Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 777

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 770

←

Archive 775

Warning templates for spam, vandalism etc.....

Hi there, I've only been using this site for 24 hours, I am unsure if I should be sending the warning templates to folks who may have made poor choice edits or spam etc, so I've been sending a personal message to the person whose edit I reverted. Is that OK or should I always use the template messages? --Dymchurch (talk) 19:25, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Dymchurch, welcome to Wikipedia and, indeed, to our Teahouse. It's OK to leave a personal message on the talk page of an editor who has not edited in a constructive manner. However, many vandals only make one or two test edits, and you can spend an awful lot of time leaving each one individual, polite messages asking them to desist. Certainly the article on UFC Fight Night: Thompson vs. Till has suffered huge amount of annoying IPs making repeated damaging edits, and I see that page has now been given protection from anonymous editing for a while.

That said, I would suggest you activate a tool called Twinkle via your Preferences setting. This allows you to revert edits and also to leave one of a series of escalating warnings, pertinent to the type of harmful edit. We always start off by giving gentle, polite requests to an editor, and then slowly escalating them to four levels. If vandalism continues, we can report them on this page - or even do so automatically - and one of our experienced editors (known as administrators) will assess the report and take action if necessary. ~~About 10 posts above~~Two sections below this one you'll see a really helpful reply from CASSIOPEIA to another editor earlier today about dealing with vandals. It's entitled #Tags for possible vandalism. Obviously, creating content is often what new most new editors like to do first here, but it's great you care enough to start off by checking and messaging other editors. Do come back if you need answers to any other questions. (BTW: I note in the article above that there's an entry to 'catchweight' with the name Stephen Thompson added as 'def'. This unfortunately goes to a disambiguation page; I was wondering whether Stephen Thompson (fighter) was the intended target?). Regards form the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:05, 27 May 2018 (UTC) Updated because both threads were archived.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions •

Nick Moyes, Hi Nick, good day. It is Stephen Thompson (fighter) was the intended target and I have fixed the wiki link on the UFC Fight Night: Thompson vs. Till page. Thank you and Cheers!. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 02:50, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Dymchurch, It is extremely common that many IP editors vandalize or spam UFC fight events during the play of the fight especially in UFC flag ship event. If you see more than 5 vandalism happening during the play of the fight by multiple editors, you could request a page protection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection besides giving vandalism warning on the vandalized editors' talk page. Most of the vandalism and page protection reports would be cleared (page protected and block placed on more than 4 times vandalized editors) pretty quickly except during early morning (1 am to 7 am) US time as most of the admins reside in North American. By the way, thank you helping up on counter vandalism work in Wikipedia. One of the IP editors you had warned was blocked for vandalized UFC Fight Night: Thompson vs. Till page. Have a good day. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 02:50, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Resubmitting an Article

I just got one of my articles declined a few days ago. I made some changes based on the feedback I got, but I'm worried that it'll be declined again. What can I do to make sure it gets approved this time? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Travelbooktm (talk • contribs) 02:31, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Travelbooktm. Your draft is highly promotional and its references are not truly independent. I see stuff like press releases, an interview with a founder, online fundraising for the company, and so on. We are very serious in insisting on significant coverage in truly independent sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:07, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Tags for possible vandalism

Hi there,

So i dont really do much work in terms of vandalism patrolling, i just revert it occasionally when i see it. But i notice that some people tag edits as vandalism when reverting vandalism edits. How do I do that? I feel like I should learn. Wikiman5676 (talk) 06:36, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Wikiman5676 Welcome to Teahouse! Thank you for interested in counter vandalism work in Wikipedia.

Below are some info on how to counter vandalism in Wikipedia

Vandalism guidelines - Familiar yourself to the Wikipedia guidelines of what is vandalism and what is NOT and what is a good faith edit or test edit vs bluntly vandalism - see here WP:VAN.
Warning message and level - In normal cases once the editor reach level 4 warning, see warning templates here WP:WARN, then we could report the editor to Administrator intervention against vandalism - see here WP:AIV. However, in certain serious and prolific vandalism we could give Only warning message without going through the level.
Vandalism Tools - Download the tools for counter vandalism. There are a few tools, and one of them is Twinkle (TW)- see here WP:TW. Twinkle allow you to set warning level and type of warning. Note messages from TW is auto generated; however, you could use you own word if you find the auto message from TW is not sufficiently explain what you intended to convey to the editor.
Counter-Vandalism Unit/Academy - If you are really interested to know more and do counter vandalism volunteer work (at your own available time of course), you would sign up for Counter-Vandalism Unit/Academy - see here WP:CVUA and see which instructor is available to be your mentor. Just a note, the program does take up a lot of reading, exercises and time; however, you could pace yourself on how fast to progress through the course. It took me close to 2 months to get it done, but of course you could to it faster as it was in the year end holiday season when was in the program. However, I highly recommend you to take up program for there is hips to learn.

