuppeting.

The question is whether there is any step that needs to be taken to preclude SP issues other than identifying the older account when rejoining any discussions where the old IP was used. I have already posted that information on my user and talk pages. Sesquivalent (talk) 19:46, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

If you wish other editors to know that you are the same user as the IP(s) who previously posted to the talk page discussions just mention the fact when you post. There's no socking issue in switching from IPs to a registered account unless the editor is attempting to appear to be different users. You obviously are not doing that. Meters (talk) 20:34, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Learning protocol for editing an existing page

Hi Teahouse, while I've been making light edits since I made this account in 2018, I've never made a substantive contribution, so I don't know exactly what the protocol for doing so is.

I want to substantially edit an existing page (the article in question is Mujeres Libres if anyone's interested), to improve and add to it. My questions are:

- How should I announce (on the talk page or elsewhere) that I am currently rewriting the article?

- Are there any considerations I need to take into account when doing so, other than what is in the style guide?

Sparkledriver (talk) 21:46, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

@Sparkledriver: Just remember to follow rules and guidelines. You may want to use {{in use}} and {{under construction}} during your editing periods. Crazy Boy 826 22:09, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Good article nominations

Is there a usergroup or status required to assess good articles? Crazy Boy 826 22:08, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

@CrazyBoy826: The info you are looking for is here Wikipedia:Good articles. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:51, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Arnold S. Monto: How do I remove a middle initial from headline?

TeaHouse friends, I am the creator of the entry Arnold S. Monto. How can I delete the middle initial "S." from the headline? My understanding is that by removing the middle initial it will improve the search results. There are no others with the name of Arnold Monto so the initial is not necessary. BTW, this is my first created/acceptyed article and couldn't have done it without you. Terrimellow (talk) 18:25, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello Terrimellow! See WP:MOVE. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:48, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Terrimellow - I moved the article to Arnold Monto. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:54, 9 June 2020 (UTC)!

Suggestions/next step for Afc

I've been editing articles on Indian tech personalities and created a new one which is in the Afc process. I went through WP:N and made sure to get distinct mainstream citations meeting WP:RS and WP:NPOV. I would love some feedback. I also added it to the Biography project to get more eyes on it. Draft:Sriram_Krishnan is the article.

Any advice would be much appreciated. Vipulsshah (talk) 06:21, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

@Vipulsshah: I saw the draft. It Fails WP:GNG. Most of the references and citations are from tech websites which is not acceptable. Recently a person with similar position called Sunder Madakshira article was deleted because of this. Please refer to WP:GNG, WP:Note, and WP:INDY to get clarity on how these things work. Feel free to contact me for any further queries, Thanks - MRRaja001 (talk) 07:03, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Note: Article is Sriram Krishnan, being discussed for deletion at AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sriram Krishnan. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 23:19, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Need help with this article

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Athar_Siddiqui Shayarwazir (talk) 23:47, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

It's not an article but a draft. You've been asked to specify which assertions come from which source. (Mere lists of sources at the end, with no indication of what comes from which, won't suffice.) That important matter aside, you're going to need better sources: Perhaps the most serious-sounding of those that you cite is The Times of India (thanks to the age of that newspaper and the connotations of "The Times"), but in reality its website (especially the "E Times" section) is feeble: see this. -- Hoary (talk) 00:32, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Can anyone help me edit?

Hi everyone! I am making a new wiki about a new programming language Draft:Supernova_(Programming_Language). Can anyone help me edit it or maybe give me some links to a source? Any help will be appreciated. Thank you! ThisIsMyWikipediaName111 (talk) 04:41, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

@ThisIsMyWikipediaName111: Sure, i can help you out. What do you need. Can you elaborate a bit. - MRRaja001 (talk) 05:11, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

@ThisIsMyWikipediaName111: An new article on a software product will only be accepted if it meets our notability criteria, which you can find at WP:PRODUCT). You should also read the essay on what this means for programmes at Wikipedia:Notability (software). If you bear in mind that Wikipedia isn't here to be used to promote every single product under the sun, you'll need to find around three good quality, independent sources that talk about this product in detail if it ever is going to be accepted. As you say, this product does come across as a new programming language. So, until it has been accepted and written about by the wider community, it's very unlikely that you'll be able to find the sources you need for it to be accepted here. Links to sites like sourceforge are not going to be sufficient, I'm afraid. Sorry. Nick Moyes (talk) 08:26, 9 June 2020 (UTC).

@MRRaja001: Great! I need your help to edit my draft, and maybe finding some more sources for the draft. Maybe from another webpage (other than sourceforge) and some reliable source, maybe? Thanks! ThisIsMyWikipediaName111 (talk) 02:28, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Question from Amany N Mohamed

After Greeting, I made some changes in the history part of this page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthogonal_frequency-division_multiplexing) and others in the biography of this page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatim_Zaghloul) and all changes were removed. Could you please tell me the reasons for removing them? Thanks Amany N Mohamed (talk) 16:06, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello Amany N Mohamed and welcome to the Teahouse. If you check the "View history" tab of each article [4][5], you'll see who removed them and their stated reason why. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:26, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

And Amany N Mohamed, if you would like to ask those editors for more information, or to explain to them why you think your edit was a good one, the best place to do so is on the appropriate article's talk page (Talk:Orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing or Talk:Hatim Zaghloul): start a new section explaining what you would like to ask or explain, and remember to ping the editor in question. See WP:BRD for how this works. --ColinFine (talk) 19:39, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

FYI

– Combining sections from the same editor about the same topic. GoingBatty (talk) 20:38, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

About My Additions

Hi, I reviewed the historical part of Orthogonal frequency division multiplexing [1] and it is clear that there is a lot of information without sources or references so I need a clear reason why did you remove my additions although I mentioned many sources to prove Please let me add this information which confirmed by reliable resources moreover, I mentioned information about Dr. Hatim Zaghloul's patents and it is a clear fact from a lot of resources and references. Notice: I am committed to citing sources on Wikipedia standards please I need more explanation about the fault in my additions.

Thanks Amany N Mohamed (talk) 20:21, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, again Amany N Mohamed. Gråbergs Gråa Sång and I answered you above, and explained what you need to do. While you are welcome to post here for guidance, the "you" who you are addressing here quite possibly does not include the editors who reverted your changes. Please look at, and follow, the answers above. --ColinFine (talk) 20:35, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

@Amany N Mohamed: To address specifically it is clear that there is a lot of information without sources or references, please see WP:OSE. Wikipedia has, in the past, been less rigorous about sourcing and about patrolling of edits. As a result, there's a lot of unsourced and poor-quality content in articles out there, especially those that don't get a lot of attention (i.e., other than political and current events articles, unfortunately). That is not, in any way, a reason why new contributions should not adhere to our standards. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 03:31, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Splitting pages with the same name?

Hello, I'm running into several articles about commodities that I think should be split into a page about the commodity and a page about its associated futures contract. I.e. West Texas Intermediate, Brent Crude, Feeder Cattle where you might have a lot of content about both the futures contract and the underlying commodity. What names would I use to split them? For example, would I split Brent Crude into

1) Brent Crude, Brent Crude (futures contract) 2) Brent Crude, Brent Crude futures contract 3) Brent Crude (oil market), Brent Crude (futures contract) or would I use something else? Thanks Eric.c.zhang (talk) 03:22, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello again, Eric.c.zhang. The answer is to start a discussion, say on Talk:Brent Crude, both to get consensus to do the split, and agreement on the best names if the split is done. That takes longer but is much less likely to be undone promptly, or lead to an endless debate. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:30, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay that seems fair; however, I think those pages are pretty dead? I think their talk pages haven't been active in a while? Eric.c.zhang (talk) 03:35, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Eric.c.zhang. You should start a thread on the relevant article’s talk page as suggested by DES suggests in his post, but you can let others know about the discussion as long as you do so in accordance with WP:CANVAS#Appropriate notification. Sometimes posting a Template:Please see on the talk pages of relevant WikiProjects can help let others know about a discussion. To find out which WikiProjects might be interested in the subject matter, check the top of the article’s talk page. — Marchjuly (talk) 03:51, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Introductory TV episode

I'm updating an old reality TV show which had 10 proper episodes, 2 compilation episodes which consisted of the best bits from those 10 episodes, and 1 introductory episode which introduced you to the people who were going to be on the show.

So how many episodes should I say it has, and how should I write it in the number of episodes section of the infobox?

Pilot + 10 episodes + 2 bonus episodes
Pilot + 12 episodes
13 episodes
10 episodes + 3 bonus episodes

etc Danstarr69 (talk) 04:20, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Danstarr69. Have you tried asking about this on the relevant article's talk page? You might also try taking a look at MOS:TV or even asking about this at WT:TV. The members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Television are probably good people to ask about this because it might be something which has previously discussed with respect to a different TV show or just TV shows in general. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:47, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I would like my own Artist Page.

hello, I'm a verified artist on spotify that goes my the name 'Anjel' and was just wondering if there was a way to have an Artist page written of me to be linked onto my about page. Thanks. 85.210.119.185 (talk) 20:14, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia has articles, not mere "pages". (by "artist" and spotify I assume you are a musician) If you meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable musician, someone will eventually take note of your career in independent reliable sources and choose to write about you. Wikipedia has no interest in enhancing search results for your or helping add to a website you might have; if you have a website, you are free to use it to tell the world about yourself. 331dot (talk) 20:25, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Remember that we are an encyclopedia (like Encyclopædia Britannica), We don't even write directly about the subject, but instead summarize and cite what reliable sources have published. This also means that, should an article be written about you here, it will reflect what those sources have published, which you will have no control over, and may not be "a good thing" (see WP:PROUD). —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 07:21, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Can I use emojis on Wikipedia?

Recently, on my talk page (User talk:Perfect4Life), a user was replying to my reply to his/hers, and I noticed he/she had inserted the image of a smiling face. During my short experience of Wikipedia though, I hadn't seen emojis used in talk pages. (The only exception would be the actual Wikipedia article on emojis, so far.)

Are users simply not allowed to use emojis, and have to revert to images? If so, is there a collection of faces which I can easily access and use in a casual comment/reply? Similarly, would emoticons be accepted?

Thanks for your help, and warmest wishes,

Perfect4Life (talk) 21:08, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

@Perfect4Life: Welcome to Wikipedia. Check out WP:EMOTICON for how to insert smilies and other emoji. RudolfRed (talk) 21:49, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks!

I just want to make sure, is it indeed allowed to use emojis, emoticons, smilies, images, etc. on Wikipedia? Perfect4Life (talk) 22:20, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

@Perfect4Life: Yes – on discussion pages, not generally in article space unless it's the subject of the article or part of a quote, etc. I'd suggest using them minimally, as those other than the obvious smiley are often hard to read for some of us, and so can add confusion. They can be fun to play with, but a poor substitute for words. When we see people using tons of emojis, it usually means they are reacting with too much emotion to the topic at hand. While a certain amount of fun is allowed/encouraged, at the root of it, we are mostly here for the serious business of assembling a high-quality encyclopedia of human knowledge. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 07:28, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Why have my contributions to the "List of Aviation Firsts" been disregarded?

In the past week or so -- and I do NOT understand half of Wikipedia's coding marks; but I try to contribute legit content -- for example, I added within the last 10 days or so:

- First Indoor Flight - first humans to fly on jetpacks (and cited several major examples) - Today, I added: First sea-launched flights (both east to west and vice-versa)

I believe these are LEGITIMATE categories that aren't on there, yet because of specious reasons like "formatting" which I do NOT know 100%, they are removed. So, what you are saying is that you are disregarding CONTENT over form? Then how reliable does that make Wikipedia if you are putting format over content? Instead of helping contributors like me who less than versatile in doing the proper formatting, you can WORK with me so that these "contributions" do get added.

I sure hope your actions are more sincere than your seemingly specious maneuvers.

Conphucius / Myles G. Conphucius (talk) 19:40, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Conphucius. You are addressing hundreds of editors, quite possibly not including the particular editors who reverted your changes. Please discuss this on the article's talk page Talk:List of firsts in aviation, with those editors, DonFB and CrazyBoy826. Please see the WP:Bold, revert, discuss cycle for information about how this works. --ColinFine (talk) 19:51, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

It is not on other editors to fix your unverified additions. Reference as you go is required, even if what you want to add is true. CrazyBoy said as much on your Talk page. As ColinFine recommended, the proper place to take this up is on the Talk page of the article in question. David notMD (talk) 09:43, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Rock Album-Related Stub Articles

Hi there, My name is Kyle. I'm new here. My interest is to create stub articles for the Musician/Artist, Les Dudek, for the five of his seven albums that have no content whatsoever - empty pages or no pages. His first and third albums - Les Dudek (1976) and Ghost Town Parade (1978) do have stub articles. My question is - are there special Templates of these music-related information pages in place that cover Track Listing of songs and running times, album image and record info at right-column, as well as Influence and Personnel and Production further down to make the process logically easier, instead of taking forever from scratch just to essentially, content-wise, provide something relatively simple but effective ?

If there is, it would be nice to find this template so I could get going on it. I have all the content ready to go for all five albums - Say No More (1977), Gypsy Ride (1981), Deeper Shades of Blues (1994), Freestyle! (2003), and Delta Breeze (2013).

URL - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:New_user_landing_page&page=Say+No+More+%28album%29 URL - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Les_Dudek

Thank you for your time, Kyle KWBran (talk) 08:52, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Les Dudek (album) and Ghost Town Parade are stubs. They say nothing about others' reactions (if any) to the albums. As articles, they're very poor. Indeed, they risk deletion. As models for other articles, they're terrible. If this man's albums have been written about in independent, reliable, published sources, then this material may be summarized and presented (scrupulously attributed, of course). If they haven't, they're not encyclopedic. On the assumption that they have been commented on, I suggest that you create a good article about each album, one by one. This may of course take you months; but when others who are interested in these albums see that you're at work on them, they may be inspired to help you. -- Hoary (talk) 09:49, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

@KWBran: Are there templates? Yes. The easiest thing to do is to find other good articles on artists and albums, copy them, and change the details to match your subject. You might find such articles at Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians#Assessment and Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Rock music articles by quality statistics. Click on, say, the mid-importance B-class cell to get a list of reasonable articles. When copying to, for example, your User:KWBran/sandbox, put something like "Copied from Hotel California (Eagles album)" in the edit summary to maintain the attribution chain. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 11:21, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

why was my draft rejected?

Vedanth Ajay2 (talk) 11:07, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Well Vedanth Ajay2, your draft Draft:BFordLancer48 - which is almost no article at all - does not show any sign of significance for an Encyclopedia. CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:27, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

REQUEST

Please, what's the next step after making a request for an article on an organization. 11:21, 10 June 2020 (UTC)ONAOPE (talk) ONAOPE (talk) 11:21, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Your request is unlikely to result in an article, as you gave no evidence of significant coverage in multiple published reliable sources independent of the subject to demonstrate its notability, see also WP:NCORP. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:43, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Adding information

I want to add information in a page. Do I need to prove it’s authenticity ?

Yasyunus (talk) 10:42, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes. See WP:Verifiability. Your recent edits, which have been reverted, included misplaced external links. If you intended them to be references, see Help:Referencing for beginners. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:48, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I want to properly suggest adding a heading to the currentlist list of sentors

I want to suggest adding a heading to the current list list of sentors so after going to List_of_current_United_States_senators then edit link I went to the talk:List_of_current_United_States_senators ultimately but they suggested not to comment and or blah there, so I'm lost It does seem I can edit and add things there but I don't want to do anything improperly.

If I wanted to view the discussion or if I wanted to comment and express my desire to add a column for "Votes" or "Voters" to distinquish Senentors by votes they recieved to gain their seat or total voters in they're respective consituencies aka total eligible voters, where would I do that but also how I would do that properly... (to find that page).

Erg, Ok, there is a "link Columns to include in the list:" but that "Link to discussion" goes badly and 404 ... again see Talk:List_of_current_United_States_senators last yellow section click [link to discussion] Tymes (talk) 04:22, 10 June 2020 (UTC) Tymes (talk) 04:22, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

If you want to make a change to List of current United States senators then the place to ask would indeed be Talk:List of current United States senators. Puzzled to read that "they suggested not to comment and or blah there", and wondering what could have happened, I went there and looked for the string "tymes", but didn't find it. You posted a request, but it was expressed rather cryptically (it didn't have a single verb in it), and then you deleted it. Perhaps work to make it easier to understand, and then post the result. -- Hoary (talk) 07:49, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Tymes. I wonder if you are referring to the box at the top of the talk page which says "It has been agreed by consensus from an RfC that the columns included in the list are ...", but the link to that RFC was wrong (it pointed to a website of the IETF): I've now corrected it, so it points to what is currently the first entry on that Talk page, a discussion that went on for 77 days and included 12 editors to come to a consensus. Clearly, a message here is, "we've talked about this a lot, and come to a consensus". However, consensuses can change, and I don't think that the number of votes was mentioned in that discussion. So what I suggest is that you read that discussion, so that you know what has been talked about before, and then if you think your point it important, you start a new section on the talk page. --ColinFine (talk) 11:52, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

what do you think of the article on researcher Pablo Medina?

FYI

– Fixed link and added {{Draft}} to draft. Dibbydib (talk) 06:24, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

@Dibbydib: I replaced your {{Draft}} by {{Userspace draft}}. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:05, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I try to published an article about a great professor and researcher in communication in Canadian university. I don't know what I could improve to further enhance this researcher / or remove? User:PatKro31/sandbox Thank you for your help, Best regards, pat --PatKro31 (talk) 06:10, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I suggest reducing it to perhaps 20% of its current length: it contains a lot of fluff that can easily be deleted. Incidentally, do you know this person? -- Hoary (talk) 09:24, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Also, please note that Wikipedia's task is not to "enhance" the subject, it's to write neutrally about him, reporting what has been written in reliable independent sources. The article will become much better if you remove all the unreferenced promotional content, and the sentences which aren't about the subject at all. Maproom (talk) 12:43, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

How do I move/rename an article to a page when the name I want to rename it is already a redirect page?

Hello, I want to move/rename E-mini S&P to E-mini S&P 500, because the E-mini S&P 500 is the proper name of the contract on the CME exchange. However, it seems that E-mini S&P 500 is already a redirect page for E-mini S&P. How would I move the article in this case? Would I just move the contents of the two pages manually? Eric.c.zhang (talk) 03:15, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello Eric.c.zhang and welcome to the Teahouse.

You don't. Or rather you don't without help. That requires deleting the redirect, and if the redirect has significant history, that requires deleting it, which requires an Admin, or a file mover. You can request such help by placing {{db-move}} on the redirect to be deleted. The full syntax is {{db-move|1=PAGE TO BE MOVED HERE|2=REASON FOR MOVE}}. But be sure that the move is obviously non-controversial, or that there is agreement to it. If the admin is not quite sure the move is non-controversial, s/he may want to see a move discussion where consensus for the move was reached. So you maight want to start with such a discussion. SEE WP:RM for more details. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:26, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay I will start the discussion thread, but I think it will literally be the first post on the talk page so I expect I will not get any replies any time soon. Is there a time-limit or a minimum quorum for a move discussion thread for it to be considered "consensus"? Eric.c.zhang (talk) 03:40, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Eric.c.zhang there is no mandated time or participation level. If no one has objected in a week or two, you could safely assume that it is OK to go ahead. If lots of people comment and all agree with yours idea, a shorter time would be enough. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 14:10, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Fix table formatting

Could soneone please fix the width of the columns on List of monuments and memorials removed during the George Floyd protests? The column with text really throws it off and makes it harder to read. I don't knw howto fix it. Thanks.

@Another Believer:

deisenbe (talk) 09:59, 10 June 2020 (UTC) deisenbe (talk) 09:59, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

@Deisenbe: I can't really make out what you mean. Other than removing the Description column entirely, there isn't much I can see to do. The other columns aren't overly wide. It's just a perhaps poor use for a table in a medium designed to be viewable on small screens. It would do better to be all prose or a summary table with the details in prose. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 11:28, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

That's how I started it. Someone else turned it into a table. deisenbe (talk) 11:45, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Can it be turned into "click here for text"? I tried with ctop and cbot, but the cbot blocked all that followed. deisenbe (talk) 11:56, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion continued at Talk:List of monuments and memorials removed during the George Floyd protests#Description unwieldly —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 14:35, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Plagiarized content

How should this be handled? See Talk:Mistilteinn. —¿philoserf? (talk) 13:27, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Philoserf I replied on the article talk page, but it looks like that book has copied the text from Wikipedia, as it's been on Wikipedia since 2007. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:41, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Ah. Not the first time I have heard that. I will look more closely next time. —¿philoserf? (talk) 13:50, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Philoserf, Template:Backwards copy can be of use if you run into these. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:27, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång, thank you! —¿philoserf? (talk) 15:42, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Tlalnepantla de Baz

Can someone check the recent edit by the anonymous IP address 72.214.135.55 to Tlalnepantla de Baz, is it bona fide? Regards Devokewater (talk) 16:12, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Looks ok to me, apart from several semi-automatic cleanups the user updated the population per a more recent census. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:24, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Thats brilliant, thanks Roger (Dodger67) Devokewater (talk) 16:46, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Deleted info

Hello, Information I’m trying to add and edit about an actress keeps getting deleted for supposed “copyright violations” but all I’m trying to add is her birthday, education, and birth name. Other information that another user added to the section is not cited and has remained up. I’m so confused and frustrated. The thing I’m getting messages from just deletes the info I’ve worked on for hours without telling me why it’s a copyright infringement.. it’s no help at all. Idk if it’s a bot or a person but so frustrating to work of this for so long, making sure I do everything correctly, and then they just delete it. HtheLondoner (talk) 16:37, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

There are two separate issues. It is strongly discouraged to add birthdays and real names unless they are properly cited (see WP:DOB). This was not a copyright violation. Separately you added a photograph and the editor told you that the picture was a copyright violation, not the details about her birth. QuiteUnusual (talk) 16:44, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

(pinging HtheLondoner) —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 00:15, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello AlanM1, I’m just wondering what “pinging“ means. I’m new to all of this Wikipedia editing, so I’m just wondering what that does. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HtheLondoner (talk • contribs) 17:45, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Explained at Wikipedia:Ping. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:55, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

What can I do to give my article credability?