Take your time to read the links I attached above, as I know there is a lot pages to read. Happy editing and let me know if anything else I could help or need to clarify further.

Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:06, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Wikiman5676 (talk) 05:35, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

My birthday is coming up on Saturday!

I know this may be a little off topic, but Saturday is my birthday! And I want some users to wish me a happy birthday because I can't have a good one without being wished a happy birthday. So I hope you don't mind, but perhaps you could leave me a happy birthday card on my talk page? HorsesARENice^{Ride me to my talk page} 04:05, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, HorsesAreNice. Unfortunately, the Teahouse is for discussing questions about Wikipedia, and it's not a social media page like Facebook or Snapchat. Ravenswing 06:07, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Bernie Sanders as President?

A social economic political science question. It is my opinion that Bernie Sanders will become the next president of the United States of America after president Pence. With Kamala Harris as his running mate in 2020. Uniting east and west coasts and the humanity between them and around the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by William G Russell (talk • contribs) 06:05, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, William G Russell. The Teahouse is a place to ask and answer questions about editing Wikipedia. It is not a place to speculate about an election that is 2-1/2 years away. As a matter of fact, such speculation is inappropriate anywhere on Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:14, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Margaret Barry Irish folksinger

I don't have an account, but I just wanted to suggest that Margaret Barry be added to the Irish folksingers page... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Irish_folk_singers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Barry — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.65.41.25 (talk) 05:33, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Done Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:22, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Question Game

Can you demerge PixelJunk Monsters and PixelJunk Monsters 2. Because no one ça create an article on the second game because the link go to the first. Thank. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.35.94.167 (talk) 03:50, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. If you click on the link in the small text that says "Redirected from PixelJunk Monsters 2" when you click on the current version of PixelJunk Monsters 2, it will take you to the redirect page, which can then be edited to create an article. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:25, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

how to publish an article

Hello, I want to publish my article Léon Wanson but i don't know how because it's not write draft on it. Can you help me please ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nafi9494949494 (talk • contribs) 07:48, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Nafi9494949494. Welcome to our Teahouse. You had actually already created the article in the main part of Wikipedia. But I have moved it back to a draft form so you can work on it a little bit more first. You need to include evidence (references) that prove the awards were given to him. And your introductory paragraph should clearly summarise why he is significant. Once you've tidied up thise issues, and ensured everything else you've said can be substantiated from reliable, published sources, then you can submit the draft again. I'm sure he will then meet our criteria for notability. See 'Your first article' for more guidance on ensuring everything meets the standards we expect. Any problems, come back and ask again anytime. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 08:08, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Reference Sources

Greetings,

I am new to Wikipedia. I would like to submit something for and would like to find out if it is allowed reference articles that are written in a different language like Japanese or Chinese.

Kind regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aarav khatri (talk • contribs) 09:52, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

@Aarav khatri: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Sources do not need to be in English, as long as they are independent reliable sources and possible to verify. 331dot (talk) 09:54, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

... just in case "reference articles" means Wikipedia articles in other languages, these are not WP:Reliable sources, but the references cited in those articles may well be good sources for an article in English. Dbfirs 10:42, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Url link

When I put a url between brackets, instead of becoming a number, the full url remains visible; i.e. "massacre+of+isaaq"&rlz=1C1TEUA_enGB777GB777&source=lnms&tbm=bks&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi39KCAgajbAhXQzqQKHb6rCfoQ_AUIECgB&biw=1366&bih=662. How do I change that? Thylacoop5 (talk) 12:58, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Thylacoop5, and welcome to the Teahouse. Sometimes very complex URLs don't work that well. In this case it's the quotation marks (") that break it. The doctor orders percentage encoding: [1] – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:20, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Want to contribute to Wikipedia but don't know where to start?

Good Afternoon everyone! This is Gangasagar from Mumbai, India. I am a very new Wikipedian and not especially good at the editing process, but I am learning. I will only focus on minor content edits until I get the hang of this. Please advice me where to start? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gangasagar Vishwakarma (talk • contribs) 08:49, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

@Gangasagar Vishwakarma:, I would first advise you to start by determining if a version of Wikipedia exists in your native language. I (obviously) don't know if English is your first language or not but many editors from India are not aware that there are many other Wikipedias in all the major languages of India and all could use help from native speakers of those languages. The English Wikipedia is not the central one or controlling one - each language-specific Wikipedia is run as its own project. Whether you contribute here or at one of those other ones, I recommend you start at the aptly-named Getting Started page. That page has links to many of the most important policies and procedures. You don't need to read the whole thing, but wherever you wish to start contributing, there is probably a link on that page that gives you the basics. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:44, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

JTA Supermarkets Edit

I would like link #3 the under the "People" section of the following page be removed as there is no relation to the mentioned "Kenny Rampersad"

Also, in the 2015 Corruption section I'd like the following sentence to be added in "JTA Supermarkets has not been mentioned in any Fifa Corruption case to date."