I have made a new article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Show_Us_Your_Shit

However it was declined due to lack of credible sources. So I want to know what kind of sources I need and how many exactly? This is my first article so I need more help.

As some background: This is a new up-and-coming show from an established producer. So far they have only had the chance to do one interview regarding their new show, however this was on one of the biggest national radio stations in the UK (BBC Radio 4) so I would assume this is more than credible enough, given it is the BBC. What else can I do to prove the credibility of this show? I have added additional links to the Facebook page and Youtube channel of this show.

The show has lots of famous guests - would evidence from them (such as articles on their websites, tweets from verified accounts) be enough to also verify this show is legitimate?

Thanks! Lauratheschit (talk) 17:53, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Answered at WP:AFCHD. Please dont ask the same question at multiple places. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:58, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Created articles in requested

What am I supposed to do when I see already created articles in the requested listing? (Oinkers42) (talk) 14:25, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

@(Oinkers42): Can you be more specific? What are you seeing, where, and why is it a problem? —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 16:29, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

@(Oinkers42): Thinking further about it, I'm going to guess you're talking about WP:RA? The instructions say "Fulfilled requests should be removed from the list", so I guess it makes sense to do so, as long as you verify that the article is actually about the requested subject (not just someone/something by the same name). Not sure what to do about redirects, as the request may be intended to create a full article where only a redirect to a small section exists currently. Maybe ask at WT:RA? —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 17:48, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks (Oinkers42) (talk) 17:59, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi Protection Permission

If articles in Wikipedia are semi protected and if Autoconfirmed users can edit it, how do I become an autoconfirmed user? $2048cupcakes (talk) 17:58, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

You are already autoconfirmed. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:07, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

@$2048cupcakes: Welcome to Wikipedia. Your account becomes autoconfirmed usually after at least four days and at least 10 edits. See WP:AUTOC for more info. RudolfRed (talk) 18:08, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Gare de Verneuil-sur-Avre

The infobox under services needs to be aligned so that its exactly below the services header, currently the space between them is too big and looks untidy; Gare de Verneuil-sur-Avre. How can the infobox be aligned?

Thanks Devokewater (talk) 18:56, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Devokewater, it looks dreadful because there is a long infobox and no text (and no sources). If you don't want to put the effort into turning it into a proper article, fine: nor do I. But worrying about the layout is like painting the windows before the house has been built. --ColinFine (talk) 19:46, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

ColinFine Just curious how to move it.Devokewater (talk)

@Devokewater: You shouldn't move it. The infobox is where it belongs, in the "top" section, before the lead. The reason it looks weird is that the rest of the article is not there. Once there is a decent paragraph or two of lead and some more sections, you'll see it look like other place articles, like Gare Montparnasse, though I see that one includes a services module in the infobox itself. Perhaps look at that code. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 07:11, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

AlanM1 thanks, it just looks awful. Devokewater (talk) 08:41, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

@Devokewater: I've moved the services box into the infobox. The infobox is still massive in comparison with the amount of text in the article, but does it look better now? Deor (talk) 17:36, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

@Deor: thats brilliant it looks a lot better now. Regards Devokewater (talk) 18:32, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Using publications as references?

I am trying to add an article for an academic: User:Wnissen/Sharon Fries-Britt. I would like to use some of their selected publications as references, e.g. [6]. Instead I'm getting weird formatting where the publications show up out of order, at the bottom of the article, or if I explicitly include a <references group="publications" /> then it doesn't display the cite at all, just "Publications 1", "Publications 2", etc. I read the article about named reference groups. and don't understand what I'm doing wrong here. Thanks! Wnissen (talk) 18:51, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

The <references group="publications" /> or {{reflist group="publications"}} needs to be after all the individual citations, and each <ref group="publications"> tag should be immediately after the text which it is supporting, see Help:Referencing for beginners. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:30, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Wnissen It is better not to attempt to format this as refs at all, and instead simply display them as a bulleted list in a section of the draft. I have made this change. These items are not supporting any article text, they are simply a partial bibliography of the subject's work, David Biddulph, as such they go in a "Selecteds publications" or "Bibliography" section. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:36, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Ah, that was not at all clear to me, I see how they have to occur before they are referenced, now. One is actually supporting the text, so I made it a named reference, but I think it's all sorted now. Thanks for your help! Wnissen (talk) 19:41, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

@Wnissen: If you were adding your citations using the so-called RefToolbar in WP:Source Editor, and were finding they were all appearing at the very top of the page, instead of where you placed your cursor, I should inform you that there is currently a bug in our editing software, which will be fixed tomorrow. See this report for an explanation and work-around. May I please suggest you use edit summaries, even when editing one of your own pages? This make is so much easier for you and other people to go back and find individual edits. Just saying 'add ref' would have been sufficient for me to have found the relevant edit(s) you made. See EDITSUMMARIES for more details. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 19:51, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: I don't think that's the issue, it's how the reflist is displayed. I didn't think anyone would look at my history, sorry! Anyway, the Sharon Fries-Britt page is up, thanks for your attention. Wnissen (talk) 19:58, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Danfoss. Improved?

I have been trying to improve the page about Danfoss. I previously removed the maintenance templates, but that was reversed. Apparently, I'm not allowed to remove that myself, and I was suggested to let someone else review the changes. I have asked here once before: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_1060#Review_of_improvement,_Danfoss
I have made further changes, so now I'm asking again: Can the maintenance templates be removed? I know the article is not perfect, but I think it's much better now. Anders Kaas Petersen (talk) 20:29, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Verb tense and lead section consistency

I'm a brand-new Wikipedian. I've started contributing by fixing grammatical mistakes (as I see them) on different pages. Upon going through various random articles, I stumbled upon the 1944 College Football All-America Team. I noticed that the article is written in the present tense, which I understand is the go-to tense for most writing in general, and on Wikipedia in particular. However, it looks like the Wikipedia Manual of Style says that the past tense should be used when referencing "subjects that are dead or no longer meaningfully exist", with the example of The Beatles given. All of the other year-specific College Football All-America Team articles use the present tense, except for the first two, 1889 and 1890, as well as 1907, if not more. Which tense is more appropriate: past or present? And would there be a split point for where to use which?

Another, somewhat unrelated question, but pertaining to the same series of articles: The lead sections to the various College Football All-American Team articles vary in content. The first one (1889) is unique—understandably so—, but there isn't much consistency among the others in regards to formatting of information. 1890 is different, 1891-2008 are somewhat similar but in no ways all identical; 2009 goes uniquely in depth; 2010 and 2011 are different that the preceding ones; and 2012-2019 are again different. Does any of this really matter, and, if so, what would be the best way of correcting it?

Hopefully, at least some of that made sense. Triethylborane (talk) 19:52, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

As the 1944 team surely no longer exists in any useful sense, Triethylborane, I would write that article in the past tense. Indeed I would write any article about a group associated with a specific year in the past tense as soon as that year is no longer the current year. For example consider 1932 New York Yankees season which starts: The 1932 New York Yankees season was the team's 30th season in New York... (emphasis added) or 2018 Boston Red Sox season which starts The 2018 Boston Red Sox season was the 118th season in the team's history,...(emphasis added).

As to consistency of lead section phrasing and content between articles in a series, it is not required. You are free to change some if yo0u think the changes are improvements to the individual articles, but please do not make such changes solely nor \primarily for the sake of consistency, unless the relevant WikiProject has developed a standard structure and g0otten consensus for it. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:14, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, DES. That explanation helps a lot. Is the tense issue worth fixing in the articles, then? Triethylborane (talk) 20:35, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Worth fixing? IMO yes, Triethylborane. Urgent and vital?No. It is not as if we had an article that said The 1720 Rock Mountain Sheep-Chasers was a baseball team consisting entirely of child abusers. That would need swift attention. If you are willing to spend the time changing present to past verbs in such articles, go for it. I think it would improve Wikipedia somewhat. If not, no great harm is done. If you do it, please make a given article consistent before you go on to another, and please make it clear in the edit summaries, and perhaps also on the article talk page, what yo9u are doing and why, perhaps with a link to the MOS section linked above. Thanks. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:56, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good, DES. Thank you again. Triethylborane (talk) 21:05, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Help Putting Semi-Protection on, uaer account page (Hamuyi (talk) 20:11, 10 June 2020 (UTC))

Hello!!

(Here is some info about me: Name: Hamadi M. New MOBILE Wikipedia user, 10+ edits.)

I need semi-protection on my user page, so can I get some to help!?

Thank you, Hamuyi (talk) 20:11, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Hamuyi Protection, including semi-protection, can be requested at Requests for page protection, but it is normally granted only when there already has been significant and sustained vandalism or disruptive editing of a page, and then is normally applied only for a limited period of time. I don't see any vandalism or disruption on User:Hamuyi. Why do you think it should be semi-protected? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:20, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I think it should be protected because; People may change the details, and I only want people I TRUST and know. If it can't be semi protected, can It be fully. If not, thank you for your help.

Always,

Hamuyi (talk) 20:40, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia is a collaborative enterprise, and pages are not owned by an individual, although in general other editors will not edit an individual's user page. If you want a page that you control, then you need to set up your own website; this isn't the purpose of Wikipedia. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:44, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh. Thank you for your that information, David.

Hamuyi (talk) 21:09, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Second speedy deletion nomination, but cannot contest, because of redirected and deleted.

Hi, today the first nomination of speedy deletion was gone, some hours ago. But now it got deleted. Short before a second warning of nomination to speedy deletion. But NOW already deletd the article "No till garden", and without possibility to contest.

The article´s name "No till garden" is now redirected to "No-dig gardening".

Reason "hoax" and "vandalism".

Please, help. (So much work gone, done for nothing.) --Visionhelp (talk) 19:05, 10 June 2020 (UTC) Visionhelp (talk) 19:03, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Visionhelp and welcome to the Teahouse. The article was not deleted. It was redirected to No-dig gardening (an existing article on much the same subject, it seems) by Praxidicae. It had been nominated for speedy deletion by Fuddle, but that was declined by GB fan (and I agree with that decision). The old content can be found here You can discuss restoring this as a separate article at Talk:No till garden, but it might be better to discuss what content from this could usefully be merged into No-dig gardening at Talk:No-dig gardening. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:49, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi DESiegel and thanks the welcome.
The first nomination for speedy deletion is from exact Praxidicae. It was deleted at about 1 o´clock pm today Berlin time.
There are 2 articles, No dig gardening and No till farming. They ONLY CAN be similar.
My one is not a small one and not finished. (This is work and needs time and focus.)
Thanks the info, it is not deleted, despite I do not have access to it anymore, and thanks the link.
To discredit my article this way is already only ONE what is absolutely not OK for me. It is done with untrue reasons "hoax" and "vandalism". And very insulting just.
Until now it appears, it was not a problem to have those two No-dig gardening and No till farming, and there are more similar articles, but in other words as sustainable and so on.
Not accepting my article with those false reasons I cannot accept at all.
Sorry, I can really only hard imagine, that wikipedia has such problems.
Praxidicae did deny a talk with his just nominate to speedy deletion.
From this at this time I only can deny myself this contact and an interesst in his article at all, at now.
I am not happy with this title, prefer I would "Not Dig, Not Till, Garden, Farm, Less Watering, Methods", but just too long and ´including´ the other both articles.
"discuss restoring this as a separate article at Talk:No till garden, but it might be better to discuss what content from this could usefully be merged into No-dig gardening": The first, I do not get reaction. The second I only can deny at all. I could wish ... turn around ... NO. I have some many single things, which I am just bringing together my way, but this work still is not done. (The title is joyced from what is the search question. This others may do, too. But me, too, please. No ?)
With whom would I have to discuss this, please ?
Thanks the interesst and Your reaction. --Visionhelp (talk) 20:58, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

@Visionhelp: My top recommendation is to try not to take things too personally here. Some people nominated your article for speedy deletion incorrectly, and their requests were declined by an administrator. Then another user saw your article and thought it looked very similar to an existing article, so he redirected it to the better-developed existing article. This is a normal action here, and you can do it even without discussion. You may want to leave a message at User talk:Praxidicae explaining why these are two different subjects. S/he may agree with you once you explain why. You may also want to consider developing this article more in your user sandbox before posting it as a live article, because you say it is still a work in progress. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:19, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

How to draw the line between quoting an achievement versus an advertisement?

I'm new here. I was a journalist for a while and working for various media there was always the ambiguity whether a story written on a subject is to disseminate information concerning it or to shed limelight (necessary or otherwise) on it. I never received a concrete ideological solution to that ambiguity. I am here on Wikipedia because I love this Universe of information. Yet, sometimes when I find oddly written articles, which have circumstantially escaped the eyes of senior editors, I feel a personal embarrassment of sort. Therefore, I wish to know how to construct an informational article about something or someone and mention all their feats without making it sound like a eulogy? KrawnXanethius (talk) 19:15, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, KrawnXanethius. A good place to start is to read the core content policy Neutral point of view. You may also gain some insight by reading some threads at the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:21, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

"all their feats" dings an alarm bell. Articles are not CVs. There are facts that can be referenced but do not appreciably add to the description of a person and their achievements. David notMD (talk) 21:24, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Neglected Geology Pages

Hello All. I am a new Wiki user, and I decided that I think a good use of my time on here (and a good personal learning opportunity) would be to tackle cleaning up older, neglected geology pages that probably need some expansions or updates. I'm not sure how best to search for these so I can make a queue of pages to work through. Right now I go through:
Community Portal > Expand short articles > I click on more... > and I filter by Earth and Environment
At this point I would probably like to see some of the oldest pages pop up first to see what's there and could use some attention, but I only seem to be able to sort by the newest created pages. I suppose I am most interested in expanding stub articles, but I could probably help update older, longer articles as well. Sugarpeas (talk) 18:19, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

@Sugarpeas: I'd recommend checking out Wikipedia:WikiProject Geology. They have a list of open tasks (see tab up top). You also can look at the colorful chart on the right of the page to identify important articles that are of relatively low quality. (But note that as a new user, it's sometimes easier to start with mid/low importance articles because these tend to be less sprawling topics that are more easily digestible.) You also could post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geology to see if anyone has ideas based on your interests. I'm not sure how active the group is (i.e. how likely you are to get a reply) -- some wikiprojects are more active than others. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:40, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

@Sugarpeas: One of our most powerful tools is WP:PETSCAN (here). It lets you search by many different things, including categories, size, creation/edit dates, etc. That should get you what you want with a little experimentation. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 21:30, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

How to make a info page.

I am a new user on wikipedia.com and I want to know how to make a info page, so can someone please help me? Anybody (that isn't a new user) would be useful. thank you! Hamuyi (talk) 20:57, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

@Hamuyi: I recommend reading Wikipedia:Your first article. By the way, the contents of User:Hamuyi/sandbox are not an appropriate start to a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and that isn't an encyclopedia article. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:03, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Um, you reading that was none of your business, no hard-feelings. And that was me just trying to write. I know what a "article" is. And I will look at that link.

Hamuyi (😁) —Preceding undated comment added 21:13, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Hamuyi Please note that every edit you make to Wikipedia is visible to the public(if they know how to find it) and logged in your contribution history. If you don't want other editors to see what you are writing, you shouldn't put it on Wikipedia. I will also add that Wikipedia does not have "info pages" that merely provide information. Wikipedia has articles, and those articles summarize what independent reliable sources state about subjects that meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability. 331dot (talk) 21:20, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay I got it.

Hamuyi (talk) 21:27, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with Callio, in that in my opinion one's own Sandbox is a place to experiment, or work on drafting content for articles, etc. However, it is true that one's User page and Sandbox and Talk pages are open to being read by other editors. And even deletion, if for example, someone pasted in copyright protected content, or created an essay that has nothing to do with Wikipedia. David notMD (talk) 21:34, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

David notMD I think they were referring to the actual text, not the location. 331dot (talk) 21:42, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

At User:Hamuyi/sandbox, Hamuyi appears to be using it to learn how to do some basic stuff. David notMD (talk) 21:49, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

@David notMD: It used to have some content about Islam. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:54, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Hey! You editors are making me nervous @David notMD: im glad you know it is was islam and idc.

How to mention someone on wikipedia.com and more questions

👋 Hello.

I am a new user on wikipedia. I have a few questions to ask and look for a answer on each of them.

How do you mention someone on Wikipedia.com?

Where can find tasks to help people?

How do I make for example wikipedia.com blue and when you click on it direct to that website?

Ty. Hamuyi (talk) 21:47, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Hamuyi. I recommend you try The Wikipedia Adventure, which is an interactive "game" that teaches you about editing Wikipedia. You can ping another editor by using one of the notification templates: I use {{U}}, but there are others (see that page that I linked to). You can insert an external link by putting it in single square brackets, but Wikipedia is very selective about which external links are allowed in articles (see EL). There's a little more leeway in user pages, but if it looks as if you are promoting| anything (commercial or not), your link will get removed.

Once you've taken the Adventure, I suggest you look at WP:Community portal. Happy editing! --ColinFine (talk) 22:02, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

How do you ping someone? AyeItsHamuyi🐍😁 22:13, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

@Hamuyi: On a discussion page, if you want to notify someone, you can start your post with {{Re|Username}}, where Username is the person's (case-sensitive) account name. This renders as "@Username:". You can see an example of it in this very message.

Also, please be careful about modifying your signature. If you created the one above ("AyeItsHamuyi🐍😁") by typing four tildes (~~~~), please go back to your preferences page and change it. Per WP:SIG, a signature needs to contain at least one link to your user or talk page. In this case, it doesn't even contain your correct username so people can't easily ping you back or get to your user page or contributions list. Thanks. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 22:25, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay no problem. AyeItsHamuyi🐍😁 23:23, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

COI Issue on Kevin Andrew Tan Article

Hi everyone, I need help with the cleanup for this article Draft: Kevin Andrew Tan. The cleanup page said that WP:Teahouse can help with this one. I see that the article already has COI Disclosure on the talk page. What else needs to be done here? Does the article need to be trimmed down on the Achievements section? The notability issue never goes away. Hopefully, this can get fixed asap. Thank you. Kileyco17 (talk) 08:45, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

HiKileyco17 and welcome to the Teahouse, please have a close look at the instruction of Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#How_to_disclose_a_COI. CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:14, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

The creator and other editors of the draft were declared paid editors (later blocked for being sockpuppets of one editor). You previously attempted to create articles about properties owned by Kevin's company. What is your connection to the topic of the current draft? If you have a COI or Paid, that should go on your User page. David notMD (talk) 10:50, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi CommanderWaterford and David notMD. Thank you for your assistance but the editors of the article have been disclosed already in the talkpages except for Kileyco17 because other editors didn't gave that user a chance to write on the userpage a disclosure since it was blocked in the first place. I have already disclosed it both on my userpage and talkpage of the article. Also, I saw that someone edited the article to improve notability, I hope that's enough for the article to proceed to mainspace already. Thank you and have a nice day. Antagonizer05 (talk) 02:17, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Kileyco17 - who has not yet edited the article - asked what needs to be done to clear the tags. Given the draft editing has a history of paid editing and socking, asking what Kileyco17's connections are was a valid question. You (Antagonizer05) have properly declared a COI before making edits, but I will ask the same question - does WP:PAID apply?. As to proceeding to mainspace, that will require that the draft be resubmitted and a reviewer approves.Two of the now blocked editors had bypassed review and moved the draft to mainspace only for it to be reverted to draft. If that happens again there is a possibility the article will be deleted and salted. David notMD (talk) 02:37, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Kileyco17 is already disclosed including mine, Antagonizer05. The draft article's talkpage is also updated. Kindly check. Regarding to publishing the article, I hope I can get an assistance to this one, from you or from any editors asap because this has been drafted for a month already. Thank you David notMD for the assistance. Antagonizer05 (talk) 02:28, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Artificial Edit Count Inflation

Is it acceptable to make a large amount of pointless edits (such as repeatedly adding and deleting a new line) solely for the purpose of making my edit count larger? I would assume no, since the edit count seems to serve the purpose of measuring one's meaningful contributions to Wikipedia. Angry Red Hammer Guy (talk) 03:11, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

No, that would be gaming the system. Not to mention that raw edit count carries very little clout these days. bibliomaniac 1 5 03:20, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Angry Red Hammer Guy. First of all, edit count is the roughest possible indicator of the significance of one's contributions, and is often inaccurate. One editor may make a single edit that adds a well written and properly referenced paragraph. Another editor may make seven edits in a futile effort to improve a sentence, and leave it less accurate and more garbled. Surely the first editor has improved the encyclopedia more than the second editor. Certain new editors make a lot of pointless edits to obtain certain user rights, such as autoconfirmed or extended confirmed, so that they can then try to disrupt protected articles. This behavior is called "gaming the system" and results in the loss of user rights when it is discovered. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:31, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Should a link piped to a redirect be simplifed when possible?

In the lead section of Ent, there is a link formatted as [[fantasy (genre)|fantasy]]. Fantasy (genre) is a redirect to Fantasy, and I'm wondering if the link should be changed to simply [[fantasy]].

WP:NOPIPE says to "keep links as simple as possible", but WP:NOTBROKEN says that "there is usually nothing wrong with linking to redirects to articles." Both guidelines seem to focus on the converse case (e.g. [[fantasy|fantasy genre]] versus [[fantasy genre]]); neither of them specifically addresses this.