Link to page : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JTA_Supermarkets — Preceding unsigned comment added by JTAllum (talk • contribs) 14:40, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

@JTAllum: If you have a conflict of interest, as it seems you might from your name (and from the history of the article, as you're trying to do the same as a clear COI editor did previously), you would need to first suggest the edits you want to make on the article talk page, then once you're done saying what you're suggesting, place the {{request edit}} template on the talk page so that an editor without a conflict can review it. If you have a COI, you should not edit the article directly; more details can be found at the conflict of interest page. Also, if you are or expect to be paid or compensated to edit about this subject, or are asked or expected to edit it as a duty of a job or internship, you are required to disclose that fact before editing any more about it. Also remember that edits must be supported by reliable source material; you will be expected to point to where that material exists or your edit suggestions will be very likely to be declined. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:20, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Citations

Hello! I am new to Wikipedia and am working on a page for a prominent Doll company (Great American Doll Company). I'm having an issue with my citations and I was wondering if someone could help me with them? I have newspaper articles and press releases but I'm not sure how to use them. If someone could help me that would be great! Uncoveringcelebrityhistory (talk) 18:59, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Uncoveringcelebrityhistory. I have moved your draft to Draft:Great American Doll Company, because I think in its current state it will quickly get deleted if it is left in main article space. I have also added a header so that you can submit it for review when you think it is ready: it is not at present. --ColinFine (talk) 19:09, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello, again Uncoveringcelebrityhistory, and welcome to the Teahouse. The problem with your citations is that they are all to the company's own materials. Please understand that Wikipedia has almost no interest in what the subject of an article says about themselves, or what their friends and associates say about them. It is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject have chosen to write about the subject, and been published in reliable places such as major newspapers. If you have newspaper articles (as long as they are not just based on interviews or press release - those would not be independent) then citing them would be helpful. Referencing for beginners will guide you how to cite sources (they do not have to be online). In general, I recommend you study your first article, and the criteria for notability for companies. --ColinFine (talk) 19:14, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello Colin, Thank you for your reply. Can you have a look at the page now? I have around 20 references there. A few still are linking back into the company but that I have more indipendant newspaper articles that I used as a references that speak about the doll company. I have print outs of the press releases would those be allowed as references? Thank you Uncoveringcelebrityhistory (talk) 06:44, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello again, Uncoverincelebrityhistory. I'm not going to do a full review. I note taht you now have far too many references. Eighteen references for one short sentence is ridiculous. What is needed is quality of references, not quantity. Looking at the titles, it might well be that some of the newspaper references you have given are good, but I@m not going to go through them and look. I see that no. 3 quotes Lam repeatedly, so is not independent.

I fear that what you need to do is to start again, because it's not just the references: the long list of individual dolls does not belong in an encyclopaedia article. The long list of awards probably does not belong (and I can find very little coverage of these awards in the news, so I suspect they're where members of an industry vote themselves award after award as a marketing ploy, and they don't belong in an encyclopaedia article either). The section about the Onassis doll almost certainly is worth keeping, but needs to be rewritten as a part of an encyclopaedia article about GADoC, rather than a collection of unrelated facts. (And saying what the company said it intended to do without saying what actually happened is rather unsatisfactory.)

Two more points about citations: you can avoid repeating a reference where it is cited several times by using Named References - see WP:REFB for how to do this. And in answer to your last question: press releases from the company rarely contain anything which should go in an article (except where they echo what an independent source has said, of course). I recommend that you remove every single reference which is to the company's site, or is based on a press release or an interview, and with it, remove every piece of information which is unsourced, or sourced only to one of those non-independent sources. Then see if you have an article about the company, based on the truly independent sources. --ColinFine (talk) 17:14, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello

The teahouse hosts called me here. What do you need help in?

Jim Doen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim Doen (talk • contribs) 17:16, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Ok it is a place to ask questions. I put two unlock tickets on my talk page. I think the system unlocked me or Aaron could have also done it because I emailed him. What do I do at the current moment?