Should I change it to have NOPIPE, or leave it because it's NOTBROKEN? — Ardub23 (talk) 07:12, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Ardub23, yes it should. Unless the link linked to a section, the link should go directly to the article because it was moved a while back. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 07:56, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Question

Hi, I just looked up Bari wiess on bing and in the search results under the overview section for her wikipedia page it says that she is a scumbag. I don't know if she is a scumbag or not but this entry did not seem to fit the format of wikipedia so I edited her bio to say that she is not a scumbag. Someone removed my comment and said to inquire here if I have any questions. So I guess my question is: is someone going to remove the part in her overview section that says she's a scumbag? 75.164.181.33 (talk) 08:52, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

There is no Bari Wise article on the English Wikipedia, please check that you have the page title correct. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:08, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) IP Editor: Did you think to check the Wikipedia article itself? See Bari Weiss We have no control over how Bing or Google scrapes other sites to create their summary results, and their is also a timelag before they get updated. Three days ago somebody sensibly removed this edit from her article. Is there anything inappropriate still there? (My battery is dying, so cant operate phone anymore) Nick Moyes (talk) 09:14, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

hiDodger69 I misspelled her name.

Nick Moyes, the article itself does not refer to her as a scumbag as far as I can tell. [unsigned comment by 75.164.181.33 (talk)]

FYI. There was this vandalism by Special:Contributions/84.51.144.98 on 05:05, 5 June 2020 which was reverted 2 minutes later. Special:Contributions/84.51.144.98 was warned not to make such "unconstructive" edits to wikipedia. That was 6 days ago.

Thx for your interested in fixing the problem. The problem is fixed on our end. However, there may be a way to force Bing to scrape the entry again. I know it is possible with other sites. I did try Bing and you are correct that it does say scumbag as 09:44, 11 June 2020 (UTC). --David Tornheim (talk) 09:44, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

You might want to try this: Bing search on how to force scrapes. If anyone takes the time to figure it out, please let us know how it was done. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:46, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Back on the mains now after my phone shutdown: It's really extraordinarily unfortunate that Bing indexed our site during a two minute period of vandalism, and tales online suggest it is much, much slower at repeating recrawls than Google is. However, I have submitted a report to Bing of adult/offensive content for that page, explaining the 2 minute period of vandalism here. (Maybe othger editors on different IPs might care to do that, too) Looking elsewhere online after David Tornheim's suggestion, I found this Bing article about getting sites recrawled, and it appears that webmasters can prompt Bing to recrawl up to 10,000 pages in a domain - not much help to us, with 6M+ articles unless a specific page can be submitted. This issue has however prompted me to ask whether Wikipedia/WMF has already established mechanisms for submitting requests for search engines to recrawl specific pages following offensive vandalism of this sort? If so, where would our admins go to report that action needs to be taken quickly, and for a recrawl request to be submittted? With so much of our content now being taken and re-used by major search engines, they must surely have put something in place for us to fix blatant mistakes like this one. Ideas anyone, or shall I ask at WP:AN? Nick Moyes (talk) 10:33, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Uploading Image to a page

I want to add images to a Wiki Page Please help me with this Amour08 (talk) 10:15, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Amour08. So that we can help you more effectively please can you explain your precise need?:

Is the picture you want already on Wikimedia Commons, and therefore free to use, and you simply want to know how to insert it into a page?
Do you want to upload a photo you have taken yourself on your own camera, and therefore have the legal right to make it freely available?
Do you want to use a photo you happen to have found somewhere on the internet? (You are not permitted to do this unless it is very clearly licenced for free, commercial reuse).

Perhaps you could supply a link to it for us to check for you? That way we can properly assist you. (Or you can follow the tutorial links at Wikipedia:Images.) Thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:41, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Edit counter out of whack

This is very trivial, sorry. I found a set pages that were miscategorized, around 5k. So I spent a couple of days editing away, putting them in the right place, and in the process of doing so doubled my edit count for the year compared to previous years, even though we're only half way through this year. Now I have an edit spike, and I'm not sure I'm happy with that. What are your thoughts? 213.125.14.194 (talk) 08:12, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. Frankly, no-one is ever likely to notice. Even if they do notice, they won't care. And if they do care, they'll soon find that there's a good reason for the spike. Maproom (talk) 08:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

If anything, you might get yourself to WP:RECORDS as the IP editor with the most edits? Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 11:24, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Creating a disambiguation page

Hi! I want to create a disambiguation page for the term CIPHR (which is the name of the company I work at) but am not sure how to do this. I have seen some disambiguation templates but does anyone know how exactly I can create a new disambiguation page? I am new to all of this so any help is welcome! Thank you MaryamCIPHR (talk) 10:51, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse! On Wikipedia, we strongly discourage you to write about a topic you are affiliated with (company you work at, family, friends etc.). This is because it can inadvertently create a conflict of interest, which can lead to you writing promotional or one-sided content, which is not what Wikipedia is. Giraffer (talk) 11:11, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @MaryamCIPHR: To create a disambiguation page you would have to be autoconfirmed, i.e. you must have at least 10 edits and have a 4 day old account. Putting this aside, you would list out the similar terms and end with {{disambiguation}}. For a simple example, see the page Canillas; for more instructions, please see Help:Disambiguation and/or WP:Disambiguation. Cheers, Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 11:15, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) x 2. Hello, MaryamCIPHR. Disambiguation pages are used to distinguish diffrerent Wikipedia articles which might go by the same name. Since there is at present no Wikipedia article called CIPHR, (let alone more than one) a disambiguation page is completely unneeded. --ColinFine (talk) 11:16, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) x 3. On Wikipedia we currently have no page named "CIPHR", nor are there any searches that mention this spelling. To create a disambig page you would have to first create the page about your company (strongly discouraged) and find other stuff related to "CIPHR", which there are none right now. Cheers, Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 11:19, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Ahh okay, that makes sense. Thank you for the help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaryamCIPHR (talk • contribs) 11:44, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Question

Hello, I want to know if there is a place where you can do tasks daily or something like that. Please respond,

Thank you. callmehami 00:03, 11 June 2020 (UTC) (Ping me: @Callmehami:) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 00:08, 11 June 2020‎ Hamuyi (talk • contribs)

Just try improving articles that already exist. The article can be whichever you like. Presumably you have already noticed places where articles could be improved. However, this edit of yours suggests that you are less interested in working to improve this encyclopedia than in playing around. Prove me wrong, and prove that you are concerned, by doing some constructive work. -- Hoary (talk) 00:10, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay. But I dont know where to find articles that need to be inproved. callmehami 00:14, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Then read a few articles in Wikipedia. If you find nothing that needs improvement, lucky you: turn off the computer and enjoy the "real world". But while you are here, stop pretending to be "callmehami" or anything other than your actual username, which you can get via four consecutive taps on "~". -- Hoary (talk) 00:18, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Why are you mocking me and I am a mobile user. callmehami 00:21, 11 June 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamuyi (talk • contribs)

@Hamuyi: It is important that you sign your messages on talk pages correctly, per WP:SIG. One of two things is happening:

1. At the end of your message, you are manually typing "callmehami" and a timestamp (or five tildes). I don't think this is what is happening.

2. More likely, you have again changed your signature at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-personal (this time to "callmehami"). This is disruptive and misleading (especially when you suggest people ping you at that username). If this is the case, please go back to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-personal and clear out the Signature field and un-check the "Treat the above as wiki markup" checkbox underneath it. This will cause your signature to revert to the standard, compliant one that is useful to other users when trying to communicate with you. When you type the four tildes at the end of your post, it will then show your correct username and timestamp. Once you become more familiar with how Wiki markup works, if you really want to customize your signature, and have trouble doing so, we can help you with that. OK? —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 00:39, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok, @AlanM1: okay. I just want my signature to cool but its not going so. Ty. callmehami 00:46, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

We are creating an encyclopedia. The readers of this encyclopedia do not care how "cool" the signatures of its contributors are. It contributors need to communicate with each other efficiently: this demands that you display your actual user ID and not some imagined user ID. You have repeatedly ignored requests not to pretend that your name is something other than Hamuyi. Enough: you're Hamuyi. My own phone was cheap when I bought it, and that was five years ago. Despite these discouraging factors, I can easily use it to input "~". As for articles that need improvement, OK, please name one or two of your (Hamuyi's) areas of interest; then somebody here (perhaps me) may have suggestions. NB if you respond with a name other than Hamuyi, I'll infer that you're merely a troll, and I doubt that I'll be alone in doing so. -- Hoary (talk) 00:58, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

DONT CALL ME. A TROLLL YOU ---*!. Stop mocking me.

@Hoary: i not trying to be mean dont call me a trolll

Hamuyi (talk) 01:04, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

(If u read my user page,) I like coding (most of the times) I like fruit. Apples, oranges and more etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamuyi (talk • contribs) 01:09, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the good signature. I thought of a fruit: Greengage. I went to Talk:Greengage. There I read that "This article is within the scope of" WP:WikiProject Food and drink and WP:WikiProject Plants. I plumped for the former and arrived at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Food and drink. Unfortunately there's no discussion about fruit, so I backtracked to Talk:Greengage, and noticed that there was a "to-do" list from 2007. Have all of these been done? I then returned to Greengage itself, and there read:

Greengage fruit are identified by their round-oval shape and smooth-textured, pale green flesh; they are on average smaller than round plums but larger than mirabelle plums (usually between 2 and 4 cm diameter). The skin ranges in colour from green to yellowish, with a pale blue "blush" in some cultivars; a few Reine Claudes, such as 'Graf Althanns', are reddish-purple due to crossbreeding with other plums. Greengages are grown in temperate areas and are known for the rich, confectionery flavour. They are considered to be among the finest dessert plums.

Totally unreferenced! Everything in that needs an independent, reliable, published source, in particular the claim in the last sentence (which currently looks like mere advertising copy). So there you are: greengages. Google Books is (or anyway might well be) your friend. Good luck!

Don't want to work on greengages? Fine: take a look at the article on some other fruit. I hope that you find the quest enjoyable. -- Hoary (talk) 01:25, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay! I will look at it.

Idk how to make a Articile so im not making one. Sorry.

Hamuyi (talk) 01:33, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Creating a new article when you have no experience of improving existing articles is very difficult; and that's why I suggested improving the article Greengage. If that article doesn't appeal, then feel free to choose an article on another kind of fruit, on a programming language, or on some aspect of programming. -- Hoary (talk) 01:48, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I SAID NOOOOO! LEAVE ME ALONE. I HAVE NO PASSIONTE NO COURAGE NOTHING WILL HELP BAN ME IF YOU WANT IDC. LEAVE ME ALONE.@Hoary(talk): — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamuyi (talk • contribs) 01:59, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Hamuyi earlier on, I suggested you look at the Community portal. The section "Help Out" lists some articles that need particular kinds of attention. --ColinFine (talk) 09:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

{@ColinFine: Okay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamuyi (talk • contribs) 13:28, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Tutt-Everett Feud

I am not a computer person over 80 and don't understand how to get incorrect data about my Everett family corrected. Being a professional genealogist I have the TRUE story of the feud documented about the Tutt-Everett Feud in Marion Co. AR . How do I get changes made? 2600:1700:7BC1:EBA0:E0B0:73EF:4601:B302 (talk) 12:00, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

You can make suggestions at the talk page of the relevant article, but you would need to support your suggestions by reference to published reliable sources independent of the subject. Your original research is not usable on Wikipedia. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:19, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy: Article in question is Tutt–Everett War. Talk page for that article is place to make a (referenced) case for amending the article. Need to be specific: Request that ____ be changed to _____ (providing references). David notMD (talk) 14:07, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

My text editor became small

Hello, i tried my best to reset all my settings but not able to make this box big. I even removed all the scripts, but no luck. How to make it as it was before. I captured it please have a look. Rocky 734 (talk) 05:23, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Rocky 734, have you tried using a different browser? — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 07:53, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes @Berrely:, it opened well in same browsers incognito mode. Problem comes only after logging in. I have removed all script from commons.js and global.js but no luck. Rocky 734 (talk) 08:36, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Rocky 734, have you checked your gadgets? — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 08:37, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Rocky 734, did you ensure cookies aren’t blocked in all the browsers? RedBulbBlueBlood9911Talk 09:29, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

@Berrely:, @RedBulbBlueBlood9911:, I solved my problem. Their was no problem with gadgets and cookies actually the problem was due to one of chrome extension. When i uninstalled them it worked fine. Now the box is displaying properly. Rocky 734 (talk) 14:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Editing Manolis Chiotis

Hi there ,my name is Diamantis Chiotis and I am the son of Manolis Chiotis and I have tried several times to correct the wrong birthday and include some other info and when I check the next day the page was back to the old info. This is very frustrating, so what can I do about it. Thank you https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manolis_Chiotis Frigian (talk) 14:21, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

As an editor with a conflict of interest you ought to use the article talk page Talk:Manolis Chiotis to suggest changes, supporting the suggestions with references to published reliable sources independent of the subject. Your personal knowledge isn't useful to Wikipedia, because of the need for verifiability. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:40, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Link to the page is getting broken!

Dear Sir/Madame,

I am trying to include an external link to a new page I am trying to publish ( submitted for review ) but the link when posted on page is getting broken. Please guide as how to fix it.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-helminthology/article/on-a-rare-cercaria-cercaria-soparkari-nsp-transversotrematidae-from-lucknow- india/715C069137918886CA06EF7EC38E411D

This is the exact link . Hope I made my question clear to understand.

Thanks in advance.

Regards Shekhar in (talk) 14:34, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

@Shekhar in: welcome to the Teahouse. In the link you pasted above (and in the same link in your Sandbox) there is a space after "lucknow-" and that's why the link breaks. Hope that makes sense! Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 14:40, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Page cleansed by subject organization

It appears this Wikipedia page was "cleansed":

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

Per this news article:

https://lighthousenow.ca/article.php?title=SSRCE_s_Wikipedia_page_cleansed_of_unflattering_re

Re-instatement of prior version may be needed? 24.215.92.187 (talk) 13:33, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, current version is crappy, but this version [7] isn't much better. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:50, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, we shouldn't be restoring back a load of unsourced content. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:55, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Evidence of at least two UPE accounts noted on the article talk page. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:05, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Hey, I had some free min and cleaned and fixed the article to the best of my knowledge by adding some sources and evidencing controversies they had in the past. Hope it's better now but we should keep it on a watchlist. Fthobe (talk) 15:54, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

A small question

👋 Hello, I have a question, how do you make like for example WP:Teahouse direct you to the WP:Teahouse Page? (When you click on it.)

Respond and ping me, Always, Hamuyi (talk) 15:36, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

@Hamuyi: Just put two square brackets around it: [[WP:Teahouse]] or like this [[WP:TH]] which renders as WP:Teahouse or WP:TH. This work with any article title or userpage, too. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:46, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

What about a website? Oh, nevermind. It like this (wikipedia.com)right?

Always. Hamuyi (talk) 15:48, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Hamuyi, see Help:Cheatsheet. And, perhaps, WP:EL. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:58, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

2017 Green Bay Packers season Question

Hello, Trains 2050 I edited 2017 Green Bay Packers season. I edited the final roster for the Green Bay Packers because I noticed that he was not there that is why you saw all the new content on that page just letting you know. 2600:1700:8A90:5AD0:9584:901E:49C:DA4B (talk) 15:43, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Fixing ping to Trains2050, or they won't have seen this message. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 15:48, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

2600:1700:8A90:5AD0:9584:901E:49C:DA4B thanks for letting me know, next time that you are updating a page could you tell us now why in the edit summary to make it less likely for it to be reverted as in Huggle it seemed like content removal even after reviewing it carefully now I can see it is not. sorry for any problems caused. cheers Trains2050 (talk) 15:56, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

to add to that, next time if you think me or any other person in recent changes patrol made a mistake please let us know on our talk pages as it will be faster for me and others to respond. cheers Trains2050 (talk) 15:59, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

how i can get a backlink for my website www.topinfonetwork.com from wikipedia

Aamirshebi550 (talk) 16:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

How can I get a backline for my website, www.topinfonnetwork from wikipedia?

You can't. Wikipedia is not for promoting your website. See WP:NOT RudolfRed (talk) 16:17, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Someone responded first, but I would like to say that the policy Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not seems to indicate that your use may be considered banned advertising or linkspam. In addition, meta:Nofollow states that links here are marked with nofollow, which decreases the link's effectiveness for SEO purposes. I would suggest reading the welcome message at your talk page. Sincerely, Randompointofview (talk) 16:22, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I would say the same thing. But I didnt want to respond first cause i am not a editer on The Teahouse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamuyi (talk • contribs) 16:26, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

What is "Promotional Material"?

I saw an editor revert a bunch of edits as "promotional material" when it cited to good reliable well-accepted sources. How can that be questioned? Althecomputergal 00:13, 10 June 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Althecomputergal (talk • contribs)

You can question it on the talk page of the relevant article. -- Hoary (talk) 00:33, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I looked for a reference so I'd sound like I knew what I was talking about (lol) but cannot find anything like WP:promotional to even see why it was reverted. --Althecomputergal 00:48, 10 June 2020 (UTC)Althecomputergal — Preceding unsigned comment added by Althecomputergal (talk • contribs)

Hello, Althecomputergal see our page about promotion. In general, anything that seems primarily designed to promote or praise someone or something (or attack either) is not acceptable. Promotion can include commercial advertising, but extends much farther. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be neutral, and when they are not, that may be promotion. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:25, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

P.S. 'Sign' your comments by typing four of ~ at the end. David notMD (talk) 02:30, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. That is helpful. Althecomputergal 16:18, 11 June 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Althecomputergal (talk • contribs)

on the last entry I did the four ~ but my signing didn't show up. I try again. Althecomputergal 16:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Althecomputergal (talk • contribs)

"Winning Streak" moves

So in the page with the longest table of contents (Winning streak) at the top it says "For other uses, see Winning Streak" (with a capital S)

I saw that "Winning Streak (disambiguation)" redirected to "Winning Streak"

When I moved "Winning Streak" to "Winning Streak (disambiguation)" I thought "ohno! the history of Winning Streak (disambiguation) got deleted!"

So I revert the move.

But then I thought "well it's just a redirect, so it's okay to move" (is it?)

So I revert the revert

Then somehow, checking "What links here", "Winning streak (disambiguation)" (lowercase S) redirects to "Winning Streak (disambiguation)"

Now i'm confused, and this ~~probably~~ needs fixing. (I was pretty sure of the first move, but somehow the end happenned.)

Checking the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/move, it says I did 6 redirects, (though 3 of them seem to be indirect talk page redirects)

Actually, looking at it for awhile, the overall effect seems to be that

Winning Streak is moved to Winning Streak (disambiguation)
Winning Streak (disambiguation)'s old history gets deleted (maybe ?)
Bunch more (What Links Here, sort keys (never heard of), and more but it seems I x'd out the tab.)
I didn't have anything to do with the lowercase S disambiguation (Winning streak (disambiguation))

My main questions are "what did i do wrong" and "what was i supposed to do". (sidenote: these questions are both in a non-complain way [my mind keeps saying it like the movies or tv or something])

Also "what should I do now" AltoStev ^Talk 23:49, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, AltoStev and welcome to the Teahouse.

First of all, you almost surely didn't screw anything up -- it takes more work than that to really mess things up. The system won't let you move a page over a redirect if the redirect has significant history, unless you have admin or page mover rights.
Secondly, before doing moves, please consider what the desired outcome is. You will want to read Wikipedia:Disambiguation. You will learn there that if there is no primary topic, that is if there are two or more topics that could use the same title, but no one is clearly more likely to be the desired page than all others, then a disambiguation page is normally placed at the name with no parenthetical. If there is a primary topic, the disambiguation page gets a name ending in (disambiguation). Non-primary topics must be disambiguated in some way, often with a parenthetical qualifier.
So if you did anything "wrong" -- and I wouldn't say you did -- it was not to either read up about our practice for disambiguation, or else ask on one of the talk pages, before doing the moves. It is often a good idea to ask on an article talk page before doing a move -- the matter may have been discussed at length some time back. But you are asking now, so no significant harm done.

Have I made things at all clearer? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:06, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh, and as to what to do now: either do nothing at all unless or until someone complains, or start a discussion, perhaps on Talk:Winning Streak asking how people would prefer these pages being named. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:16, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay thanks! I'll look at the wp:disambiguation page. AltoStev ^Talk 16:40, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Mentioning social media in sidebar

Hi!

I am currently writing a article about a YouTube personality and would like to add his public social media handles in the sidebar, under his regular Youtuber information. I am using the YouTuber sidebar template, which doesn't support social media information and displays error messages if I try to manually add categories to the template.

h a l p

Thank you AengusB (talk) 20:32, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, AengusB. You can find what parameters that infobox supports at Template:infobox YouTube personality. If you think some fields should be added, you can make the suggestion at Template Talk:infobox YouTube personality: if you can persuade other interested editors that they should be added, somebody can do so. My own suggestion would be that you worry about the infobox later, and spend time instead on the essential foundation of any Wikipedia article: the substantial reliably-published independent sources. I have only looked quickly, but it seems to me that most of your references are to sources that are either not reliable (eg iMDB), not independent (WIRED), or contain no substantial coverage of Hill. Remember, Wikipedia has basically no interest in what the subject of an article says about themselves (including in interviews and press releases): it is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject have chosen to say about them, and been published somewhere reliable. --ColinFine (talk) 20:53, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer ColinFine,

I will ask about this.

I am confused as to why those aren't good sources for what I am using from them. Do you have any suggestions? I have trouble seeing how sources like IMDb and Wired are less reliable than at least half of the sources cited under, say, the article about PewDiePie, which are either from tiny websites or are PewDiePie's own words, written by him or by an interviewer (not to mention PewDiePie videos). Are the rules more lenient when it comes to less critical subject matters like the lore and trivia around a YouTube channel, which are easily provable with evidence from the channel itself but not so much by accounts from reliable sources? I would gladly receive any examples you may have of reliable sources. Should I for example contact the archives from his place of birth to certify that he was born there on the date that he disclosed in the media? And in what way is WIRED not independent, but Polygon is?

Regards, AengusB (talk)

Hi, AengusB. Good questions, which are generally answered in WP:V and WP:GNG. But to take your points:

IMDB is largely user-generated, and so Wikipedia does not regard it as a reliable source (any more than it regards Wikipedia itself as a reliable source). It is very rarely appopriate to cite iMDB in a reference.
Non-independent sources may be used for uncontroversial factual information (such as birth dates, unless they are contentious, which sometimes happens with public figures). But they do not contribute to Notability at all. WIRED is not intrinsically non-independent, but what you have cited is, as far as I can see by Hill, and is therefore certainly not independent.
PewDiePie has 316 references (far too many, in my view, and the article is far too long, but that's another issue). There may be many sources in that that are either not independent, or merely passing references. But the question is, are there enough which are independent and contain substantial material about him to establish that he is notable in Wikipedia's sense? I haven't checked, but I think somebody will have, when it went through AFC in 2013.

Does that answer your questions? --ColinFine (talk) 22:25, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Alright ColinFine,

I will replace IMDb references. Can I quote Kyle Hill's own website when it comes to his education?

I disagree when it comes to WIRED. I quoted WIRED twice: The first quote is a page referencing Kyle Hill's contributions to WIRED, which I solely quoted to prove that he contributed to WIRED. The second quote is an article from the actual WIRED Magazine which was published on paper in September of 2013, and this one was not written by him, but by an in-house journalist, and well after Kyle Hill left the company. Are magazine articles published on paper by a third party not reliable enough?

Thank you. AengusB (talk)

As the name of the website/magazine is not pronounced "double-you eye are ee dee" but instead to rhyme with "hired" or "fired", let's present it as "Wired". You can quote somebody's own website for primary and secondary education, because (at least in much of the "developed" world) this is humdrum. Tertiary education is something of an achievement, so cite an independent source for this. Magazine articles published (whether on paper or on the web or both) by a third party are usually considered reliable, though it may depend on the magazine, the nature of the article, the writer, what the reference is being used for, etc. Going back to an earlier point: Any time that a Wikipedia editor contemplates citing a dubious source, using windy phrasing, or otherwise aggrandizing the subject, the editor will be able to cite precedent in other Wikipedia articles. Because yes, other crap exists. The existence of crap does not justify the addition of more crap. Look hard for reliable sources for anything that your draft says; where you can't find a reliable source for something, just remove it (it can be added later if a reliable source emerges). -- Hoary (talk) 23:18, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I hadn't seen that there was a second citation to Wired, AengusB. That may indeed be a good source, if it has substantial information on Hill, and he wasn't involved in the writing of it. --ColinFine (talk) 11:43, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi haychoary, thank you for your answer. If I ask his schools for references of documents proving that he went there, can I cite those things as proof? What about the people's registry of his birthplace? Can I cite official documents? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AengusB (talk • contribs) 16:41, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

photo credit

Hi, how do I persuade wikipedia that a photo I'm trying to upload is my own? So far unsuccessful! David Oddfellow (talk) 16:24, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

David Oddfellow, have you tried Upload Wizard? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:44, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, So how can I put the article I wrote on Nancy Ledin WITHIN the page OR at the end in REFERENES?

DannDannDulin (talk) 16:52, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

(you used the headline for your question. please next time use the discreption Hamuyi (talk) 17:03, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

DannDannDulin, you apparently have tried to use Wikipedia to promote an interview article which you wrote in 2017. Wikipedia is not for promotion. Furthermore, a biographical detail regarding the last interview a relatively unknown (to me, anyway) person gave is far too minor for an encyclopedia article, the purpose of which is to concisely sum up its subject. As a postscript, using all-caps in online communication is considered very rude and the equivalent of shouting.--Quisqualis (talk) 17:50, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Question, from Hamuyi

Hello, I don't know how to edit your talk page. I want to know how to edit your talk page like your user page. So, could someone help me, (anyone could.) Thank you, Hamuyi (talk) 18:15, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Have a look at Help:Talk pages, specifically, the sections on starting a new thread and replying to an existing thread.--Quisqualis (talk) 18:33, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

     Thank you for the answer. 
     Quisqualis!

Cannot log out

Working on Boulston, tried to save, and got this: Sorry! We could not process your edit due to a loss of session data. Please try saving your changes again. If it still does not work, try logging out and logging back in. I tried to log out and got this: Invalid CSRF token What now? Tony Holkham (Talk) 19:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

See #I can't edit or log out! ~~above~~below. --81.153.132.95 (talk) 19:03, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Archived.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 23:01, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

My account is busted too... there’s gonnna be lots of requests for oversight after this! 2600:100F:B13D:3649:E44A:40D8:8651:BF23 (talk) 19:05, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Whatever it was seems to have been fixed Tony Holkham (Talk) 19:06, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Faster way to fix typos?

I fix typos for the typo team, and I was wondreing if there was a faster way to fix them. Is there something you can do to fix typos very fast? (I can only do about one a minute currently.) Stay safe and well, --Total Eclipse 2017 ^{(talk | contribs)} 18:28, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Total Eclipse 2017. See Wikipedia:Typo Team#Methods for searching and correcting typos. AutoWikiBrowser (AWB) is a fast semi-automated tool. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:35, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: Thanks! Will check out this auto wiki browser... Stay safe and well, --Total Eclipse 2017 ^{(talk | contribs)} 19:12, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

How do I correct a “Invalid CSRF token”?

I have been establishing and writing pages on lost early American silent films (1910-1914) and suddenly today, when I was editing, I got an "Invalid CSRF token" when Wikipedia prompted me to log out and then log back in, which I have been unable to do. I can't log out or save any new or corrected information. Any help to resolve this will be much appreciated. —Strudjum (Wikipedia contributor since 2014)

This is a known issue right now and developers are working on a fix. Praxidicae (talk) 19:09, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

@Praxidicae: Fixed, as you can tell by the fact that people can edit form their accounts again... Stay safe and well, --Total Eclipse 2017 ^{(talk | contribs)} 19:11, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

There are still issues, I'm just letting people know so they stop flooding noticeboards about a known issue. Praxidicae (talk) 19:12, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I can't edit or log out!

Hi! The account that I normally use to edit is stuck right now. I tried to make an edit, but Wikipedia said it couldn't process it due to a loss of server data. I tried again and again with no luck, so I tried logging out, but it wouldn't let me log out. It just said "Invalid CSRF token." Can anyone help me?? 24.19.53.234 (talk) 18:55, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

It's system wide, so it's just not you. 2602:304:CDA4:2760:6405:E035:404:8651 (talk) 18:57, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

See WP:VPT#Wiki-wide authentication problems and the associated phabricator log. --81.153.132.95 (talk) 19:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)I had the same problem, but I just waited 10-20m and It worked.

Hamuyi (talk) 19:50, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Articles for deletion question

I was invited to the Teahouse.. I wanted to deeply apologize to User:Metropolitan90 and User:Juliette Han for their wasted time with my edits.. I wanted to volunteer for <Articles for deletion> and tried to follow instructions.. I would be forever grateful for your explanation.. How I can right my wrongs? What should I do if I have an interest in <Articles for deletion>? (I am a new user) Gabtreats (talk) 19:15, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi! Welcome to Wikipedia. Unfortunately, your 7 July 2005 London bombings and Prometheus (2012 film) deletion nominations constitute patent nonsense. If these were test edits, and you wish to learn more about the AfD process and how you can help, I'd be happy to guide you, but please refrain from senseless and unreasonable nominations as this editing pattern is considered disruptive. Other than this, don’t hesitate to ask me for assistance. Juliette Han (talk) 19:18, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

@Gabtreats: I'm surprised you weren't immediately blocked. I recommend you avoid any AfD nominations until you are more familiar with the encyclopedia. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:51, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Gabtreats, the best way to "right your wrongs" would be to understand how they were wrong. You suggested deleting the WP:Featured article Prometheus with the rationale of "So, where should we start..Subject needs adjusting". What does that even mean? Was the article incomprehensible to you? Did the article violate your concept of what a Wikipedia article on the subject should consist of? If you don't have a clear idea of how your deletion recommendations were inappropriate beyond all reason, then you should not be volunteering for Afd, or any other project where common sense is assumed to be in volunteers' possession. I recommend that you start reading Wikipedia articles (and their Talk pages) to familiarize yourself with what Wikipedia is, and then take WP:The Wikipedia Adventure. Before making any further edits to Wikipedia, run them by the relevant Talk page first, to obtain essential feedback in advance.--Quisqualis (talk) 19:52, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Why my content is removed i have not added any link

2401:4900:418B:9AA7:47B9:AA6E:BBB0:844B (talk) 16:03, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi IP editor. On which article was your edit reverted? Hillelfrei ^talk 16:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

(Please use the description, and not the headline for your question/s please. Hamuyi (talk) 20:02, 11 June 2020 (UTC))

Conflict of Interest?

If I edit an article about a medical condition that I have, does that constitute a conflict of interest? Angry Red Hammer Guy (talk) 17:44, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Angry Red Hammer Guy, depends on the situation. If you are involved in some sort of legal process regarding the condition, possibly. You may want to take a look at WP:MEDRS and WP:ADVOCACY. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:58, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Angry Red Hammer Guy (talk) 20:10, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Requests for permissions needs attention...

How can I make admins aware that there are a lot of requests that need looked at? Reagrds. Stay safe and well, --Total Eclipse 2017 ^{(talk | contribs)} 20:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Total Eclipse 2017, add {{Admin backlog}} to the top of the page - this lets the admins know there's a backlog. Ed6767 talk! 20:34, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Question

👋 Hello,

I am active alot and I want to help people, I dont want to become a editor. Some of the questions people ask on The Teahouse I know the answers so I could I help people?

Respond and ping me, Always, Hamuyi (talk) 16:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

@Hamuyi:

Hello, Hamuyi.

I'm not exactly an wikipedia expert, but i'm always learning. Heres what i've learned. The whole reason of Wikipedia is to help people know things. When all your doing is socializing, and not editing wikipedia, you get blocked. So if all you want to do is use this like a social page, and talk to other people, Wikipedia is not for you. I may have read your question wrong, so if that makes no sense, please tell me on my Talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadowblade08.2 (talk • contribs) 17:32, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Shadowblade08, I think that Hamuyi is talking about is helping people by answering questions here at the3 Teahouse. Anyone may give answers here who knows the answers to give. However, sometimes the only way to know what answer to give is to have some experience of editing here. When a relativly new user here starts answering questions a lot, those of us who have been doing this for a while are often concerned that the answers will be not quite accurate and may mislead or confuse those who ask the questions -- not intentionally but from lack of experience and knowledge. But as long as Hamuyi is able to give reasonably accurate answers (everyone makes mistakes now and then) he or she is free to keep giving answers. As you say, just being here to socialize is not really helping, but answering questions can be helpful. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:33, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

@DESiegel: Yes, That is what I trying to say (Correct!). (I am a he, just to say (not that it is important nor needed.)

Always, Hamuyi (talk) 20:49, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

User page related - question

👋 Hello

I want a link to my profile

Can someone help me finD/GEt one? Always, Hamuyi (talk) 21:17, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Editors have User pages, which are not profiles, and are not linked. If you have a website somewhere else, do not link your User page to it - that is a no-no. If you become so famous that there should be a Wikipedia article about you, someone else will write it. Meanwhile, please help improve some of the 6,000,000 articles in English Wikipedia.David notMD (talk) 21:32, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

So what you are saying is I don't have link to my wikipedia account?

I have looked into DESiegel'S account he has link how come I don't.

Whaa it was,

User:Hamuyi (User talk:Hamuyi)

Hamuyi - You registered this account recently. You have made more than 200 edits - none to articles. Instead, your User page, your Talk page, Teahouse and other editors' Talk pages. If you are not here to work on the encyclopedia you risk being blocked. David notMD (talk) 21:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay, but. Nevermind. Hamuyi (talk) 21:57, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Definition of a "Reliable Source"?

Hello everyone! I am a new Wikipedia editor, and received an invitation to the Teahouse (which must mean I'm making progress)! I do, however, have a question: What defines a "reliable source"? Let's say there is a variation of checkers. I know books and official websites would work, but what about 'smaller' sources?

Does a document written by a player count?
Games played by players?
Quotes they type on websites (such as Discord)?
Websites maintained by players?
Forum posts on websites?
Results from games and/or tournaments?
If the examples above don't count, then would a formal document written by the players suffice (organized using MLA or another writing format)?

I want to expand Wikipedia's stubs, but most of the sources are small and/or unofficial. The answers to these questions will improve my editing on Wikipedia (regardless of the topic), so thanks for reading! Puredication (talk) 21:56, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately it's not possible to give simple answers to most of these. Let's take the first one as a ferinstance. A document isn't judged unreliable just because it's written by a player. But this doesn't mean that it's judged reliable. In order to be judged reliable, it would have to be published (etc etc). Forum posts -- almost certainly not, unless perhaps these are indisputably written by recognized authorities on the games. Games played and results from games -- no, because these are (mere) events. Wikipedia needs not events but reliable documentation of events. -- Hoary (talk) 22:05, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Incidentally, though you say that "official websites would work", that's too broad a generalization. The article Reversi tells us that Kabushiki Kaisha Othello, which is owned by Hasegawa, registered the trademark "OTHELLO" for board games in Japan and Tsukuda Original registered the mark in the rest of the world. All intellectual property regarding Othello outside Japan is now owned by MegaHouse, a Japanese toy company that acquired PalBox, the successor to Tsukuda Original. That suggests that this is the, or at least an, official website for Othello. I shan't bother to look around within it, but I wouldn't be surprised to find claims for how Othello is enjoyable, will beneficially divert your kids' attention from their phones, will improve mental agility, etc. But the company has a commercial interest in the appeal of its product, so this kind of stuff should normally be ignored. Similarly, books. There's nothing magical about publication in codex form. If something comes from Wiley or the University of Chicago Press, it's taken seriously. If it comes from CreateSpace or Lulu, no. (If from the Edwin Mellen Press, perhaps I shouldn't comment.) If you have questions specific to the sourcing for articles on games, perhaps ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Board and table games. -- Hoary (talk) 22:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Bot related - Question

Hello, I want to know how to a bot add to my talkpage here is bots name: lowercase sigmabot III.

Reply and ping me, always, and thank you, Hamuyi (talk) 23:16, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

@Hamuyi: Please see User:Lowercase sigmabot III/Archive HowTo for instructions on setting up automated archiving. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 23:19, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Additionally, please see David notMD's comment above in response to an earlier question of yours. -- Hoary (talk) 23:22, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, GoingBatty

(Not it is important but you work hard at two things, teahouse and help page juat noticed.)

Whoop whoop, Hamuyi (talk) 23:26, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

First time editor in need of help

I want to update the Music_of_Nier page with appropriate album covers and additional metadata (such as Stock_keeping_unit, composer and arranger).

This information would come directly from Square Enix Store (JP) and Square Enix Store (US). If possible, I would also like to use VGMdb as a source, (example NieR:Automata Original Soundtrack, but I can understand if that's not a valid source.

If there's any guide or something similar for editing pages like these, please let me know :) ChronoDave (talk) 11:21, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

@ChronoDave: Welcome to the Teahouse! To upload album covers, see WP:File Upload Wizard. I suggest you post on the article talk page - Talk:Music of Nier - to work with other editors to determine the best way to add the additional data you're suggesting. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 23:38, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

contribuations not edit

Hi! this community is wonderful I love it, and thank you for everyone who contribute in it. so I was asking why some of my edits is not published ? Hachami (talk) 22:17, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

What were those edits? Hamuyi (talk) 22:29, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hello, Hachami and welcome to the Teahouse. In this edit you added an external link (a link to a site outside Wikipedia) in thje body of an article, which is not how we do things here, see WP:EL. In this edit you changed the url on a cited source without changing the title or publisher information, making the citation incorrect. That is not helpful. Both of those edits were reverted. In this edit you added some words in quotes, but which are apparently not a quotation from anyone in particular. It doesn't look as if any of your edits to Khenifra have been reverted. People get reverted on Wikipedia all the time. Even quite experienced editors do. If someone thinks a change is not an improvement, they may revert it. No accusation is implied. If you look over the change again (and any reasons the reverting editor may have provided) and still think the change was a good idea, please follow the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle, and start a discussion on the article talk page, saying what you had in and and why you think the change is good. You may ping the reverting editor to join the discussion, if you like, and other editors may also choose to join in -- or not. Please don't just repeat the edit without discussion. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:41, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Hachami, you inserted links to a magazine, medicalmagazine1.com, into Wikipedia articles. Medicalmagazine1.com is not a peer-reviewed scientific journal, meaning that it should never be used in Wikipedia's medical articles, which require citing a reliable source. You need to stop this behavior immediately, as linkspamming is forbidden on Wikipedia.--Quisqualis (talk) 23:45, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Hamuyi, while it is certainly better if a questioner makes clear just what edits s/he is asking about, when answering one may follow the link to that user's contributions. It is often not too hard to figure out what edits are involved. It takes a little more time, but is more helpful. Also, if you are going to answer questions at the Teahouse, please follow our custom here and welcome users new to the Teahouse. That is one of the ways in which we try to make this a more friendly place for new users. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:45, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that very useful advice, next time I will think about doing that. Always, Hamuyi (talk) 22:57, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't clar about which edit but I wanted to know the reason behind each edit to be publish or not, So thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hachami (talk • contribs) 23:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Your welcome

Always, Hamuyi (talk) 23:05, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism warning templates

Hi. How do I find the templates for letting people know when I reverted their unconstructive edits? Green Dragon Pride (talk) 00:11, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

@Green Dragon Pride: Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for fighting vandalism. See Wikipedia:Vandalism#How_to_respond_to_vandalism for how to respond to vandalism, including some templates you can use. RudolfRed (talk) 00:13, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Draft - Question

Hello, I have started a draft. I had to do something and saved it. I can't find it anymore can someone please help me. I don't want to lose that draft. Thank you, Hamuyi (talk) 00:24, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

@Hamuyi: Draft:What The Teahouse Is (On Wikipedia)? Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:27, 12 June 2020 (UTC) If you click "contributions" at the top right of your screen, you can see a list of all edits you have made and find things like this. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:27, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Assistance with Draft:Lhouette

Hi All,

I hope you are well. I have created a new page Draft:Lhouette and I wanted to ask if there is anything else I need to add to the page? I have done any edits previously that was advised but I wanted to ask the community if everything entered has been done correctly in your eyes.

Many thanks

Loisspencertracey (talk) 12:32, 11 June 2020 (UTC) Loisspencertracey (talk) 12:32, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

@Loisspencertracey: It appears that you received this feedback from the community after posting here. Most of us volunteers don't have very much energy to help out paid editors, so you may not receive more feedback than that (just being frank....). Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:42, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

How to cite my recources - meaning - question

Hello, I am starting a article on WP:TEAHOUSE and I don't underatand what "cite your resources" means so could someone help find meaning and do the meaning. Thank you, Hamuyi (talk) 00:29, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

@Hamuyi: It means that for everything you put into the article, you need to cite where that information comes from. See WP:REFB for how to do referencing. Also, WP:YFA covers this, I think. RudolfRed (talk) 00:31, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

thank you. Always, Hamuyi (talk) 00:34, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

@Hamuyi: FYI, the Teahouse is almost certainly not an appropriate topic for an article because it does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability policy. If you want to practice using Wikipedia code, that's fine to experiment, but I would not invest much time writing a good article, because it will not be accepted for the encyclopedia. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:53, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

What. I was looking forward to working hard on this but, my notability skills aren't good so I will request for my draft to be deleted.

Regrads,

Hamuyi (talk) 01:05, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Sunita Bhosale and Pardhi community

wanted to edit about Pardhi community

Hi Wikipedia,

I happened to search for social activist from Pardhi Community from Maharashtra named Sunita Bhosale who is very good friend of mine. recently one book in Marathi is published on her name. The books name is Vinchwache Tel. She is Director of the Kranti Sanstha in Maharashtra. This NGo specially works on Pardhi communitties establishment. Paradhi not in the sense of Phase Paradhi only but all the tribes coming under it. You have to update or let me be updating the important history of this community.

it is important for everyone that the person who is a well known figure in this community, is available on this platform for the world. below are some links which might give the idea about the person i am talking about.

Thanking you

https://www.thebetterindia.com/189584/maharashtra-child-bride-police-torture-horror-human-rights-pardhi-sunita-bhosale/ http://www.manuski.in/case-histories/sunita-bhosale/ https://www.bookganga.com/eBooks/Books/details/5023988617995417827?BookName=%e0%a4%b5%e0%a4%bf%e0%a4%82%e0%a4%9a%e0%a4%b5%e0%a4%be%e0%a4%9a%e0%a4%82%e0%a4%82%20%e0%a4%a4%e0%a5%87%e0%a4%b2 https://www.esakal.com/blog-175232 Pratibhas30 (talk) 01:38, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

@Pratibhas30: Welcome to the Teahouse! I suggest you read WP:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. GoingBatty (talk) 01:58, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Dear Tea House Recipients, How Do I Restore A Deleted Page?