Jim — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim Doen (talk • contribs) 17:18, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Jim Doen, and welcome to the Teahouse. Your accountis not blockecd, and never has been. Your IP address may have been blocked in the past, but it has beren unblocked, or your IP address has changed. There is nothing that you need to do about that issue. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:30, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

The invitation to the Teahosue was just in case you had questions that we might help with. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:30, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Changing the font of a parameter value

Would it be possible to change the font of a single parameter value in a template? I'd like to change the typeface of the IPA-ja value: error: {{nihongo}}: Japanese or romaji text required (help)
If I try to set a typeface inside the Template:Nihongo, it results in: error: {{nihongo}}: Japanese or romaji text required (help) [TRANSviada@talk ~]$ 17:41, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello TRANSviada, and welcome to the Teahouse. I am afraid that {{Nihongo}} does not support a font specification in the parameter values. You could put the entire call inside a set of <span>...</span> tags with a font specified, but that would not affect only one parameter. Or you could ask on Template talk:Nihongo and explain why you want this feature, and someone might edit the template to permist such a feature. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:40, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi DES. Yes, it's true, it'd affect the template entirely. I need it to work only w/ that parameter. I thought it was an "issue" w/ templates in general. I'll try asking on the Nihongo template talk page. Tanks 😊 [TRANSviada@talk ~]$ 18:56, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

A template could accept a parameter indicating in what font its contents or part of them, wouod be displayed, but it would have to be coded into the template, it would not operate automatically. See {{tq}} where the |i= forces italics, for example. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:01, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

If you don't mind, I quoted you on Template talk:Nihongo#Request: parameter to set a font-family to a specified value. Thanks for the explanation [TRANSviada@talk ~]$ 19:57, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Of course you are welcome to quote me, TRANSviada. In any case any post that anyone makes to a Wikipedia talk or discussion page is available for free reuse provided it is properly credited. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:19, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

INTERACTIVE PROGRAMS

'Can we add interactive programs to a wikipedia page?' — Preceding unsigned comment added by DÆmÖN MUNDANE++ (talk • contribs) 07:15, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello DÆmÖN MUNDANE++ - welcome to our Teahouse. I'm sorry you have waited a long time for a reply; I had hoped someone else might have understood what you were inferring and answered you by now! Could I ask you to explain the type of thing you mean, or envisage seeing, please? I'm sure the answer is going to be "no", as it would render pages too complex for most editors to work with. We do have interactive programs like The Wikipedia Adventure, but these have been developed for specific training and familiarisation uses, and are definitely not editable by normal users. We also have WP:Modules - but this is an area I know nothing about. Sorry this isn't a very complete answer for you. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:45, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

There's also been some work done towards interactive chess boards. Eman 235/talk 17:23, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

We have portals if that helps.Thegooduser Let's Chat 23:02, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Draft:John David Ebert

I would like the comments of other experienced editors on Draft:John David Ebert and its subject. User:Hwarwick created a draft in Articles for Creation and submitted it, referring in the edit summary to this “neglected writer”. It isn’t the job of Wikipedia to identify and recognize a neglected writer, only to provide information about a writer who has received the attention of reliable sources, which may include critics commenting that he has been neglected. I declined the draft, which had no properly formatted references at the time. Two references have since been added. Ebert has an “interesting” history in Wikipedia, including self-promotion, and was the subject of two deletion discussions, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John David Ebert in 2007, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John David Ebert (2nd nomination) in 2014. I am not sure that either deletion discussion was satisfactory and adequate (and the second one involved sockpuppetry). The first referred to sales of the author’s books on Amazon, which of course sells anything. The second deletion discussion could, in my view, have been plausibly closed as No Consensus. In any case, a reviewer shouldn’t accept a draft that lacks independent references, even if there wasn’t a previous decision to delete. If Ebert has indeed been a significant voice in twenty-first-century critical theory, as stated in the draft, then of course Wikipedia should have an article, but the significance of that voice should be verified by references to the critics who have been influenced by Ebert. If Joseph Campbell referred in his own lifetime to Ebert as a collaborator, that is significant (but not enough). My own thinking is that Ebert is at least marginally notable even if only because there is scholarly controversy about his notability, but that is only my thinking. Comments?

Robert McClenon (talk) 20:28, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

In addition to any critics who have been influenced by Ebert, any who have cited Ebert extensively or who have responded to Ebert, even or especially in opposition, would be relevant to his notability. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:10, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Hwarwick (talk) Interesting commentary. I wanted to get the draft up ASAP - will add references soon - hopefully that will settle this draft a bit more. I haven't edited anything in a while, so I am rather rusty... I think Ebert is very much worthy of inclusion in wikipedia - he's written an absurd number of books. Saying Amazon will "publish anything" isn't exactly true - they actually have a number of restrictions on what they will sell. Also, a critique of self-publishing isn't really fair *cough* Spinoza, Nietzsche, Proust...*cough* I am not really all that "up" on controversies here on wikipedia - frankly I just find his work really interesting, and was surprised that there was no wikipedia entry on him. So I did some digging for several weeks, and put together what I thought was a fairly objective and charitable article on him. As I said, I will modify it with some references when I can - probably in the next week or two. cheers! H — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hwarwick (talk • contribs) 23:13, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Brittani.baloga/sandbox