Dear Tea House, This page: Tacha was unfairly deleted and I would love to reinstate it back because the information on that page are valid and very essential. Anonymousbeauty2018 (talk) 02:23, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

The article "Tacha" was deleted as a result of this discussion. Do you believe that the discussion was conducted improperly, or that the subject of the article has become more significant since the discussion took place? When you've decided, and can argue persuasively to make either point, you might bring it up at User talk:BD2412, as it was BD2412 who made the decision to delete it. -- Hoary (talk) 02:37, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Quick question

Hi, i've always wondered what the tea house logo is and how it got the name. I know this isn't related to how to use Wikipedia, but I was interested. Hope you have a great summer 71.193.145.97 (talk) 03:26, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, editor with IP ending in 145.97, and welcome to the Teahouse. The logo is a stylized Japanese Bonsai. The idea was to suggest a relatively calm and friendly even serene, place. See meta:Research:Teahouse for some early ideas. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:40, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much! 👍 71.193.145.97 (talk) 03:42, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

How to Improve on writing articles

👋 Hello,

I want to know how to improve on articles, also; how do you start a draft. Do we do it in the sandbox then it becomes a draft. I don't know. how do you submit it?

Thank you, Hamuyi (talk) 14:00, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

To improve on an existing article, select an article on a topic you know about, see if there is a section you observe as containing errors or omitting important facts, click on Edit for that section, make changes, write a brief Edit summary in the place provided at the bottom, and click on Publish changes. New information needs either new references or a repeat use of an existing reference. Other editors will be able to explain the Sandbox/Draft/New article process. David notMD (talk) 14:15, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

@Hamuyi: I've added a welcome message to your talk page, which has links that address your questions. I'd suggest that, before attempting to create an article, you gain some experience at editing, since creating an article from scratch is among the most difficult things to do here. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 14:26, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

The message that was on my talk page I deleted it. I didn't want it om my talk page. You could have just put that message on this. I really only want message on my talk page if we a gonna respond.

Hey its, Hamuyi (talk) 14:32, 11 June 2020 (UTC)!

@Hamuyi: Your talk page is meant for communication with you directly, as not all messages to individual users are appropriate for other pages. You are free to remove posts from it(with a small number of exceptions) but users who wish to inform you of something will generally do so there. 331dot (talk) 14:37, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

@Hamuyi: You previously removed from your talk page a welcome message with similar links in it – information that would answer your questions. If you want to bookmark them or put them somewhere else, like your user page, fine. Please read the information and keep the links to refer to in the future. Remember we (including those who answer you at the help desk) are all volunteers. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 05:08, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay, Always, Hamuyi (talk) 05:12, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

How to request pages for creation

How to request pages for creation Sarvajith Rajapasham (talk) 05:16, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Please go to Wikipedia:Articles for creation, and read carefully. -- Hoary (talk) 05:18, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Correcting past information and building Wiki Page!

Hello! I am an Oscar nominated songwriter. It was brought to my attention that I was not properly credited on at least two songs here on Wikipedia. I made an edit on the main body of text, but the side bar that mentions the writers name is missing my name, as is the bottom link to other songs written. How do I edit those sections.

I would like to connect with someone that could help me to update my main page, as well as the pages for songs that I was not credited for. It's effecting my work.

thx 143istheAnswer (talk) 05:14, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

As you wish to do justice for yourself, you have a conflict of interest. Please read Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. On the talk page for each song, request addition of the information, presenting independent, reliable, published sources for what you say. -- Hoary (talk) 05:21, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

The article is fixed, 143istheAnswer. The credit was in a good source already cited in the article, Hoary so no additional source was needed. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 05:36, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

About the title and content of the article.

I would like your help in the following:

1) Does the title "Relativistic and non-relativistic interpretation of experimental results" that I intend to use meet the conditions?

2) In the article I am writing I use references to 10 already published scientific articles, in order to aggregate information from these articles, and I simply quote these information without any additional comment or conclusion. Any comments or conclusions contained in the article will be exactly what are mentioned in the already published articles and will be written in italics.

Does everything I tell you here meet the requirements for writing an article?

Konstantinos Patrinos KPatrinos (talk) 01:00, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

This is about User:KPatrinos/sandbox/Absolute Reference System Hypothesis. Asked and answered at Wikipedia:Help desk. Please do not use volunteer editors' time to ask the same question in more than one place. David notMD (talk) 01:11, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

@KPatrinos: For future reference, please see WP:QUOTE regarding how and when quotes should be used. Please also see WP:ITALICS regarding use of italics; if I understand you correctly, your text that forms the body of the article should not be italicized. The rest of that page (WP:MOSTEXT) describes other text formatting concerns as well. At the top right, there is a directory of the Wikipedia Manual of Style, as well as a search box that searches within it. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 07:12, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi i need help with a draft

Aloder27 (talk) 08:20, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Is this about Draft:JackSuckAtLife (Jack Massey Welsh), a joke draft which has no chance of being accepted as an article? Maproom (talk) 08:28, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

I think there is a problem with this article

Hallo, Dean Phoenix is supposedly a porn actor but his name is linked to the GayVn award page. is it a mistake? does it need to be deleted? thank you --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 08:39, 12 June 2020 (UTC) AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 08:39, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

@AlejandroLeloirRey: no, there is no mistake. The article was redirected to the section of GayVN Awards that mentions the actor's name, because although he was not sufficiently notable for there to be an article about him, anyone who typed his name into the search box would find the award listing. --bonadea contributions talk 08:58, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Contributing to the talk page of an article about myself

Hello,

I've recently begun to suggest possible changes on the talk page of a wikipedia article about myself. I'm aware that there are guidelines about editing pages,I have declared the conflict of interest on my user page. My aim is to work with and seek advice from impartial editors to make positive contributions to this article, hopefully leading to its improvement.

An academic book has been written about my work. I contributed a chapter to this book and am credited as an editor. I would like to add something about it on the article about me. I think the book would help many people researching interfaith dialogue and art history because there aren't many other books like this on the market.

I'm still very new to wikipeida. I hoped that someone could please advise me as to whether this would be a reasonable suggestion to make on the talk page, and if the following references would be suitable? It's the page on the publishers website, and two reviews in journals. Any help or advice is greatly appreciated!

NicolaGreen72 (talk) 15:16, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

^[1]

^[2]

^[3]

References

^ "Encounters: The Art of Interfaith Dialogue". Brepols publishers. Retrieved 11 June 2020.
^ Allen Mosher, Lucinda (20 March 2019). "Book Review:The Art of Interfaith Dialogue". The Journal of Interreligious Studies. 26 (26): 87–90. Retrieved 11 June 2020.
^ Illman, Ruth (2019). "Encounters: The Art of Interfaith Dialogue". Journal of Contemporary Religion. 34 (3): 583–584. Retrieved 11 June 2020.

NicolaGreen72, it would be reasonable to make your suggestion on Talk:Nicola Green. Whether other editors on that page will find your suggestion reasonable, I have no idea, but that is where discussion of your suggestion would take place.--Quisqualis (talk) 18:25, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for your help NicolaGreen72 (talk) 09:09, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Stan Frederick

Difficulty creating an individual page

Quicksilver1959 Quicksilver1959 (talk) 09:54, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

You've had difficulty? Sorry to hear of it. What kind of difficulty? Which page? -- Hoary (talk) 10:04, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy - There is no article Stan Frederick and Quicksilver's Contributions show no Sandbox or Draft on that topic. David notMD (talk) 10:07, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Publishing new article

Hello! I'd like to create the page "TCO Certified" and I have written a proposal for the content in my sandbox. There is a conflict of interest. Am I allowed to? Ellasoderberg (talk) 11:07, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

hi @Ellasoderberg:, I am great fan of circular economy. If you create a page on your own profile with some sources and citiation (newspaper articles, et cetera,...) I can take a look at it over the weekend and maybe complete your article as long as it meets notability guidelines.Fthobe (talk) 11:18, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll work on it some more then to make sure to add good sources. Ellasoderberg (talk) 11:19, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Follow-up to how to create a page on wikipedia for my website?

my website page on wikipedia i want to create a page for my website on wikipedia, the information that i want to share will be used with my facebook page (related to the sameproject), my question is how to do that? and its possible in wikipedia or not?.

thank you Issa.3esa2 (talk) 12:53, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps you failed to read the answer to your previous question. Wikipedia is not for promotion. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:07, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Fixing typos on talk pages

Is it okay to fix the typos on talk pages or forums like The Teahouse itself? Make sure to ping me in your reply so that i can know. Regards Pesticide1110 (talk) 13:37, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

@Pesticide1110: You generally shouldn't mess with others' typos, though you can, of course, go back and emend your own, as long as you don't change the meaning of your post after it has been replied to. See WP:TPO. Deor (talk) 13:42, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Fine. You can now close the discussion. Or if you want, i can too. Thanks, Pesticide1110 (talk) 13:47, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Deleted Page - Manoj Pillai

Hello, one of my pages titled Manoj Pillai (a page about a living filmmaker) was deleted yesterday citing A7: No credible indication of importance; G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manoj Pillai).

However, after the initial deletion, i had recreated the page with multiple news articles and other references to support the biography and achievements of the concerned persion mentioned in the article. But i was told the page reads "PROMOTIONAL" in nature. As of now, it stands deleted.

Kindly guide me on how i can rewrite / recreate this article so it can stay on wikipedia. Any help will be appreciated.

Thank you.Krithikamanohar (talk) 05:53, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

@Krithikamanohar: welcome to the Teahouse. The article Manoj Pillai was deleted two days ago after a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manoj Pillai (which you also participated in). When an article is deleted following a deletion discussion it is never appropriate to simply create it again; what you should have done instead was contact the administrator who closed the deletion discussion. I see that you have contacted the administrator who deleted the article after you had re-created it, and it is probably best if you wait for their response, rather than open new discussions in several places.

Since all your edits have been about Manoj Pillai, it appears that you may have a conflict of interest regarding him. Please read the information linked here and here. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 06:10, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

@Bonadea: Thank you for your reply. In your openion, what should my next course of action be? The page "Manoj Pillai" is not a Paid-contribution. I did speak to the administrators and they adviced me to get in touch with you at teahouse to figure the way forward. Kindly let me know. Thank you. Krithikamanohar (talk) 06:24, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Krithikamanohar, wait for the deleting administrator's Cryptic response. ~ Amkgp 💬 07:02, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

@Krithikamanohar: yes, as Amkgp also advises, wait for the administrator to respond. The Teahouse is great for asking questions about editing, but sometimes the best answer we can provide here is that you need to contact another editor, in this case the deleting admin. The article title has been protected so it can't be recreated, and you should not create it using a different title. Please be aware that most people in the world (including most filmmakers) are not notable according to Wikipedia's definition of notability, and no amount of editing can fix that. There were three different editors in the deletion discussion who argued that Manoj Pillai does not appear to be notable (plus two users who have since been blocked as sockpuppet accounts; their arguments can be ignored but the consensus was still that there was a lack of notability.) Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 07:52, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Krithikamanohar, I see that Cryptic has declined to restore the article and has pointed you to Deletion review (DRV). Cryptic also points out that the sources added in the recent recreation were not helpful to establish the notability of this person. Give that, a DRV discussion will probably endorse the deletion. If there are better quality sources available. Not press releases, not blogs, not passing mentions or directory entries, but several independent articles published in reliable sources that discuss Manoj Pillai in some detail then you might use them to create a draft (Draft:Manoj Pillai) emphasizing those sources and leaving out press releases and similar weak sources, or most of them. Once you have that draft (and i would advise asking an experienced editor tom check it over), then (and only then) post at WP:DRV and ask for the lock on creating the article ("salting") be removed, pointing to the draft. If the sources to create such a quality draft are not available, then you really ought to drop this, as it can't go anywhere desirable. That is my personal advice. Bonadea would you agree? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 14:49, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

add in your own words went a little off the deep end

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geraldine_(1953_film)

HI I ran across this film and noticed that the plot that is written is not a normal Wikipedia plot, It is funny and amusing but has no normal movie format. I didn't want to change it as it might be a test but I just wanted to let someone who knows what they are doing take a look and fix — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.60.181.160 (talk) 13:04, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

I have removed the plot summary, however I would appreciate if someone could add a proper summary otherwise I suspect that the IP in question will just add it back again. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 13:11, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

The IP who had created that "plot summary" has not edited anything since doing that in January. No hurry. David notMD (talk) 13:34, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

This might help. Best Pesticide1110 (talk) 13:35, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

IMDb not considered a Reliable Source. David notMD (talk) 14:53, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

professional wrestlers

Why did you removed the moves of professional wrestlers from their bio i feel that it is important when learning about a wrestler is the moves that he uses. It like when you list the powers of a superhero. You learn much about the person when you list their moves. Brad Essex (talk) 06:42, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Brad Essex, please tell us which article(s) have the moves removed.--Quisqualis (talk) 07:42, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Basically all of them. They have championship but no moves. Like i said pro wrestlers are like superheros and should have their moves like asuperheros power listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bessex (talk • contribs) 08:35, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I have asked WikiProject Professional Wrestling to assist with this question as it relates to the project's style guide. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:04, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

You can read the whole discussion here --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:16, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Summarized version. In wrestling sections were hard to keep. Several people included moves just because wrestlers used once or twice. The section was signature moves, but we haven't sources to call a move "signature". It's not like superhero attacks, or Son Goku attacks, where you have every move sourced. People just included moves basd on TV reports, which violates WP:SYNTH. Instead, we have created the pro wrestling style and persona, where we include character and moves. See Gran Metalik or Jon Moxley. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:25, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Basically, the project members said, "Sometimes people don't take off their shoes when they come inside. The only logical solution is to burn down the house". Then they dug in their heels when people opposed the decision, so they refuse to discuss it anymore because pwning the Redditors is more important than including content in an encyclopedia. For the record, much of the information deleted was properly sourced. A few articles have had some of the information restored in clunky prose that's difficult to understand, but this still leaves all articles without a useful discussion of wrestlers' moves, and it leaves thousands of articles without any discussion of the moves at all. It's basically the equivalent of removing any references to Rickey Henderson's speed because someone said in a different article that Ron Kittle was a home run threat. If there's an opinion statement in Kittle's article, all baseball fans need to suffer, right? GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:56, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

posting a picture

I am having a hard time posting pictures, I keep getting denied. can someone send me simple instructions on how to post Chrishosek406 (talk) 17:01, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Chrishosek406. It is not possible to give you simple instructions on posting a picture because this is a very complex matter. The only simple thing to say is "do not violate copyright laws". Here are important factors: Did you take the photo? If not, who did? When and where was the photo first published? Where did you find the photo? What is the subject of the photo? Has the photo been uploaded to Wikimedia Commons? On another matter, I see that you are editing Texas Alliance of Energy Producers. If you are an employee or subcontractor of that group, then you must complete the mandatory Paid editing declaration. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:17, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Help on notability guidelines

Hello, I've been working to improve the content and breadth of references on the page for Ida Schuster. Is this considered sufficient to remove the notability tag, or is more work needed? I've read the guidance, but being so new to this I'd appreciate an experienced eye. Thanks! Isaksenk (talk) 15:47, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Done. David notMD (talk) 17:21, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Help for an old guy

Have logged in and attempted to edit the Pour le Merite page for the following /* German air force */ add Eric Lowenhardt 3rd highest ranking ace, 54 victories, died in combat August 10, 1918. Obviouysly don't know what I am doing as it does not post. Eric's nephew is my good friend and is still building an aircraft at age 84. Their are several articles on line about Eric and his pictures match photos that are in my frien's possesion. If a kind and computer competent sould could verify and then make the addition, it would be greatly appreciated. I have tried the various help articles attached to no avail. Sincerely, Fairchild37 (for the airplane I fly) Fairchild37 (talk) 17:12, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Fairchild37. Wikipedia already has a biography of Erich Loewenhardt. Note the minor spelling differences. And he is already included in List of the Pour le Mérite (military class) recipients. So, I am unsure what you are hoping to accomplish other than that. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:24, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Change introductory text

Change introductory text The introductory text for the page on List of biochemists reads "Articles about notable biochemists include:". This is too vague, and explains to some extent why the page was in such a dreadful condition when I first looked at it: no mention of many of the major biochemists of the past half-century and earlier, such as Daniel Koshland and Otto Warburg, of whom I counted at last 60, but plenty of people with no serious claim to be called biochemists, such as the father of an actress and at least two purveyors of quack medicine. I'd like to change the introductory text to be similar to what is at the top of the List of chemists: "This is a list of chemists. It should include those who have been important to the development or practice of chemistry. Their research or application has made significant contributions in the area of basic or applied chemistry." However, there doesn't seem to be a button to edit the introductory text (probably there is, but I haven't found it). Athel cb (talk) 17:48, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Changing the Lede paragraph calls for clicking Edit in the top menu, which actually opens the entire article for editing. David notMD (talk) 17:58, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Athel cb, welcome to the Teahouse! Use Edit/Edit source at the top of the page, OR see Preferences > Gadgets > Appearance > Add an [edit] link for the lead section of a page. Being WP:BOLD is fine, but be prepared to talk if someone disagrees with you. Happy editing! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:05, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

How do I change my username?.

I chose my real name (Athel Cornish-Bowden) before realizing that most people don't. I'd like to use "athel" instead (still pretty obvious, of course) Athel Cornish-Bowden (talk) 16:27, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

hello Athel Cornish-Bowden and welcome to the Teahouse you can find details at this page Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple, hope that helps. Theroadislong (talk) 16:33, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

I think it did! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:12, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

album cover images policy question

Hi, I can't find anything specific detailing the use of album cover images on wiki (if it is somewhere that you can direct me to, thanks!). Wiki rules say not to use copyrighted images without permission. There are many thousands of copyrighted album cover images on Wiki - was permission explicitly obtained for each one separately? Or is their usage as a whole, as a class of images, allowed? When creating a page for a new album, are we allowed to simply upload an image of its cover? And does the sourcing of the image matter? Because these images are found in many places... Amazon, Genius, AllMusic, Target, the artists' sites, etc. Thank you! Pleasant27cat (talk) 22:53, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

@Pleasant27cat: This might help (or not) WP:TAGS/FU The other questions Experts will answer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamuyi (talk • contribs) 23:04, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

@Pleasant27cat: You can use album cover images on articles about that album - see Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images. GoingBatty (talk) 23:18, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

The vast majority of these images are used without permission, but instead citing "fair use". See Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images, which tells us that the US legal concept of "fair use" covers "Cover art: Cover art from various items, for visual identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)." In practice, this is stretched considerably in Wikipedia; as an example, see Les Dudek (album), for whose use of an image this is claimed: "The image is used for identification in the context of critical commentary of the work for which it serves as cover art." Whether or not this article uses the cover design for identification, it has zero critical commentary that I notice. I'd urge you not to follow this lazy practice, which risks getting Wikipedia into trouble. Instead, wait until an article has one or more substantial paragraphs of critical commentary before appealing to "fair use" for the addition of an image. -- Hoary (talk) 23:18, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Actually, Hoary the bit about critical commentary is one of the places where current written Wikipedia copyright policy is intentionally stricter than US copyright law requires, and I would favor changing it to conform to the very common practice of allowing a (reduced resolution) image of a work under a fair use claim on the primary article about that work, including allowing an album cover art image on any and every album image, commentary or not, provided that other NFCC conditions are fulfilled. The ISFDB links to or hosts cover art for any and every book it lists, normally under a fair use claim, purely fo9r identification, and has not faced any copyright claims yet. Pleasant27cat I do not ever recall seeing an otherwise compliant album cover removed for lack o0f critical comment, and I would object to any attempt, to do so. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:36, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I sit corrected! (Though I'd still urge anyone thinking of creating an article about an album to create an actual article about that album, rather than just a lazy stub listing tracks and personnel. I plead guilty to having created stubs in the past, but I have ever less patience for them.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:44, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

That I would agree with, Hoary. If there isn't more to say about an album than a title and track list, we don't need an article about it, it can be mentioned in the artist's article if there is one. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 04:54, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

I disagree somewhat with you, DESiegel and will also ping Hoary. The mentioned Les Dudek album article is entirely unreferenced so how do we know that this album is notable? If this album is not notable, then we should not be hosting this stub nor should we host a non-free image of its cover. The main way that albums, books, movies, stage plays, TV shows and similar creative works become notable is because journalists write reviews of them which are published in reliable sources, and those reviews constitute critical commentary which should be referenced in the article. Winning a major award or major charting for albums and other recordings are also types of evidence of notability but that inevitably generates published critical commentary, the best of which should be cited in the article. So, I cannot imagine a case where an album cover should be included without some form of critical commentary. I think that is the minimum baseline for an acceptable article about a creative work. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:47, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Cullen328 I agree t6hat we should not have articles on no-notable albums (or any non-notable topics), and that reviews, which constitute critical commentary about the album, are a very common way to demonstrate notability. (Not the only way: awards and widely reported tours can also lead to notability in the absence of reliably published critical reviews.) But most reviews of an album do not contain critical commentary about the cover art which is what the standard quoted above in theory calls for. Most of our album articles do not discuss the cover art at all, although they do include critical comments on the music. That is (IMO properly) the standard if NF content is to be included on an additional page. But if an album is notable, I think a single image of the cover art, with suitably reduced resolution, for identification of the album, should be acceptable on the article about that album, even if the cover art itself is not discussed in the article. If the topic is not notable, we should not have an article at all, so the question of an image becomes moot. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 14:27, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

DESiegel, please take another look at the guideline about cover art and especially the associated footnote. My interpretation is that critical commentary of the work (album, book, movie) is all that is required in an article about that work in order to include cover art. Critical commentary about the cover art is required only when it is used in another article, such as a biography of the photographer. See Ethan Russell who was a photographer for Beatles, Rolling Stones and Who albums for an example. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:32, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the followup, Cullen328 The relevant sentence from [[Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images]] reads: Cover art from various items, for visual identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary). had interpretyed that to mean commentary about the art, and I think that is the most natural way to read the sentence. However, I now see a footnote which says in part NFCI#1 relates to the use of cover art within articles whose main subject is the work associated with the cover. Within such articles, the cover art implicitly satisfies the "contextual significance" NFCC criterion (NFCC#8) by virtue of the marketing, branding, and identification information that the cover conveys. which seems more reasonable to me. So I may have been in violent agreement with te3h gui8deline all along. It is still the case the US copyright law and US case law do not require "critical commentary" (about the image or the overall work) as a condition of fair use, although it may go toward the "nature of use" prong of the 4 fair-use factors. This is a Wikipedia policy, and stretching it does not put the foundation or the site at legal risk. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:01, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@DESiegel and Cullen328: I think you’re both right. Cullen328 is right about WP:NFC#cite_note-3, but DES is also right about infobox images for stand-alone articles about albums. All WP:NFCCP need to be met for each non-free use, but a little broader interpretation seems to be applied to WP:NFCC#8 when it comes to non-free images being used for primary identification purposes at the top of or in the main infoboxes of stand-alone articles about the subject the image identifies.

For example, even though it would be ideal for there to be critical commentary about the cover art of an album in a stand-alone article about said album, in many cases there isn’t. My understanding is that over the years the general consensus has been that this is OK per policy since extra weight is being given to the primary identification value of using the image. It also might be because any discussion of an album’s cover is likely best suited for an article about the album as opposed to another related article. This standard seems to be applied to not only non-free cover art, but also non-free logos, non-free images of persons, etc. where a little extra weight is given to primary identification as being sufficient to just meet the contextual significance required to satisfy NFCC#8. WP:NFC#CS is something still required for main infobox images, but just interpreted in a slightly different way. — Marchjuly (talk) 19:13, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Question

I have recently requested a name of a article I wrote last year to be changed. I tagged the request move tag on the talk page and gave My reason why I think the article name should be changed, but I am afraid that no one might answer and give their consensus because the article is not edited and visited by many people. What do I do? BigRed606 (talk) 18:57, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Your request has automatically been listed at WP:Requested moves#June 12, 2020. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:06, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes but I am afraid no one will take a look at it since it’s not a well visited article. BigRed606 (talk) 19:08, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, BigRed606: the purpose of listing it at Requested moves is to bring it to people's notice. It will remain open for seven days, and if there were no other contributions, somebody would come along and either close it or relist it; and if there had been no opposing !votes, they would either decide to relist it, or treat it as agreed, and make the move (see WP:RMCI#Determining consensus). However, I have just weighed in with a Weak oppose for the reasons I explain there. If there are no other contributions, I suspect that a closer will still accept the move, though I don't know. --ColinFine (talk) 19:31, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

ColinFine I just did some research and if you read the sources I provided down near the bottom, it appears that the Next Generation Combat Vehicle program was changed to Optionally-Manned Fighting Vehicle, and now I think the name should be change Optionally-Manned Fighting Vehicle. Sources:https://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/R45519.pdf https://breakingdefense.com/tag/next-generation-combat-vehicle/. What do I do? BigRed606 (talk) 20:04, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Note that I currently have request to change the name to Next Generation Combat Vehicle. Do I cancel the request and put in a new request to move or do I edit the request to say “Change name to Operationally Combat Fighting Vehicle. BigRed606 (talk) 20:13, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

You can post your discovery and revised opinion in the move discussion, BigRed606. There is no need to cancel and restart. But remember that Wikipedia follows WP:COMMONNAME not official names. If the vehicle is still commonly known as a "next generation combat vehicle" then the article title should not change because of an "official" name change. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:36, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

translation of a page

I have translated an article from english to french. Can I create a new page and insert a link to the original page ? Thanks for your help Mluynes (talk) 20:47, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Salon de Thé, Mluynes. Your question is a little unclear to me. In an article on English Wikipedia, you can certainly link to an article on another language wiki that doesn't yet exist on en-wiki. You do this with the {{illm}} template (interlanguage link). Thus linking here to mention, say, the Tonkin Army or Corps du Tonkin on French Wikipedia, you would use Tonkin Army [fr]. Equally, Corps du Tonkin [fr] would do the same job, depending on how English Wikipedia would wish to call it. The article down't exist here yet, so is redlinked; the French article does, so it's a blue subscript link. If you edit this to reply, you will see the source code I've used. I advise against trying to use this in Visual Editor. Does that help? Nick Moyes (talk) 21:02, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

You'll find advice at WP:Translate us. The French version would need to be saved in the French Wikipedia, and would need to satisfy the requirements of that Wikipedia. You will probably need to include attribution to show the English article from which you have done the translation. If the translation to which you refer is in your sandbox, the first obvious problem is that you have not included any references, and you also have no wikilinks to other articles, but of course the latter can more easily be included once you have move your draft from enwiki to frwiki. --David Biddulph (talk) 21:07, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Castle nectar

How do I create a good article Deanhansen2 (talk) 16:55, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Deanhansen2, welcome to the Teahouse, please have a close look at /Help:Your_first_article, almost anything you need to write a good article is explained to over there. CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:40, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

And, specifically, Deanhansen2, please carefully read the pages at the blue links in the grey square in the pink box at the top of your draft. Especially note the material about using references to reliable sources. All articles are required to include the sources used to write them.--Quisqualis (talk) 21:36, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

How do I add a new section on a page?

how do I add a new section in a article? Like if I want to add something for a biography or something like that. For example adding "personal life" to someone's page.

Sport.07GamerDet (talk) 20:44, 12 June 2020 (UTC) Sport.07GamerDet (talk) 20:44, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

@Sport.07GamerDet: In WP:Source Editor, you simply start a new line with two equal sign (==) then add the heading text, then end with two more == signs (or click 'Advanced' in the tool bar then select 'Heading')

In Visual Editor, the toolbar has a drop down selector, displaying 'Paragraph' by default. Just position cursor at the right place, select 'Heading', then start typing the heading title. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:53, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

This will give me what these questions show up as on the TeaHouse page? Sport.07GamerDet (talk) 20:57, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

If I understand your question correctly, yes. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:06, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

All right thanks a lot!!! You've been a big help. Thanks for all that you do for Wikipedia. Sport.07GamerDet (talk) 22:43, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Wiki-linking website in a citation

Is it okay to link the website to its corresponding wikipedia article in the citation template? Make sure to ping me in your reply so that i can know. Regards Pesticide1110 (talk) 13:32, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Pesticide1110. If you are using {{cite web}} or {{cite news}} (or any o0f several similar templates) to cite a website as a source there is a |url= parameter to link directly to the page cited. If there is a Wikipedia article about the web site (or perhaps about the publication it is a part of) the |website= or |work= parameters can contain a wiki-link to that article. If that is not what you meant, then I failed to understand your question. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 14:33, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

I just wanted to know if wikilinking publishers in the citation template is discouraged or not. Pesticide1110 (talk) 15:53, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

@Pesticide1110: Template:Cite web#Publisher states that the publisher "may be wikilinked if relevant". I would add a wikilink if I thought there would be a benefit for the reader to click on the link to understand more about the publishing company. GoingBatty (talk) 23:16, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Help with submission

I have submitted my draft for Draft:Snoqualmie Valley Record, I have added lots of new references and cleaned up to meet MOS standards and I continue to get rejected. I am reaching out for some more guidance as I took on this page as a project for WikiProjects: Newspapers. If anyone could point out specifics and help me with seeing what I should look for, add or take off that would be amazing. Have a great day. NoahRiffe (talk) 17:44, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Adding some more info: This paper is in the LOC and Chronicling America, I have cited these and more local sources. I just don't know how many more sources I can find about a small town newspaper. NoahRiffe (talk) 17:54, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello NoahRiffe. Sadly, there exist subjects which do not have "significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject." The Record appears to be one of those subjects. Wikipedia has had to make some hard choices in its evolution, one of which was that content must come from independent, published reliable sources. This causes some subjects to be left out of the encyclopedia, along with unreliable, unencyclopedic content arising from the crowdsourced nature of Wikipedia. Your best bet might be an article about newspapers in that part of Washington.--Quisqualis (talk) 21:27, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

NoahRiffe, I added a few sources and removed some of the less useful sources. Notability, if it is there, is very thin. I've asked an AFC reviewer to look at it. If they turn it down, I'm afraid it's probably time to stop as I gave it a very deep search for sourcing.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:33, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

CSD/PROD

Hello everyone, how can I participate in CSD/PROD tagging, AfD and AfC discussion. Ugbedeg (talk) 18:49, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Ugbedeg, and welcome. First off, don't rush to delete stuff you happen not to like. It's important that you read and fully understand the different purposes of these three deletion processes for removing content that is not notable enough to remain here. So, as well as understanding our General Notability Guidelines you would need to read through these:

I suggest you start by looking at AFD discussions and watching how they turn out, and eventually participating in those discussions before you ever nominate something for deletion. (There's a list of current deletion discussins, divided by major categories at the top of WP:AFD) Either give your reasons (based only on our policies) why something should remain here, or why something should be deleted. Never rush to delete stuff - but do rush to defend it, research it for sources, and than agree to delete if its retention really cannot be justified. Read WP:BEFORE which explains what you need to do PRIOR to putting any article forward for a deletion discussion. You might also like to look at the essay Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions.

Having understood CSD and PROD rationales (especially noting the extremely strict interpretation needed for CSD A7), you can enable Twinkle in your Preferences and use that to nominate pages for deletion. Let me know if this seems to make sense, or not. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:18, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks @Nick Moyes:, I have carefully studied CSD and PROD and have a good understanding of it but the confusion is how to have access to articles that may require CSD and PROD. Please if you have the link to where I can participate in this discussions kindly provide it. Thanks. Ugbede (talk)

@Ugbedeg: There is no participatory discussion over whether to proceed with deletion via CSD or PROD. If you've read those pages you should appreciate that. Nor, almost by definition, would there be any list of articles that deserve CSD or PROD notices to be placed upon them. It's simply a case that editors stumble across them and perhaps use WP:TWINKLE to place a deletion template on them, and to notify the page creator.

What we do have are pages listing articles that have had CSD or PROD templates added to them. You can find them at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion and Category:Proposed deletion. Anyone with an understanding of the PROD procedure is welcome to go through and remove any PROD notice that they feel is unjustified and, ideally, work to improve the article to prevent it being put up for an AFD discussion instead. I would be a lot more careful looking at the CSD category - these are mostly checked and used by administrators, though if you see an undeniably wrongly CSD-ed page, you can remove the template after checking the nomination, the sources and explaining your reasoning in a clear edit summary, or you should follow the link in the template and leave your reasoning for an admin to look at. Does this answer your question? Nick Moyes (talk) 21:57, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hello Ugbedeg. Unlike AfDs, PRODs and CSD tags do not lead to discussions, as a rule. They lead to deletion, or are declined and there is no net effect at all.

There is not, unfortunately, any list of articles that might need to be tagged with a PROD or CSD. Many people use Special:NewPages to find recently created articles or pages that may need action of some sort, including deletion. See Wikipedia:New pages patrol for the organized group that does this, and who have access to some extra tools. But any user can look through the list of recent pages and tag ones that seem to have problems, or work on them. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:00, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you @Nick Moyes: and @DESiegel: for these comprehensive explanations. I do understand that most CSD and PROD tagging are done by new pages patrollers because they have access to new pages feed. But I was surprised when my request to be granted New Pages Reviewer right was declined because I had not tagged any articles with CSD or PROD and was told to get involved in AFD or AFC discussions before I could be granted the new pages reviewer right. I understand that this is not part of the requirements for new pages reviewer right but I can't understand why this was used as a criteria for declining my request. I have a good knowledge of WP:GNG and I can help in new pages review to reduce the backlog of articles waiting for review. @Nick Moyes: and @DESiegel: kindly check my request at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/New page reviewer to review our discussion. I will appreciate if you can help grant me the right at least for a few weeks of trial. Once again thank you. Ugbedeg (ugbedeg|talk

You need to read the criteria closer, Ugbedeg. You have to demonstrate a working knowledge of notability. That would mean you completely understand PROD, CSD and AFD and have demonstrated that by correctly nominating multiple articles with each deletion process, and by voting correctly on multiple AfDs you didn't nominate...all the while not making many incorrect nominations and demonstrating a knowledge of all the numerous notability guidelines by giving solid policy based rationales in all your nominations and !votes. You should enable the logging features of Twinkle, as records of your work make it easier for you to demonstrate your competence. And logged or not, the ONLY way to demonstrate the requisite knowledge is to participate in deletion process. Being an AfC reviewer can also, but that requires permissions too. They are slightly easier to get than NPP permissions, but in turn will be quickly revoked if you demonstrate a lack of competence. Hope this helps. John from Idegon (talk) 23:18, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

I must agree with John's reply above, Ugbedeg. The onus is on you to demonstrate your competence by having a good quality CSD and PROD log, which you can enable via Twinkle, as John says. You can currently demonstrate no experience at AFD, and I feel User:Rosguill was quite right to turn down your request at this time. To your credit, you've contributed a huge amount since you joined us in January, but having NPP reviewer rights is a great responsibility and needs to be given to those with a demonstrable track record at AFD and via CSD/PROD logs, amongst other things. Sadly, right now, you don't have that evidence to offer, although I am pretty sure you will soon do so as you seem rather desperate to get that editor right. For my part, I can't understand why you don't seem able to accept the reasoning behind being turned down at this time. As a reminder, this is part of what the WP:NPP page says: "At its core, new page reviewing is about deciding whether a new article will be marked as approved and accepting it onto Wikipedia, or initiating one of several deletion procedures. Uncontroversial deletions can be proposed using PROD, while most other deletion proposals are resolved in a discussion at Articles for deletion. In a very narrow set of cases, an expedited WP:CSD or WP:BLPPROD can be placed to delete material which is unambiguously not an improvement to Wikipedia. " Simply gather the evidence to demonstrate your experience of notability and deletion policies, and you'll be sorted, even if it takes a few months. All the best, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:43, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Wasting my time updating Wikipedia!

Hello, I've just updated the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lungern about the village in Switzerland where I live. With English as my mother tongue I felt I could improve this page on a village in A German speaking part of the world which has inconsistencies in the stated population, referred to a cable car and ski area that has been bankrupt and closed for 10 years or more as a highlight for tourists and failed to acknowledge the economic impact of the industry in Lungern and its effect on the local economy whilst incorrectly focussing on agriculture. These changes were wound back by CLCStudent who has probably never visited Lungern and most definitely is not an authority on the village, its people, its economy and its attractions. 217.162.162.160 (talk) 22:50, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

It would have been helpful if the person who reverted you had explained why. They had good reason: your additional paragraph, valuable though it might potentially be, didn't cite any independent sources. You can't report on company achievements merely on the say-so of the company. This doesn't discriminate against the industries of Lungern; it's a policy that applies across English-language Wikipedia. I have tentatively reinstated what you added. Please add independent sources for the new material. Other editors here (or I) will help you with this. Happy editing! -- Hoary (talk) 23:22, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The info was reverted because it was unsourced. However, another editor restored some of your contributions. Thanks for trying to improve the encyclopedia. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:25, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

You, CLCStudent and other editors are welcome to discuss improvements to the article in Talk:Lungern. -- Hoary (talk) 23:38, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, editor with IP ending in 162.160. see that your edits to Lungern were reverted by CLCStudent. Unfortunately, CLCStudent did not give a reason in the Edit summary. Doing so is not required, but is good practice. There were some problems with your edits.

You provided a new population figure, but did not cite any source. True, the previous figure was also unsourced, but there is always some suspicion of new unsourced statistics.
You included several external links (links to sites outside of Wikipedia) in the body of the article. As per our guideline on external links that is not done. External links are used in reference citations, in the "External links" section, and in a limited way in info boxes, and not elsewhere. You may have intended these as reference sources, but did not format them using <ref>...</ref> tags, or in any other way normally used for references.
You included a link to https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasser_Felstechnik formatted as a wiki link. This would not work -- a wiki-link cannot be to a URL, and links to other language versions of Wikipedia are not done via ordinary wiki-links anyway. Nor are other Wikipedia articles considered to be reliable sources.

I suspect that seeing these issues CLCStudent simply reverted, which was in my view not the best way to handle this, but perfectly within acceptable standards.

Do understand that all of your edits are preserved in the history, and can be reinstated if there is consensus to do so, and particularly if sources for them are presented.

You wrote above ... who has probably never visited Lungern and most definitely is not an authority on the village. Please understand that most articles on Wikipedia are written by people who are not "authorities" on the topic -- instead they summarize and combine what the reliable sources say. And that Wikipedia cannot accept facts (even if they are accurate) based on what you personally know, because no other reader can verify them, and we have no way to know that you really do live in Lungern and are an authority on it. I presume that you are, but I can't confirm that. That is why you and others like you must cite published sources even for things that you know personally.

Finally, when an edit of yours is reverted and you disagree, the best way is to follow the bold, Revert, Discuss cycle. After the revert, open a discussion on the article talk page. Invite the reverting editor with a ping. Other editors may join the discussion and with luck, a consensus will form.

I hope you don't think you time was so wasted now., DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:47, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Stuff I posted keeps getting deleted by other users.

I edited MADDEN mobile and fifa mobile and real racing three and some other user deleted the stuff saying that it was irrelevant or something like that. What did I do wrong? ThanksSport.07GamerDet (talk) 17:18, 12 June 2020 (UTC) Sport.07GamerDet (talk) 17:18, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Sport.07GamerDet and welcome to the Teahouse - well, I do not see in your logs any edits on these kinds of articles with this account...perhaps you can name the exact article to which you are reffering?! CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:44, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

CommanderWaterford, Oops sorry, I forgot to mention that I did them with the account Sport.07gamer, which was my old account. I forgot the password for that account so I created this one. If you could help me i would be grateful. And by the way the articles that I mentioned before are the ones that I edited. Thanks Sport.07GamerDet (talk) 18:00, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

@Sport.07GamerDet: Because this is a collaborative project, your individual edits could be removed or changed for a range of reasons. To find out why, you should always look at the 'View History' tab of an article which lets you see subsequent edits and check the 'edit summary' each person should leave which explains why something was added or removed. In this case it looks like your edits to Madden NFL Mobile were removed as part of a much larger cleanup, taking out 'cruft' (aka trivial waffle), as well as deleting content that spoke with a non-encyclopaedic, instructional voice (using 'you', especially). Your own, unreferenced edits were simply part of that larger cleanup. If you check the View History at FIFA Mobile for yourself, you will find your additions were removed because you failed to support them with any references. We really don't want stuff added that you "happen to know" - we want stuff that others can verify for themselves. For that you must use Citations to WP:Reliable Sources. Does that make sense? (oh, and next time you ask questions here, please do try to give the proper links to the articles so that we don't have to go searching for them. And now that you've got a new account, please don't try to use the old one again, even if you happen to remember the password. We only allow one account per user, except in special circumstances) Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 18:19, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

All right thanks, by the way those edits were made before I forgot the password to that account.thanksSport.07GamerDet (talk) 18:48, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah - I realise that. I wasn't tying to suggest you'd done anything wrong; just avoiding a potential future problem with some simple advice. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:25, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

@Sport.07GamerDet: As you edit, you'll experience the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. You boldly made some edits in good faith, and another editor reverted them. The last part of the cycle is for you to start a discussion on the article talk page (e.g. Talk:Madden NFL Mobile, Talk:FIFA Mobile) and work with other knowledgeable editors to come to a consensus as to the best way to improve the article. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 23:24, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the idea i hadn't thought of that Sport.07GamerDet (talk) 00:04, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

how do i create a new page for a business owner?

hi everyone, im new to this end of wikipedia and have no experience in code. How do i create a page for a business owner? please can you help. Chaz86 (talk) 02:40, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

A good reference on helping with your article creation can be found at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Your_first_article. Having said that there is a rule here that the subject of the article MUST be notable. That is to say there must be good coverage of the subject in reliable, third-party sources. Unfortunately, not every individual or business has the notability to be included in Wikipedia. I hope this is of help to you. Regards, Aloha27 talk 03:43, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

First, you start by amassing independent, reliable, published sources for what the business owner has achieved in their life. And then you write up the article, scrupulously linking each assertion to its independent, reliable, published source. This is not easy. I strongly recommend that you get plenty of experience in improving existing articles before you try to create a new article. Oh, and if you are in any way related to the business owner, be sure to read and digest Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. (Even plainer and simpler: If you're in any way related, don't attempt to create the article.) -- Hoary (talk) 03:45, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Chaz86, and welcome to the Teahouse.

First of all it would not be a "page about" this business owner. Wikipedia has neutral articles that provide factual information about notable people and topics.

Has this "business owner" had multipe independent published reliable sources each devote significant coverage to him or her? See Wikipedia's Golden Rule.
Can this person pass WP:NBIO and WP:GNG? Most business owners can't.

Secondly, if such an article were created, it would not belong to the subject, nor to you. Anyone in the world could edit it. It would be Wikipedia's article. If there are negative facts about the subject, supported by reliable sources, it is likely that they would be added to and remain in the article.
Thirdly, if you have any close relationship with the subject, that is a Conflict of Interest, and should be disclosed before you start. If you would be creating an article as part of you job, or expect to receive payment or compensation for it, that is mpaid editing and 'must be disclosed promptly.

In short it is not as easy as you might have thought. Please follow the links in my comments above for details of the various policies and guidelines that apply here. If you do want to continue, please also read Your First article and referencing for beginners, and start with a draft under the Articles for Creation project. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:48, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Citing multiple authors in visual editing mode

Hi, I'm don't know how to add multiple authors in visual editing mode. Two fields appear, one for last name one for first name.