Isn't this article a COI?Thegooduser Let's Chat 23:22, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

link: {User:Brittani.baloga/sandbox

Hello, Thegooduser. This does seem to be an autobiography. Those are discouraged, but not forbidden, and there is nothing in particular that you ought to do about this. Currently there are no sources cited, and no particular indications of notability, but perhaps Brittani.baloga will correct that. I hope that user will read Wikipedia's Golden Rule and Your First Article. If it were moved from draft to mainspace in its current state, it would probably be deleted shortly. But that is exactly what draft space is for, to allow users to move from initial versions that clearly are not suitable for Wikipedia, to improved versions that might be. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:39, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

problem posting article

Since this in Memorial Day, I wanted to post an article I created about a Brit who emigrated to the U.S., served in the U.S. Army during the American Civil War and was wounded in battle, then helped create the first Virginia constitution which did not permit slavery, and also served in the Virginia Senate. His name was Edgar Allan, which creates lots of problems, both because those are the first two names of the rather famous Edgar Allan Poe, and because wikipedia redirects all searches for "Edgar Allan" to "Edgar Allen", which even has a disambiguation page. A slight complication is that the VirginiaHistorian, with whom I've been creating articles about members of that 1868 Virginia Constitutional Convention, spelled his name with the "e", probably because his source is a turn of the century Virginian named Pulliam who during the 1901 Virginia Constitutional Convention wrote a book about members of the 1868 Convention, which is often inaccurate. Quite simply, I've confirmed that the next-to-last letter of his last name is "a" rather than "e" in both a recent and cited article in the encyclopediavirginia and in the books authored by Earl Swem on behalf of Virginia's General Assembly, but I can't get the new article posted. I don't know how to eliminate the apparent redirect of "Edgar Allan" to "Edgar Allen" and would appreciate your help to honor this soldier's service (even if it isn't as polished as I would like).Jweaver28 (talk) 19:19, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello ,Jweaver28, and welcome to the Teahouse. I have moved your sandbox to Draft:Edgar Allan That will give me a chance to look over the draft and its sources, and see if it seems ready for the main article space. If I think it is, I will see about handling the name issues. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:52, 28 May 2018 (UTC) Fixing ping: @Jweaver28: DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:53, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

He satisfies political notability guidelines as having served in the Virginia Senate, and the draft should be accepted, not as a soldier but as a senator. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:34, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Jweaver28. I agree with Robert McClenon that he is clearly notable, so I deleted the redirect and moved your draft to Edgar Allan. Please flesh out the references that are bare URLs and turn them into full bibliographic references. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:13, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks to you both. Thanks too for cleaning up the references. Unfortunately, I have to attend to other (postponed to get this done) matters the rest of today and probably tomorrow, so I'll get to the ref cleanup in a few days. I especially want to mention the author or authors of the Encyclopedia Virginia articles, but I'm not good at citation form.Jweaver28 (talk) 21:22, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Jweaver28 I have cleaned up the citation formatting and combined duplicate citations. You might want to take a look at my edits as models for future citations. I have included the authors of the Encyclopedia Virginia articles. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:55, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Draft page policy

According to Wikipedia:Drafts the draft space is used for creating and developing new articles, is there a right way or a wrong way to use the draft space to create a draft? The above mentioned page about drafts does not mention the accepted policy about time limits concerning an article's creation in respect to its development, should it have a more finished look at the time of its creation or is it acceptable to finish it over the span of a couple days? I know that a lot of people edit new articles in their sandbox, but I'm curious when it's a good time to move it to drafts and the draft space in general. Any tips would be appreciated. Coryphantha (talk) 18:13, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Coryphantha. In most cases, use of either your sandbox or draft space is entirely optional for logged in editors. You can take hours, days, weeks or months to develop your drafts before moving them to main space or submitting them for review to Articles for Creation. Drafts which have not been edited at all in six months are subject to deletion, but otherwise, you are free to work as quickly or as slowly as you want. You can start a draft as just random notes and links that look nothing like a finished article, and refine it and develop it over time. Many of my articles started out as a single bare URL to the most comprehensive source I can find about the topic, and I often develop that into a list of bibliographic references before I even start writing prose. That is my style and you may take a different approach. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:26, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Coryphantha, there are very few restrictions on drafts. There are still a few things you can't do even in draft space (e.g., violate copyright, attack a living person, or blatantly advertise something), but other than that, drafts are not required to be in a mainspace-ready state when created, nor to demonstrate that they pass mainspace notability standards. The purpose of a draft is to work at getting a draft in a state that it's ready to go into the encyclopedia. If you're still in the process of working on one, you can take a couple days, a couple months, or even a couple years to develop your draft if need be. Drafts only get deleted when they've clearly been abandoned, and even then if you want to pick it back up later, you just have to ask and it'll be undeleted for you. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:35, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the helpful explanation, both of you, that helps immensely. Coryphantha (talk) 00:25, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Sign

There is unsigned comment by an user. How can make his sign appear there? Just like one bot does it. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 15:47, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