The help says this: "The surname of the author; don't wikilink, use 'authorlink'; can suffix with a numeral to add additional authors"

Don't know how to add the suffix, trying things like this: Alan Islas (talk) 18:56, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Alan Islas. To be quite blunt: forget trying! Visual Editor is utterly dire for adding more than one author, or indeed for adding any additional field that's not present in the original form. It's so bad that I always, always switch over to the WP:Source Editor and use the Cite button there, which very simply allows you to add multiple authors to all cite template (little green + button next to the names field). To switch over to the other editor, click the thick black pencil icon next to the blue 'Publish Changes' button on the top right of the page (assuming your not in mobile view, that is). Let us know how you get on, or check WP:ERB for a short video I made on using the Cite button in Source Editor. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:05, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Nick, that was very helpful! To be honest, I hadn't seen that Cite menu in the source editor, only the "Reference" button which just places the tags, that's why I was trying to to this in visual mode. --Alan Islas (talk) 00:49, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

For the benefit of anyone reading this who does want to use visual mode, there should be a button at the bottom of the citation dialogue that says Add more information. Hit that and you get extra fields to add like "Last name 2", etc. But I’m glad that the classic source editor suits your needs, Alan. Pelagic ( messages ) Z – (20:15 Sat 13, AEST) 10:15, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Question

I wanted to make an article on a separate au of Undertale which is a fictional game and the article I am writing is also fictional but I have seen wiki pages on things like underfell etc so am I allowed to make a wiki page on my own Undertale au? Undertale AU geek (talk) 00:47, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Undertale AU geek and welcome to the Teahouse. Undertale is not a fictional game, it is a real game with a fictional setting, just as The Lord of the Rings is a real novel with a fictional setting. "Fizbin" is a fictional game, as is Klin-zha. Undertale is notable: It has been publicly released, widely sold, gotten awards, and been written about extensively by independent sources.

Is your "AU" version of Undertale notable? Has it been publicly released? Has anyone independent written about it in a reliable source? If the answers are no, there cannot be a Wikipedia article about it. If yes, then it depends, but if you are the creator, you have a conflict o9f interest and are not the best person to write about it. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:13, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Is AU ="alternate universe", Undertale AU geek? You might try searching for sites that specialise in hosting fan fiction. Pelagic ( messages ) Z – (20:24 Sat 13, AEST) 10:24, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

P&S or VP&S on Virginia Apgar ?

Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons short form given as "VP&S". should i follow it on Virginia Apgar Vishnuvardhan leela (talk) 09:02, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I say No. Apgar was a student and later faculty at Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons many years ago. Only in 2017 was Vagelos added to the name after a LARGE donation from that family. You can use "P&S" as long as it is Wikilinked to the current name of the medical school. David notMD (talk) 09:21, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Done hello David notMD i will not change it. Vishnuvardhan leela (talk) 10:38, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Display problem in mobile

Many pages are not displayed properly in mobiles. Sometimes pictures / maps are left-aligned instead of centre.

Sometimes text appear on the left side -- one letter per line.

Suggest that all paragraph should be "justified". ANUPAM DUTTA 14:14, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Anupamdutta73 Both the app and the mobile version of Wikipedia(in a browser) do not have full functionality and do not display things in the same manner as the full version of Wikipedia does; you can view the full version in a browser on your phone, if desired. 331dot (talk) 14:25, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

@Anupamdutta73: Could you give some links to the articles you’re referring to? I’d be quite interested to take a look myself, thanks. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:12, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Need references

On my page, Draft:Languages of Central Asia, I have 5 references, which is not enough for the size of the page. Do you know any strategies for finding references? Bumsowee (talk) 13:29, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Bumsowee, and welcome to the Teahouse. In your case, I'd check the refs in the WP-articles you are linking to, google books and archive.org (need to register but it's free). In addition, we don't put WP-links in headings (or flags I think), and you should cut down on the External links and See also per WP:EL and WP:SEEALSO. Consider also if it's better to improve Central Asian Languages instead of writing a separate article. Good luck! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:45, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Bumsowee, and thank you for your efforts to contribute to Wikipedia. However, I would like to suggest that you are setting about writing an article in the wrong way. You have created a long draft (based presumably on what you personally have learned over a long period) and are now seeking sources to support what you have already written. Doing it like this makes the task much more difficult than it needs to be.

Instead I suggest that you start again with a blank page, re-read only the Reliable sources that you have already found, and summarise only their content to create the beginnings of your draft with citations of the sources in the appropriate pages.

When you've done this, look for more reliable sources, and add their information to the draft, citing the sources as you do so. All important information in every article should be cited to reliable sources, and even trivial information must be cited to some source. (For example, the current number of a subject Company's employees is often sourced from the company's own website, which is an unreliable source because it isn't independent of the Company.)

You may find this approach a little frustrating, because you personally know a lot more facts about your subject that you have learned over the years and want to include, but you cannot immediately remember exactly where you learned them or find a reliable source that they can be cited to: I often encounter the same problem when answering Ref Desk questions about subjects I've been interested in for 50 years (there are several). Nevertheless, using this method ensures that everything you put into the draft will be properly cited and will likely not be challenged or removed by other participating editors once the draft becomes an article.

While building the draft, it would be perfectly acceptable to include material you haven't found a source for yet, but are sure you will be able to – you can flag such material with the ^{[citation needed]} tag: another editor might even see this, find a citable source for you and add it.

I hope this advice proves helpful. Good luck and happy editing! {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.200.41.14 (talk) 16:29, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

How to upload latest pictures in Wikipedia

Hi! ... first of all, thank u for inviting me in this group,I'm very grateful for this . And I would like ask u a question. Can u teach me how to upload latest pictures in Wikipedia especially the copyright part ( I don't understand that part clearly). I want upload a artwork of Taylor Swift'sLover.

(Tyler Swift Boii) --> }} Tyler Swift Boii (talk) 16:14, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Tyler Swift Boii and welcome to the Teahouse. When someone takes a picture, that picture is (in most cases) automatically protected by copyright at the moment it is made. The copyright will be held by the photographer in most cases, although in some cases it will be held by the photographer's employer, or it may be transferred to an employer or client shortly afterwards. Much the same is true when someone draws, paints, or uses a compute to create art. It is protected by copyright.

In the case of art associated with a commercial song, the copyright is very likely to be owned by the publisher (although it may not be). Such copyrighted images cannot be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, which takes only images free for all to use. Wikipedia does allow limited use of images under a claim of Fair Use. Such images must be uploaded to en.Wikipedia itself, not to commons, and must fulfill all of the requirements at WP:NFCC.

As discussed above in the thread #album cover images policy question, cover art for albums is usually permitted in an article about the album, provided the other criteria are complied with, but other related art is not. Is the art you have in mind in some sense "cover art" for the song, officially distributed with the song? Where did you get it? This makes a significant difference to whether it can be used and the needed steps. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:40, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Adding information

If I want to add some information to the page about my own community. Why cant I do it? Susamd29 (talk) 16:52, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Susamd29 The issue is not that it is your community, it is that your edit is not sourced to an independent reliable source. Please discuss your proposed edit on the article talk page. 331dot (talk) 16:56, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

how to verify my reliable sources

i tried to write an artical about myself but its rejected on not reliable source basis but i have my all certificated issued by Indian government . How may i do submit all documents for verification CA Mukesh Rathi Jodhpur (talk) 16:39, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy link: User:CA Mukesh Rathi Jodhpur/sandbox/CA MUKESH RATHI

Hello, CA Mukesh Rathi Jodhpur. Routine government documents are not reliable, independent sources for the purpose of establishing notability on Wikipedia. Please read about why trying to write an autobiography is a bad idea. Please also read Your first article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:48, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Firstly you should read the advice against Autobiography. Secondly you need to understand that what is needed to demonstrate notability is significant coverage in multiple published reliable sources independent of the subject. Unpublished sources are of no use to Wikipedia, see WP:Verifiability. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:49, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, CA Mukesh Rathi Jodhpur, and welcome to the Teahouse. I am afraid the simple answer is "You don't."

First of all, Wikipedia uses only Published sources, so any source that you would have to "submit" is not acceptable.
Secondly, government documents including certifications are normally primary sources, and for establishing notability, secondary sources are usually needed.
Thirdly, simply being a registered accountant and valuer is not in itself enough to make a person notable, although specific positions might change that.
Fourthly, To establish notability, multiple independent published secondary reliable sources are normally needed, each of which discusses the person in some detail. See our guideline on the notability nof individual people, and our general notability guideline. See also Wikipedia's Golden Rule.
Fifth and lastly, such an article would be an autobiography. our guideline on autobiography strongly discourages writing an autobiography on Wikipedia. Any such author surely has a conflict of interest which should be publicly declared, and which restricts the author. If you are actually notable, someone else, with no connection to you, may well write an article about you in due course.

Please read the various linked policy, guideline, and help pages above, which explain things in more detail. If you go ahead, please also read Your First Article and Referencing for Beginners. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:57, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Please Help!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why isn't my article getting approved? I have added proper citations and references, though my article has been rejected the second time. Please tell me, what shall I fix exactly in the article? Here is my article:- Raja Oellinger-Guptara

Eagerly waiting for your reply! Thank you very much for your time and attention. Stay Safe!

Best Regards, Gaurav D. Gauravldhande (talk) 16:43, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Gauravldhande Your draft has no independent sources, Wikipedia requires there to be significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources to show notability. Creating an autobiography is also strongly discouraged. Theroadislong (talk) 16:58, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

The draft is also promotional - refs are for his book and his apartment building. David notMD (talk) 17:26, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Hey, Gauravldhande. It's a good idea to work on some existing articles first before trying to create new articles. Also, you should review the WP:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. Kind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 18:30, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I am new here

i need someone to help me i have an assignment in which i have to edit an article. i really want to perfect this act. Please help me Funmilolo (talk) 15:42, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Answered by another editor on op's talk page. See also WP:Introduction. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:56, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

If by "assignment" you mean from the place you are employed or interning, that is a horse of an entirely different color. See WP:PAID. David notMD (talk) 19:16, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Arzamas (website)

Hello, can I request to move this article into the main namespace (at least as a stub)or does it require reviewing first?--DonGuess (talk) 19:18, 13 June 2020 (UTC) DonGuess (talk) 19:18, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

It has been submitted to Articles for Creation (AfC - the information at the bottom of the draft), and given that this is your first attempt at an article, I suggest you wait for it to be reviewed. AfC review can take days to weeks, sometimes months before a reviewer decides to review it. David notMD (talk) 19:29, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

How many references needed to satisfy notability guidelines when creating a new article for a novel by a well-known author?

Hi, this is my first article Draft:The Phoenix Code. I sent it off for review and the article was declined. The comment left by the reviewer said that my topic does not meet the notability guidelines. My question is: how many references do I need? Is there a specific number, or is it a subjective judgment? The Phoenix Code is a novel by American author Catherine Asaro. She is famous, but not "very" famous. She is quite prolific and has published over 30 books. The Phoenix Code is one of her lesser known works. Huggykoala68 (talk) 00:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Huggykoala68 and welcome to the Teahouse. A good rule of thumb is "at least three high-quality independent sources that devote significant coverage to the topic". But that is subject to some variation. A single book-length study, entirely devoted to the topic, probably establishes notability on its own. And if the sources are a bit marginal in their coverage, four or five might be better than three. Catherine Asaro is still active, and much discussed among SF Fans -- I suspect there might be additional reviews out there, perhaps on tor.com or similar sites. I haven't read The Phoenix Code myself, but I suspect it is notable. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you DESiegel. You answered my question. Huggykoala68 (talk) 01:19, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Huggykoala68. The most important factor by far is the quality and reliability of the cited sources. In your draft, you cite Thomas M. Wagner, a blogger who runs a self-published science fiction review website, and "Mrs Giggles" whose reliability appears to be close to zero by Wikipedia's standards. A reliable source will have professional editorial control and a reputation for accuracy and fact checking. In my opinion, neither of these sources are acceptable for establishing the notability of a book. Not every book needs a freestanding Wikipedia article. Notable books will have been reviewed in publications that are widely seen as high quality and reliable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:18, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Cullen328 for your frank advice. Huggykoala68 (talk) 12:55, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Hey @DESiegel:, it might well be noticeable, but quote stronger sources, there’s this one for example:

https://www.theguardian.com/childrens-books-site/2014/jun/15/review-secret-of-tombs-phoenix-code-helen-moss

Find more like this of a book and you can be sure it remainsFthobe (talk) 11:22, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Hey, Huggykoala68. It might be a good idea to try editing some existing articles first. That will give you a feel for what is good in an article. PJvanMill (talk) 18:02, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks PJvanMill. Huggykoala68 (talk) 19:44, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Can you help fix the taxonomic box errors for both Achaenodon and Helohyidae please?

I can't seem to fix these errors so I can't do it sadly. Also, can you add more sources and references for Achaenodon too please? DinosaursRoar (talk) 18:07, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I've had a look, and I've no idea what causes the error messages, what they mean, or what could be done about them. All I can do is suggest you ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Mammals. Maproom (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, DinosaursRoar. Please see Template:Automatic taxobox/doc#Creating and manipulating. It explains what this means (the relevant template doesn't yet exist) and how to create it. If you don't feel up to that, either try Template talk:Automatic taxobox, or follow Maproom's suggestion. --ColinFine (talk) 20:06, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

@ColinFine and Maproom:, Being the AfC reviewer for Helohyidae, I will post for help at the above mentioned talk page places. Thank you all. ~ Amkgp 💬 20:18, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

creation of a wiki page for a renowned writer

My mother late Mrs Chandra Kiran Sonrexa was a world renowned writer of Hindi fiction. I would like to create a biographical article.

Kartika Sonrexa Houston

Hi @Ksonrexa: and welcome to the Teahouse. I would recommend studying the following article Help:Your_first_article and Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest and the links I left on your user talk page before starting creating this article. If you have any further questions please feel free to ask. CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:07, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

This source http://thebookreviewindia.org/22824-2/ should help to establish her notability. & Maproom (talk) 20:26, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

How do I post pictures on Wikipedia?

How do I upload a picture onto wikipedia? Like if I have a picture that would look good in a page, how do I get it on? Or if there is a picture on a different page how do I put that picture on another page that it could go with?

Sport.07GamerDet (talk) 15:31, 13 June 2020 (UTC) Sport.07GamerDet (talk) 15:31, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

@Sport.07GamerDet: you should visit Wikipedia:Images. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:45, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

@Sport.07GamerDet: See also Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard, but be sure you understand the copyright of the image before you upload it. GoingBatty (talk) 21:22, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

is 'universal basic share' notable?

I wanted to start I nice discussion on Reddits political discussion on universal basic share. But i can't find a good resource that collects the different implementation, ideologies and ideas behind it. It's very scattered :-(

Is it noticeable enough so I can write up an article on it? Or a section in the UBI page? Or is it just not something for Wikipedia? Peterklogborg (talk) 20:48, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

If you have been unable to find a good source, it probably isn't yet notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Maproom (talk) 21:34, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

KKK

Why does your article on the KKK not mention they were democrats? 2600:8803:D000:747:281C:17A5:15C9:7EE9 (talk) 21:33, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

The final two paragraphs of Ku_Klux_Klan#First_KKK make it pretty clear that they were Democrats. Maproom (talk) 21:38, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Help with red links

Hello, I'd trying to figure out how to create a red link on a name for which several other pages exist (but not for the actual person.) In the Elizabeth Maitland, Duchess of Lauderdale page, I'd like to red link the name of her mother Catherine Bruce, as no page exists for her. How can I do that so it doesn't point to other existing pages? Thanks for your help! Isaksenk (talk) 17:04, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Is the Catherine bruce you're talking about this one: Lady Catherine Bruce of Clackmannan? In that case, the article exists and you can make a link to it like so: Catherine Bruce - in wikitext, [[Lady Catherine Bruce of Clackmannan|Catherine Bruce]]. Kind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 18:47, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

That can't be the right person, PJvanMill. Look at the dates. Elizabeth Maitland, Duchess of Lauderdale was born in `1626. Thus Lady Catherine Bruce of Clackmannan born in 1696, cannot be her mother. Our article says that Elizabeth Maitland was the daughter of William Murray, 1st Earl of Dysart His wife Catharine Bruce, granddaughter of Sir Robert Bruce of Clackmannan and Margaret Murray of the Tullibardine family is mentioned but not linked. I must conclude that no article about her on Wikipewdi currently exists. You could create an article, Isaksenk but only if you ncould find sufficient sources to establish that she was notable. Remember that simply being the wife of one notable person adn the mother of another does not make a person individually notable, and that if she is not, no article about her can be created. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:12, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Excuse me, that is indeed not her. PJvanMill (talk) 19:15, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, correct definitely not her. I want to create a page about Catherine Bruce as I have access to records which detail her notable activities during the English Civil War. In the meantime, I'd like to red link her. Could anyone help me do that please? (Thanks from a total newbie :-) Isaksenk (talk) 21:21, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

@Isaksenk: You need a potential unique page name to make a red link. For "Catherine Bruce, Countess of Dysart", it would be [[Catherine Bruce, Countess of Dysart|Catherine Bruce]] to produce Catherine Bruce. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:10, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Notable Article Help?

I wanted to create an article on a game (Airport CEO; www.airportceo.com) as I could only find mentions (on English Wikipedia) of it as parts of lists, with links that go to nonexistent pages. I have verified that there is no page on the subject, however am unsure as to whether it is 'Notable' in accordance with WP:N, as there are few 'notable' sources. I could only find webpages such as Gamepedia (airportceo.gamepedia.com), Steam (store.steampowered.com/app/Airport_CEO) and various review websites which had non-primary source information on the subject. The largest source by far is the official website and their DevBlogs, but I am not sure if these are sufficient as citations. As for the actual creation of the article, I have read through the Article Creation guidelines thouroughly and had practice with editing and using the Wikipedia Editor, and think that I would be able to handle the creation of the article.

Any help on this issue would be greatly appreciated; many thanks in advance. Closingbracket (talk) 21:52, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Closingbracket. Generally when assessing notability, the best place to start is at WP:GNG; however, sometimes it might not be completely clear how WP:GNG applies to some subjects, and in those cases it can be helpful to look for guidance in a more specific notability guideline like WP:NGAME. If then things might not be as clear and in those cases it can help to ask for input from the members of a relevant WikiProject. So, maybe you should try asking about this at WT:VG since the members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games might be able to help. — Marchjuly (talk) 22:28, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Song Venus

2601:C2:C300:8C90:85B0:589F:CD42:DC3B (talk) 21:53, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi IP 2601:C2:C300:8C90:85B0:589F:CD42:DC3B. The Teahouse is a place for asking questions about Wikipedia. Do you have a question about editing Wikipedia in general or about editing a specific article? It will be so much easier for a Teahouse host to try and help you if they knew what kind of problem you might be having or what you want to ask. — Marchjuly (talk) 22:33, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Climateactivist in Cizre and Göle

Dear Teahouse, I am asking for a solution for the weather data at Cizre and Göle. Since 2017 an editor is mentioning that the climate data in Cizre and Göle is not correct. Usually he removes the climate data without leaving an edit summary, but since some weeks he communicates with other editors, mainly me. I would like to find a solution, either we just leave the weather as he wants it, but his edit summaries are nonsense. He writes he is against climate data, but if we bring another one he is also against this one. I have noticed that climate data is quite wrong if it refers to to the climate table, but it is correct if it refers to the daily climate data. I have asked Femkemilene and Materialscientist for help, but there was no solution. So what can we do? Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:49, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Paradise Chronicle. It sounds like your having a content dispute with this other editor, and the best way to try and resolve a content dispute is to follow Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Try starting a discussion about this on the article's talk page (if you already haven't) and invite the other party to discuss things there. Perhaps you can find some middle ground that addresses both of your concerns or one of you will be able to establish a WP:CONSENSUS in favor of yourr position. Once a consensus is established one way or another, the other side will be expected to honor the consensus even if they don't agree with it because not doing so is going to be considered to disruptive or otherwise problematic, and then their behavior may come under some serious scrutiny by other editors.

Sometimes we don't always get things to go our way on Wikipedia, but Wikipedia is not really about winning; the real goal is to try and figure out what's best for Wikipedia. It's OK to disagree on what this may be, but it's not really OK to keep disagreeing and trying get things your way once the Wikipedia community has decided to another way is better. So, assume good faith and try and engage this other editor. Give them a chance to resolve things through discussion; if they refuse to, then try and get others involved as explained in WP:CONTENTDISPUTE. If even at that point the other editor still insists on forcing their version into the article, then that might indicate behavior matter that may require for administrator intervention. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:43, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Back in April, you made a courteous attempt to start a discussion in both Talk:Cizre and Talk:Göle. A quick look in the recent histories of both articles suggests that Atsizat is the sole participant who removes this information and that three or more editors have been restoring it. I invite Atsizat to either to state their case on both talk pages or, better, to state it in just one of the two and briefly refer to it in the other. -- Hoary (talk) 00:23, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Uploading a new entry

Many thanks. I created a new page "Umami (film)" and uploaded it (regarding our Gerard Depardieu film to be released next year). Is there anything extra I need to do to have it go live? I am a main producer of the film and have authority to do it. Loliverfrost (talk) 22:51, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

You're talking about User:Loliverfrost/sandbox/Umami (film). I hardly know where to start. Please read up on product announcements, conflict of interest and reliable sources. -- Hoary (talk) 23:07, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Loliverfrost. The first thing you need to do is to carefully read through Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest and Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. Your connection to the film doesn't give you any special authority when it comes to Wikipedia; so, if you fail to comply with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, you're going to found yourself running into to lots of problems trying to add or edit content about the film on Wikipedia. I also suggest that you take a look at Wikipedia:Ownership of content and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not for reference as well because nobody associated with the film has any sort of final editorial control over anything written about it on Wikipedia, which means Wikipedia is not really the best place for you to try and promote the film (even indirectly). This doesn't mean that there can never be anything added about the film to Wikipedia; it just means that anyone connected to the film such as yourself might not be the best person to do so.

My suggestion to you would be to bring this up for discussion at WT:FILM to see whether someone from Wikipedia:WikiProject Film might be interested in creating an article about it. The may consideration is going to be whether the film meets WP:NFILM or whether it just might be WP:TOOSOON for any article about it to be added to Wikipedia. Films seem to be quite a popular Wikipedia genre as things go, and there are lots of editors who work on Wikipedia articles about them; so, it shouldn't be too hard to find someone as WikiProject Film to help your figure out what is what.

If you do, however, decide to try and write such an article yourself, you should follow the advice given in WP:DECLARECOI and work on a draft first. When you think the draft is ready to become an article, you should submit it to Wikipedia:Articles for creation for review. An AfC reviewer will look over the draft and see if it meets the basic criteria for articles. If it does, the reviewer will approve the draft and upgrade it to article status; if not, the reviewer will explain why and make suggestions on ways to improve things. For some general reference on writing articles, you might want to look at Help:Your first article and Help:Referencing for beginners. I also suggest looking at Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything for a general overview of Wikipedia as well. Good luck to you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:15, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I will add no references, and IMDb is not acceptable as a ref vis-a-vis establishing notability as Wikipedia defines it. David notMD (talk) 06:49, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

New Page: Michelle Knudsen (Manager/Producer)

Hello! I am looking to create a page for Michelle Knudsen, the manager/producer from MXN Entertainment whose credits include QUEEN & SLIM and WHEN WE FIRST MET, amongst others (IMDB page: https://pro.imdb.com/name/nm3082630/?ref_=instant_nm_1&q=michelle%20knudsen). I noticed that there is already a Wikipedia page for a book author by the same name, and you are thus immediately directed to her page when searching "Michelle Knudsen". I have been trying for weeks to publish an article on the manager/producer Michelle Knudsen but am having little success with the actual publishing, despite including sources for every piece of information. I am new to editing on Wikipedia and would love any assistance on how I can publish this article! Thank you so much. Emilyafoster95 (talk) 20:31, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Emilyafoster95, hello! Usually, in these situations, you can use the page title "Michelle Knudsen (Producer)" and then a template can be used at the top of the other page to link to the other page (i.e. "this page is about the x, for the y, see ..") Ed6767 talk! 20:33, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Emilyafoster95 and welcome to the Teahouse. The name of the prospective article is the least important aspect of the matter. That can be handled easily enough. The issue is whether Michelle Knudsen the producer is mnotable I suggest that you create a draft, perhaps Draft:Michelle Knudsen (Producer) as Ed676 suggests, and attempt to get sufficient sources cited that the draft can be approved. The approver will handle the final naming if it is promoted to article status. Below are some suggested steps to follow. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:48, 11 June 2020 (UTC) @Ed676: DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:52, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

First, review our guideline on notability, our policy on Verifiability, and our specific guideline on the notability of film-related topics. Consider whether your subject clearly meets the standards listed there. Also, check if the topic is already covered, perhaps under a different spelling or in a section of an article about a wider topic. You will waste a lot of time, if you create a new article, and then find that the encyclopedia already has an article about that.
Second, read how to create Your First Article and referencing for beginners and again consider if you want to go ahead.
Third, If you have any connection or affiliation with the subject, disclose it in accordance with our guideline on Conflict of interest. If you have been or expect to be paid for making edits, or are making them as part of your job, disclose this according to the strict rules of the Paid-contribution disclosure. This is absolutely required; omitting it can result in you being blocked from further editing.
Fourth, gather sources. You want independent, professionally published, reliable sources with each discussing the subject in some detail. If you can't find several such sources, stop; an article will not be created! Sources do NOT need to be online, or in English, although it is helpful if at least some are. The "independent" part is vital. Wikipedia does not consider as independent sources such as press releases, or news stories based on press releases, or anything published by the subject itself or an affiliate of the subject. Strictly local coverage is also not preferred. Regional or national newspapers or magazines, books published by mainstream publishers (not self-published), or scholarly journals are usually good. So are online equivalents of these. (Additional sources may verify particular statements but not discuss the subject in detail. But those significant detailed sources are needed first.)
Fifth, use the article wizard to create a draft under the articles for creation project. This is always a good idea for an inexperienced editor, but in the case of an editor with a conflict of interest it is essential.
Sixth, use the sources gathered before (and other sources you may find along the way) to write the article. Cite all significant statements to sources. Do not express opinions or judgements, unless they are explicitly attributed to named people or entities, preferably in a direct quotation, and cited to a source. Do not use puffery or marketing-speak. Provide page numbers, dates, authors and titles for sources to the extent these are available. A title is always needed. Submit the draft when you think it is ready for review. Be prepared to wait a while for a review (several weeks or more).
Seventh, when (well perhaps if) your draft is declined, pay attention to the comments of the reviewer, and correct the draft and resubmit it. During this whole process, if you face any unresolvable editing hurdles, or cannot comprehend any editing issue, feel free to post a request at the Teahouse or the help desk and ask the regulars. Repeat this until the draft passes review.

Congratulations, you have now created a valid Wikipedia article. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:51, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

DES, the draft already exists, at Draft:Michelle Knudsen (manager/producer). --ColinFine (talk) 20:59, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you ColinFine I missed that. However the advice above about sourcing still stands, Emilyafoster95. I hope this will be helpful. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:14, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I have commented on the draft's talk page about the sources currently cited, which in my view are not sufficient yet. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:36, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Hey, Emilyafoster95. It might be a good idea to try editing existing articles first; that way you'll learn naturally. Also, you might want to review the WP:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. Kind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 18:15, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

@Emilyafoster95: I agree. Please note: Two of us have commented on your draft here: Draft_talk:Michelle_Knudsen_(manager/producer)#Sourcing. --David Tornheim (talk) 07:44, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Cedrus atlantica glauca

2600:1700:E690:AC30:C5BA:AFB6:82F8:62 (talk) 00:14, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

What? ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 00:22, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Cedrus atlantica (Atlas cedar, a tree species) is an article. Glauca is mentioned as a cultivar; glaucous meaning blue/grey in color. David notMD (talk) 06:54, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Blue Cedar is a redirect to Radar, Anti-Aircraft No. 3 Mk. 7. Most people searching for "blue cedar" would be better served by a redirect to Cedrus atlantica. There may be justification for creating an article on the 'Glauca' variety. Maproom (talk) 08:15, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

1 Newton meter per second squared , what second is measured in squared in this formula

2402:3A80:937:D6B7:8129:60C1:C672:500A (talk) 09:11, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello IP editor. This is an editing help desk for those wanting to improve and contribute to Wikipedia articles. I'm afraid we're not a general Q&A forum. Try looking within Wikipedia for your answers, especially Acceleration and Metre per second squared. And if that fails, search on Google. May the Force be with you! Nick Moyes (talk) 09:47, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Technical problem with table

The table for cases and deaths per million in COVID-19 pandemic by country and territory is a mess, even though it should be simple for someone technically competent to fix it. See Talk:COVID-19 pandemic by country and territory#Cases and deaths per million. Can anyone help? Dudley Miles (talk) 08:54, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Dudley Miles, welcome to the Teahouse. Asking the question where you did was far better than here, and it does look like you're now getting responses there. The only other places I could suggest to raise concerns if it doesn't get resolved would be at the Wikiproject for Covid19 see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject COVID-19, and/or the talk page for the template full of that data which is at Template:COVID-19 pandemic data. (It does strike me that a 'date last updated' field might have helped for each country, though it does sound like it is being populated by some automated process), Anyway, I hope this helps a bit. Stay safe. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:56, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

My recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive

My contribution was more than constructive.

Wiki’s entry For typographic points is written: “In digital type, letters of a font are designed around an imaginary space called an em square. When a point size of a font is specified, the font is scaled so that its em square has a side length of that particular length in points.”

If the font is to be scaled to the specified point size of a font, it can’t be “imaginary”.

So, I edited the first sentence to;

In digital type, letters of a font are designed in a space representing the vertical distance any typesetter will move with no additional line spacing, also known as leading. The square of that vertical distance is called an em square.

So then; When a point size of a font is specified, the font is scaled so that its em square has a side length of that particular length in points.

Makes more sense.

How is that not constructive? 2601:18E:8200:6919:7950:34D:47D5:DE64 (talk) 10:30, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If you truly feel that your edit was needed, you should start a discussion on the article talk page to explain why, and/or ask the other editor directly as to why they feel that way. 331dot (talk) 10:44, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Can I help someone to appeal a block

My question is that can I help some to appeal his/her block or send him/her up to arbcom. Tbiw (talk) 20:35, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Tbiw - Are you saying that an editor has been blocked and that you would like to help them get unblocked? If, like most blocked editors, they have the use of their talk page, they can post an unblock request, and you can concur with it, on their talk page. Have they been blocked for a short period of time, a long period of time, or indefinitely? If they have been blocked for a short period of time, it may be better to serve out the block. Who is the blocked editor, and for how long were they blocked? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:35, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Indefinitely I don't like it.Tbiw (talk) 11:22, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Could somebody add a article about a football team to Elswick, Newcastle Upon Tyne?

Elswick Rangers FC were a football club who existed only for about 10 years in the late 1880s, they also competed in the FA Cup 3 times. http://fchd.info/ELSWICKR.HTM http://www.statto.com/football/teams/elswick-rangers/ (this are two links about Elswick Rangers)

Wonder if any editor would add an section about them in the article?Pizza Slayer (talk) 23:09, 13 June 2020 (UTC) Pizza Slayer (talk) 23:09, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Pizza Slayer. If you believe the team to be Wikipedia notable (particularly per WP:TEAM and WP:FOOTYN), then you can be WP:BOLD and create such an article yourself. However, if you've never created an article before, my suggestion would be for you to work on a draft instead and then submit it to Wikipedia:Articles for creation for review once you think the draft is ready. You can find some pointers on how to write a Wikipedia article at Help:Your first article and Help:Referencing for beginners. You might also want to take a look at WP:FOOTY#Manual of style for suggestions as well.

Another thing you might want to try is asking for help from the members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Football since that's where you find editors with experience in writing articles about football teams. Just post a message at WT:FOOTY and see if you can find someone to give you some more specific advice. Good luck to you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:30, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

On the other hand, Pizza Slayer, perhaps you're simply asking about the addition of a paragraph or more about the team to the existing article Elswick, Tyne and Wear. If so, I suggest that you go ahead and do it, citing your source(s). If you think such an addition would be worthwhile but you don't want to add it yourself, then make the suggestion at Talk:Elswick, Tyne and Wear. -- Hoary (talk) 23:47, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

@Pizza Slayer: if you can dig up some more sources I'd be happy to create the article. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:15, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Should I keep writing the draft

Hello, I started Draft:Arzamas (website) and some people except me have participated too, but it was declined because it looks like an advertisement, with I agree with and it’s my fault, but the problem is that it looks like there are only three English-language sources about Arzamas so it could be impossible to write a proper article. What should I do? DonGuess (talk) 11:59, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi DonGuess. Sources used for Wikipedia only need to be reliable, published and reasonably accessable; they're not required to be in English as explained in WP:NONENGLISH and they're not required to be online as explained in WP:SAYWHERE. So, if you believe there are non-English sources which satisfy English Wikipedia's definition of a "reliable sources", then you can cite them in articles. However, please understand since this is English Wikipedia and articles are expected to be written in English, sources written in languages other than English might be a bit harder to verify. So, you can help out by providing as much information about the source as possible when you cite them. There's a way to cite non-English sourcing using templates such as {{cite web}} and {{cite book}}, etc. that involves using parameters like |language=, |quote=, |trans-work= and |trans-title=, etc. If you're going to cite a non-English source, it's going to be assumed that you've got sufficient language ability yourself to understand what the source is saying; however, the AfC reviewer reviewing the draft might not have the same ability. So, you might be able to help clarify the source if you can provide a rough translation/summary of it on the draft's talk page or possibly a link to an online translation of it (perhaps using something like Google Translate). Machine-based translations are not really considered good enough for content added to an article, but a machine translation of the the source might make it easier for reviewers to assess the source. You might be able to add a link to an online English translation of the source (if you can find one) to the actual citation syntax using the |trans-work= parameter. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:20, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Back Market

Draft:Back Market/2.

I have read here@Robert McClenon:: "In this specific case, my opinion is that we should stub the draft on Back Market and accept it, stripped of the promotional material." . Can you explain it, please?. Ready to edit what is needed. On the other hand, I swear I recieve no money and nothing for editing Wikipedia, from Back Market and from no one related to both, directly or indirectly. I am independent, fortunately. BoldLuis (talk) 17:54, 13 June 2020 (UTC) BoldLuis (talk) 17:54, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Note: BoldLuis added the entire exchange above, including Robert McClenon's post. @BoldLuis: it is difficult to understand what is going on here. First of all, where does that exchange come from? It is not present at Draft:Back Market/2. Secondly, what's the deal with the two alternative drafts, Draft:Back Market and Draft:Back Market/2? I notice that both versions have been rejected, not merely declined. Thirdly, what is your question to the Teahouse volunteers? Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 18:14, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Ah, now I see – this refers back to an old Teahouse discussion, here. --bonadea contributions talk 18:17, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

BoldLuis in future, please do not copy old discussions as you did here, but instead link to such an old discussion, so that context is more fully preserved. Thank you. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:48, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you a lot for your help. I did not know how to do it. The link: Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_1063#Draft:Back_Market/2 . I have a doubt: can I edit it there. Or must I put here?. BoldLuis (talk) 19:13, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Technically you can edit there – but you shouldn't, it's an archive. And if you did, likely no-one would see what you wrote. What you can do is to make requests and ask questions here, while referring and linking to that archived discussion. What you should not have done is copy Robert's posting here, with his signature at the end, making it appear that he has posted here when he hasn't. Maproom (talk) 19:41, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Improved. More sources:

BoldLuis (talk) 19:51, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Some comments on the sources listed above.

The first and sixth, in my opinion, may help to establish that Back Market is notable.

The second, third, fourth, and fifth don't. They are all based on statements made by representatives of the company, and so are not independent. The second in particular is so far from independent, I would describe it as nauseatingly promotional. If you include a reference to it, you will reduce the chance of the draft being accepted.

Finally, some advice. There are two rival copies of this draft. That is never helpful, and often causes confusion. You should get rid of one of them. Maproom (talk) 21:13, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Annoyed Comments

What happened twelve days ago is that a paid editor provided two drafts of Draft:Back Market. Then my inference as to what happened is that User:BoldLuis decided to help the paid editor with a gimmick of providing a template asking the reviewer to propose better wording on Back Market. I don't know whether User:BoldLuis is also being paid by Back Market or just sympathizes with paid editors and wants to help them. I Rejected the draft, because I was disgusted at another gimmick intended to get volunteer editors to write an article that both satisfies the corporate client by being positive and satisfies neutral point of view. (I don't know if that exists, or if it is a contradiction.)

So I will now ask User:BoldLuis whether they have a conflict of interest with Back Market. If not, why are they trying so hard in such a clueless and annoying way to help Back Market?

I will say that I think that paid editors often think that they are being treated unfairly because they are not supposed to edit directly and they do not get help in writing an article that is both neutral and promotional. I don't know if an article can be neutral and promotional, meaning that I haven't seen one yet that really is both, and I think it is sort of like a unicorn.

Robert McClenon (talk) 20:50, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

False accusations to honest editor

I say and repeat I am not paid by anyone. Can honest people as me edit Wikipedia?. The phrase: " I don't know whether User:BoldLuis is also being paid by Back Market or just sympathizes with paid editors and wants to help them." is biased. Paid? . What ?. Sympathizes?. False affirmations. I have put in several places and sworn I am not paid or helping to none. This is not important. I usually help people in my city without being paid. Why do you say it?. I only want to see a NPOV article about this topic. Can I see a neutral article in Wikipedia ?. BoldLuis (talk) 21:11, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

User:BoldLuis - Okay. Please try to understand that some of us are deeply distrustful of paid editors and paid editing, and of aggressive tactics used by paid editors to try to make Wikipedia into an organ for cheap advertising masquerading as neutral coverage. I don't know whether the template was your idea or that of the paid editor. If it was your idea, then you annoyed some of the experienced editors by helping paid editors. If it wasn't your idea, then I apologize for thinking that it was your idea. In the future, if you want to work on an article that also has paid editors, ignore them and work on the article yourself, so that no one thinks you are one of them. Now that it appears that you and other neutral editors are trying to work on a neutral article, I will stay out of the way. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:49, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon:: I am not paid editor or sympathizes with paid editor. Really, I *anti*pathizes with them. The motivation is clear: I work and in the free time afer working, I read Wikipedia and sometimes edits it to correct typos or help to improve it.I apply the same to me as to the others: I do not want false information. And I want to know neutral, well based information. I saw in the Internet information about refurbished electronics and Back Market. I tried to search more information in Wikipedia and found the Draft. I thought it was in draft because it was new information and needed to improve. I deleted what I thought it was for me like-an-advertisement. And this was what I did.12:47, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

how is a title edited?

Palisades1 (talk) 14:17, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Palisades1, see WP:MOVE. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:39, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Move

Hi, can you tell me how to "move by overwriting"? I believe that I once did this a few years ago, but I've since forgotten. Thank you. ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 23:59, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Simply, if you're not an administrator, you can't. See this explanation, which tells you where you should go. -- Hoary (talk) 05:59, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

This is not 100% correct. If the move target is a redirect to the current page and has only one item in the revision history (the redirect) even non-Admins can delete by overwriting (See my user logs for example) Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 06:27, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Victor Schmidt mobil above; @Hoary: please see LoveMyWikis1234's move log. I believe that I've done this too. Also, extended movers and file movers can move without leaving a redirect. Can somebody tell me how to move by overwriting? ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 14:48, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Donald Trump And racism

The article on Donald Trump and racism TRUTH is best served first instead of errors of attitudes. So why isn't what Donald Trump has said and proven about himself printed first? And those who follow slander of Hillary Clinton and the media as exactly that of lies slander, opinion maglignancy to try to win a presidential race. There is no truth to this. An encyclopedia is supposed to give facts. 2600:1700:5D10:9B0:201B:FB00:5E6C:9DDE (talk) 16:46, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

WP:TRUTH Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:49, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello

Ellipzys (talk) 16:47, 14 June 2020 (UTC) hi

@Ellipzys: Welcome to Wikipedia! Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:49, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Account confirmation

Hi everyone - I noticed that semi-protected pages cannot be edited by new users unless their account is auto-confirmed or confirmed. I have made 10 edits and I have confirmed my account via the email confirmation, yet I still cannot edit semi-protected articles. Do I have to be a member for four days despite meeting the other two criteria? I have some primary source information to add to the Battle of Bunker Hill. (TomRidley (talk) 19:18, 14 June 2020 (UTC))

@TomRidley: According to WP:SEMI the account must be autoconfirmed before edited an semi-protected page, so you will just need to wait. RudolfRed (talk) 19:22, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

@TomRidley: Yes, the account must be four days old. Autoconfirmation is not related to email confirmation. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:48, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

TomRidley, you can make an edit request at Talk: Battle of Bunker Hill. Please read Wikipedia:Edit requests for details. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:56, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you all! (TomRidley (talk) 20:35, 14 June 2020 (UTC))

Why I cannot edit a page?

Why I cannot edit my NGO page? I am the new president of LSRS and still after trying a few times to change some information on the page, I got a notification saying it is disruptive editing.

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

https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liga_Studen%C8%9Bilor_Rom%C3%A2ni_din_Str%C4%83in%C4%83tate

How can I prove that my information is relevant? Stredie (talk) 18:43, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

@Stredie: You need to provide a citation for any changes that you are requesting. Since you are connected to the organization, you should place your suggested change on the article's talk page along with {{edit request}} and an uninvolved editor will evaluate it. RudolfRed (talk) 19:20, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Stredie, you do not have a page here, nor does the organization you've named. There is an encyclopedia article about the organization here, but it isn't yours. You have absolutely no control over what it says. As Rudolph told you, the extent of participation you should have regarding your organization is to make suggestions on the article's talk page. Please familiarize yourself with both WP:PAID, WP:OWN and WP:COI. Wikipedia is not part of your organization's "social media portfolio". John from Idegon (talk) 20:37, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

How to upload an write up

Actually, the article which i published yesterday based on my research and investigation. its very useful information for the petroleum engineers. Finding free gas at pump intake using CFD & Sub pump software. Please support me if you can upload the date if possible Ellipzys (talk) 16:50, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

No. Sorry, but Wikipedia does not publish original research - please see the policy at Wikipedia:OR. --CiaPan (talk) 16:58, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Forgot to ping: Ellipzys. --CiaPan (talk) 17:00, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

not, Oringinal researche completely with me. THis is just a hint for understanings. Ellipzys (talk) 17:40, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

@Ellipzys: On your talk page you wrote actaulyy i shared my thesis, which is why it was deleted. Please read WP:OR again. Our encyclopedia articles summarize what reliable, secondary sources (e.g., newspapers, books, peer-reviewed journals) have written about a subject that Wikipedia considers to be notable, according to WP:N. The article must have inline citations to those sources for any non-trivial statements. What was on your user page was apparently considered by a nominating user and an administrator to be unambiguous advertising, promotion, or your own research, which is not allowed. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 21:59, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

[1] "Encounters: The Art of Interfaith Dialogue". Brepols publishers. Retrieved 11 June 2020.

[2] Allen Mosher, Lucinda (20 March 2019). "Book Review:The Art of Interfaith Dialogue". The Journal of Interreligious Studies. 26 (26): 87–90. Retrieved 11 June 2020.

[3] Illman, Ruth (2019). "Encounters: The Art of Interfaith Dialogue". Journal of Contemporary Religion. 34 (3): 583–584. Retrieved 11 June 2020.

[1]

[2]

[3]