You'd use the {{unsigned}} template. Documentation of how is at the template page, it's pretty straightforward. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:55, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade: Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harshrathod50 (talk • contribs) 11:58, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Harshrathod50,and welcome to the Teahouse. You can also use {{unsigned2}} which does the same thing, but is more convenient if the info is coming from the page history, I think. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:16, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Template {{xsign}} is easier still, in that situation. --David Biddulph (talk) 02:03, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

@David Biddulph: Thanks! Now I will remember all these templates. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 06:00, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

@DESiegel: Thanks! Harsh Rathod Poke me! 19:08, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Swahili Wikipeda

Hello,

I was wondering how I can go about publishing an article in Swahili Wikipedia.

Best, — Preceding unsigned comment added by YVVie98 (talk • contribs) 01:20, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

HiYVVie98, Welcome to Teahouse. Go to the Wikipedia Swahili page here. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:14, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

How many sources do I need?

Greeting

I am trying to get a very short text published. It has only 6 or 7 sentences and I have cited 2 sources. However, it was rejected due to luck of notability. Notability is defined by significant coverage by third parties. I included 2 third party sources which I think is enough for such a short text. Please help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aarav khatri (talk • contribs) 02:20, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

@Aarav khatri: You will need sources that are not just reprinted press releases, and are actually references that are reliable. The references cited in the draft don't even list an author, indicating that they're just reprinted releases, not original and independent content. You will need substantial amounts of reliable and independent reference material, not just reprinted press releases. No number of non-independent or non-reliable sources count toward notability. If that type of referencing doesn't exist, the subject isn't an appropriate one for an article at this time at all. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:22, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

My edit was reverted despite references provided.

Please help me with the contributions I made yesterday to the Personal life section in the profile of Hafþór Júlíus Björnsson. My edit and updating of information was allowed yesterday, whereas upon checking right now I noticed the section has gone back to being what it was before the edit. I have not received any notification of any problems. What has happened? Please let me know?

UditaCh (talk) 05:13, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, UditaCh. You should discuss the matter at Talk:Hafþór Júlíus Björnsson with Hrodvarsson, who reverted your edits. If you look at the article's history, that editor left an edit summary explaining their reasoning. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:19, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

[Edit conflict] You asked this identical question on the Help desk, where it has already received two answers, as well as on your own talk page using the {{help me}} template. Please do not ask the same question in more than one forum, as it may cause unnecessary duplication of effort by we volunteer editors, and parallel discussions can lead to confusion. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.26.63 (talk) 06:23, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Follow-up to New article not showing up on search engines

Hi,

The article for David Williams-Ellis (sculpture) was accepted but has now disappeared. Please can you let me know why and what I need to do to get it reinstated?

Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmmaJayneRW (talk • contribs) 08:15, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

@EmmaJayneRW: If you click the article link, David Williams-Ellis (sculptor), you see a red box which says that the article was deleted for being a copyright violation. You'll also see the name of the deleting administrator; you can post to their talk page if you have questions about the deletion, but note that copyright infringing text won't be restored to any Wikipedia pages. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 08:22, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

How to edit a link?

Hi,

Unsure how to edit a link from an outdated article (California's AB 540). The link there is not working, and I will update. Unsure how, however. Assistance appreciated. Lalin Mendez (talk) 09:13, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Lalin Mendez, welcome to the Teahouse. I guess you refer to California Assembly Bill 540 (2001). Which link are you referring to and what do you want to replace it with? References are usually edited in the section where the reference is used and not in the "References" section where it is displayed. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:03, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

coordinates for historic sites

It comes up at Talk:Registered Buildings of the Isle of Man#No 241, that an editor User:Agljones questions the adding of coordinates based on Google satellite view. I created the list-article and identified all the coordinates it includes, by use of Google satellite view and Google street view, matching up to photos and maps about the historic sites. The editor questions the addition of coordinates with comments about Original research and Copyright violation (which I don't understand) and perhaps more reasons. The editor probably has other complaints which I won't try to characterize, which possibly would benefit from Teahouse discussion, too. But I just want to ask if anyone else could comment whether it is okay for editors to add coordinates for buildings, etc., based on our looking up places in Google satellite view. --Doncram (talk) 21:31, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

@Doncram: The question of the necessity for, and acceptable means of, sourcing coordinates is rather a vexed one, which has been discussed a number of times in different contexts at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates (and I suppose elsewhere). The general consensus of editors seems to be that if Google Maps or some other mapping service clearly shows a feature at a certain location, the coordinates of that location can be given in an article without a need for further sourcing. For listed buildings in Great Britain, for instance, I frequently use the maps included at the bottom of the Historic England online list entries (like this one) to find the relevant location, then find the corresponding location on the Google satellite view in the GeoLocator tool and copy the coordinates into the article. I guess that in some sense this could be considered to constitute original research, but to my mind, and I think in the general opinion of editors, the Historic England page is a sufficient source for establishing the correct location.

In the specific case you're referring to—which I've been following because the OP at Talk:Registered Buildings of the Isle of Man#No 241 used the {{geodata-check}} template, and I monitor the maintenance category Category:Talk pages requiring geodata verification that the template adds—I think that the map included in the registration document, which is given as a reference in the relevant row of the table, is a perfectly adequate source for the coordinates of the structure in question (whether or not it's still in existence). The original poster there seems to be somewhat unreasonable. Deor (talk) 15:03, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

RAF Goldsbrough

Your information about RAF Goldsborough fails to mention that the last inhabitants of this small camp,was Number 5131 RAF Bomb Disposal Squadron RAF It was occupied by two flights of RAF personell who were employed to check for and clear Fylingdales moor of any potential unexplored ordinance remaining from when it was a military excercise area during WW2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:160A:2A00:E1D0:4CAB:7746:2EA (talk) 13:09, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

If you have a reference to a published reliable source you can add the information to the article, or suggest an amendment on the article's talk page. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:10, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Undo while editing?

Is there a way to undo changes while I'm editing an article? I'm not talking about reverting, but say while I'm in the middle of editing an article, I accidentally delete a few sentences I did not mean to delete (like by holding down the "delete" key when I meant to use the "backspace" key.) Is there any way to reverse that without losing all the changes I made before the error? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joelkfla (talk • contribs) 04:24, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

In my browsers, holding down the control key and pressing the Z key will undo the last part of the edit. Dbfirs 05:27, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Joelkfla, Good day. On the top left corner underneath the "Article" there are 2 arrows signs. Click the one on the left and it will bring you back to last edit / last word. Cheers! CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:04, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

That's interesting. The only arrow that I have is the browser back arrow that takes me to the previous page, losing all edits. Is there a Wikipedia option that I haven't switched on? Dbfirs 10:45, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA has enabled the 2017 wikitext editor by selecting "New wikitext mode" or "Automatically enable all new beta features" at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-betafeatures. The left arrow does the same as Ctrl+Z. Joelkfla is not using this editor. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:12, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Joelkfla, Dbfirs, and PrimeHunter:, Thank you PrimeHunter and indeed I use VisualEditor tool. - Dbfirs and Joelkfla - see here if you are interested. - VisualEditor. Cheers! CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:32, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I have tried the Visual Editor, but there are some things I don't like about it. I guess I'll have to get used to it. And BTW, is there an automated way to add replies here? I just went into Edit Source and typed this. Joelkfla (talk) 15:04, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I think I'll stick with my control-Z because that's what I've been using for many years. Dbfirs 16:52, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Question concerning COI disclosure and images copyrights

Hi, I was wondering if I did the right procedure concerning the disclosing of my COI with this article : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ajay_Mathur. I used the template from here : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Paid_editors. But I want to be sure I placed it at the correct places (talk page and my user talk page).

I have another question concerning the copyrights of some images I tried to upload. I asked my client to provide me a written authorization to use his images on Wikipedia (he is the copyright owner). Here's what he sent me in a pdf (which I did not upload here, but you will understand what he meant) : This is what he wrote in the document --- 28 May 2018 Permission to use and share all the images To whom it may concern, I hereby grant Mr. Gabriel Babeux (user:Gbabeux) the right to use and share all the images for my page on Wikipedia. Thank you and best regards,

His signature (hand written) ---

Would this work out ? Or does he need to completely release the copyrights on those images in order for them to be illegible fro Wikipedia ? Thank you in advance ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gbabeux (talk • contribs) 17:11, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Gbabeux, thank you for declaring your COI.

With regards to the images, since Wikipedia is shared under a license that means that everyone can copy our content here, one can never release anything to just Wikipedia. The content needs to be free to use for everyone. c:Commons:Email templates could be useful. You can read more here: Commons:OTRS. /Julle (talk) 17:21, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Upage

Im not sure if this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Amitgahlyan06 violates the upage rules.Thegooduser Let's Chat 01:01, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello again Thegooduser and welcome back to the Teahouse.

That userpage has been blanked by another editor, who seems to agree that at least some of the content that was there was in violation of user page guidelines. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:36, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I have reverted the blanking, as I don't see this as falling outside the guidelines of what may be on a user page at WP:UP. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:24, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

How to create a Biography of a living person

I want to create the Biography of a personality.

I already tried to create a page, created an account under a username' and created a page that appears under Sandbox page.

Is it possible to change Sandbox page to fully as a BLP page and name of the person appears in URL?

Is there any step-wise instructions to create a BLP page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uanmedia (talk • contribs) 13:12, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Uanmedia! Welcome to Wikipedia. We're happy you want to help out here. Have you looked at Wikipedia:Your first article? It's a guide to create articles in general.

However, you might want to consider if writing about the biography of the founder of the organisation you work for is a good idea – it sounds like you could have a conflict of interest. If you do that in your line of work, it would be considered paid editing. /Julle (talk) 14:51, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Julle The question is still unanswered. How a beginner can create a biography page of a personality?

A biography about a living person is just like any other article in most aspects, so the guide I linked to is probably the best step-by-step instruction we have. The most important thing to think about is to take extra care with sources, especially for any controversial statements, when it comes to biographies of living persons. However, I strongly encourage you to read what I write about conflict of interest and paid editing. /Julle (talk) 15:58, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Here are some steps to follow, Uanmedia:

First, review our guideline on notability, our policy on Verifiability, and our specific guideline on the notability of people. Consider whether your subject clearly meets the standards listed there.
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.
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} 17:53, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

AFC: Dhruv Prashant Patel

Whilst New Page Patrolling, I came across a new page for Dhruv Prashant Patel which was templated to indicate it was nearly completing its passage through WP:AFC. Weirdly, it had no citations, so I put a WP:BLPPROD notice on it straight away, and went off to find (and question!) the AFC reviewer who might have been reviewing this. I'm not familiar with making that link back to an AFC reviewer, but I can't trace any evidence of any reviewer working on this article. It looks like the page creaetor has added this template themselves when they started the page. Have I missed something blindingly obvious here in the page edit history? I have limited access (and time) at the moment via a mobile phone to investigate, so would welcome a second pair of experienced eyes on this. It appears to have gone to AFC on May 9th, 20 days prior to its creation. Thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:44, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Nick Moyes. That page was moved to mainspace by the creator, Englishseva, and does not appear to have ever been reviewed, commented on, or approved by any AfC reviewer. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:30, 28 May 2018 (UTC) Fix ping @Nick Moyes: DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:31, 28 May 2018 (UTC) @Englishseva: DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:32, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

First, it is common for an article originator to move the article from draft space into article space themselves. Since AFC is optional, there is no rule against doing this. I do see that the article was tagged as G11, but the speedy deletion was declined. I also see that the author said, on the talk page, in response to the G11, that they would like the article to remain in draft while they are working on it. However, the author moved it out of draft. One possible action would be to move the page back to draft in response to the talk page note. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:43, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Done. It is back in draft space. User:Nick Moyes - You didn't miss anything. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:46, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Because it was moved to mainspace with {{AFC submission}} still in place, it appeared to be in tjhe process of approval by an AfC re\viewer. This was misleading. If the creator or another editor moves a page from draft to mainspace without going through an AfC review that is fine, but {{AFC submission}} should be removed in such a case. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:48, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

User:DESiegal, User:Nick Moyes - Usually if the {{AFC submission}} template is still in place in article space, it means that it was moved by the author or another editor who is not a reviewer. The template is removed by the script if an AFC reviewer does a regular Accept. So if the template is still there, it was promoted outside of AFC. While AFC is optional, I find that taking a close look at articles that are in article space but still have the template is worthwhile; often an AFD nomination is in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:21, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you DESiegel and Robert McClenon, that's helpful. I would have moved it back to draft myself, had I not wanted to undermine an AFC reviewer's actions. (Though I wasn't sure one had actually been involved). Much appreciated, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:17, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon and Nick Moyes: The documentation for {{AFC submission}} says When a submission is moved into mainspace, it produces the "created" message {{AFC submission/created}}. Perhaps it should not act like that, but it currently does. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:32, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

User:DESiegel - Yes, but the AFC Created template does not display on the article. There is nothing unusual or striking about the appearance of an article that was Accepted by an AFC reviewer. An article that was Moved by the submitter or a non-AFC editor displays the template, so that it can be seen to be in progress. An article that was Accepted looks like a normal article, which it is. (I have accepted enough articles that I think I know, even though I have declined a lot more drafts than I have accepted.) If an article was Accepted, it does show on the talk page as having been accepted, and that is okay. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:51, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Quite true, Robert McClenon. However the text of {{AFC submission/created}} is This article, <name>, has recently been created via the Articles for creation process. The reviewer is in the process of closing the request, and this tag should be removed soon. That pretty strongly implies that the page was reviewed and approved by an AfC Reviewer, which in this case is not correct, nor would be in any case where the originator moved a draft to mainspace without waiting for a reviewer to approve. As that may be more common than a tempalte remaining briefly during transition, the wording of the Created tempalte is perhaps not optimal. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:13, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, User:DESiegel. I would reword your statement about the wording of the Created template. I don't think that it is "perhaps not optimal", because I think that it is wrong. It misrepresents what has happened to the draft. I have never seen it when the reviewer was in the process of closing the request, and often when the article was moved by the submitter. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:09, 29 May 2018 (UTC)