Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 942

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 935

←

Archive 940

Enquiry

I will like to create an article about Sozo Networks and Empowerment foundation a Non governmental Organization in Nigeria, I want to know if its a notable Topic  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oluwaseyi Ale (talk • contribs) 12:16, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

@Oluwaseyi Ale: Thanks for asking! Many of our new editors just jump right in making an article, only to be disappointed when their topic isn't notable; you've taken initiative on this one. However, I don't know much about this company you speak of, so I can't tell if it's notable; WP:N is our notability policy, and WP:GNG is simpler. Basically, if the organization has received coverage in the news (has it been mentioned by many third-party reliable sources to source information to?) then it is notable, and if it hasn't, it isn't. Welcome to the Teahouse, thanks for asking, and happy editing! -A lad insane (Channel 2) 13:13, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Section : Studio albums

Hello,

How can I insert the details of the albums on a band page like I did on this page in french : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Melisane78/Brouillon

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melisane78 (talk • contribs) 16:45, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

@Melisane78: Check out {{Infobox album}}, you are not forced to figure out how "fair use" cover images work here. –84.46.53.155 (talk) 01:49, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Melisane78. I took a look at the French version of your article and noticed that no references were used. I am also assuming that you are fluent in French. I really can't help you moving/translating the French version into English because of the lack of references. I have a suggestion: work on the French version of the article so that it has good references and then ask someone to look at it. See WP:NOT to see if the article meets the notability guidelines. Best Regards, Barbara ✐✉ 14:06, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Request to protect my userpage

Nowadays, there is a lot of vandalism on Wikipedia. So, I request the administrators to protect my userpage, so that only I can edit my userpage, not even the administrators, chrckusers, extended confirmed users, etc.Lord Thomas Babington Macaulay (talk) 13:59, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Protection_policy#User_pages. AFAICT, there's no current problem at your userpage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:05, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

And the form of protection you seek does not exist. Lectonar (talk) 14:16, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Pius Olakunle Osunyikanmi

Why my article is not yet approve? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olakunle P. (talk • contribs) 11:09, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Declined 10 April. Reasons given. Resubmitted. Thousands of article waiting for review, so may take months. Meanwhile, you can work on improving the draft. See your Talk page for suggestions. David notMD (talk) 15:17, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

There is a larger problem here. Your User page has the same content as your proposed article. This is not allowed. (See Wikipedia:User pages). Expect that your User page will soon be blanked. This will not affect your draft. However, people are advised to not attempt to create an autobiography. An explanation was left on your Talk page. David notMD (talk) 15:30, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Can I paste my article here to be reviewed by the experts in here?

Can I paste my article here to be reviewed by the experts in here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elvic123 (talk • contribs) 15:22, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

@Elvic123: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. It's unnecessary to paste it here, as you can just link to it by placing the page title in double brackets, like I will do for your Sandbox page here: User:Elvic123/sandbox. If that is the page you are referencing, it is currently not appropriate for a Wikipedia article at this time, as it is completely unsourced. I'm also not clear on if this athlete meets the notability guidelines for soccer/football players written at WP:NFOOTBALL. Please understand that successfully creating a new article is very difficult; you may want to read Your First Article and make use of the new user tutorial which will help you learn about the article creation process. You can then submit your draft for a review using Articles for Creation(don't do this now, as it will be rejected). 331dot (talk) 15:35, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Ok thanks. How do I add source to the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elvic123 (talk • contribs) 17:37, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Elvic123 See WP:CITE for information on citing sources. 331dot (talk) 09:25, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Could you review my sandbox article and suggest what more I need to do? How do I add external link? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elvic123 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

What you have at the moment in your sandbox are four bare URLs at the end. It's better to use {{cite web|url=…|title=…|author=…|date=…|accessdate=April 18, 2019}} (or similar) and put the references at the end of the statement or paragraph (after punctuation, period, comma, etc.), where they are supposed to show the source of your info. –84.46.52.200 (talk) 17:42, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Publishing

Can I submit multiple articles for publishing at the same time from different sandboxes or do I need to wait?

Hi SlyKiinz and welcome to the Teahouse. Yes, you can have as many sandboxes and drafts as you wish, but you might annoy reviewers if you submit a whole batch of unreferenced stubs. Please read WP:Your first article and ensure that each draft has multiple independent WP:Reliable sources before submitting for review. You might also like to read WP:Referencing for beginners. Dbfirs 17:48, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I had submitted info that is going to be useful for sugarcane farmers.

I am expert in sugarcane farming machine,

 spendung 15 hrs daily about sugarcane harvesting machine,

last night i try to edit the page of sugarcane harvester,there re may linkins dont even work , but I get a rejection message and my edit page is restored. whats is the problem , I removed the links that dont work any more Iam i wrong, let me know — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arbattachment (talk • contribs) 16:51, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

HEre is the link that dont work http://www.bae.ksu.edu/precisionag/Papers/Fiber%20Optic%20Yield%20Monitor%20for%20a%20Sugarcane%20Harvester.pdf

please remove it from the page , links dont work , is of no use to any our wiki visistors. links below this link also dont woru .

or make me a proper editor for this page may be I can mage it properly

what ever I do some one keeps restoring it . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arbattachment (talk • contribs) 16:55, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I assume this is about our Sugarcane harvester article. Yes, the link is dead, so I've added a "deadlink" note. Perhaps someone can find the new location of the pdf, or find it on an archive site? Dbfirs 17:18, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Added an Internet Archive link to the archived PDF and the title. GermanJoe (talk) 17:41, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

@Arbattachment: Also, to be very clear, Wikipedia is no PR platform to promote your company and its products. Your link additions and promotional edits have been reverted for this reason. Please read WP:COI, if you intend to contribute with non-promotional edits under a new username. GermanJoe (talk) 17:56, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Need help with Twinkle

Hello, I was wondering how you would go about reverting vandalism using Twinkle. I've been looking up videos to help with this, but the don't seem to help me.

Any answers will be greatly appreciated!

Hieucapps (talk) 10:56, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Hieucapps,and welcome to the Teahouse. First off, have you looked at WP:TWINKLE, and the associated documentation at Wikipedia:Twinkle/doc? That should give you the instructions you need for activating Twinkle, and how to rollback bad faith edits and possibly warn vandals about those edits. I'd be interested to know which videos you were looking at? Regards from sunny Spain, Nick Moyes (talk) 17:24, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello Nick Moyes, sorry for the late reply - I just now saw your reply. I appreciate the answer you have given me.

The videos I have been watching were https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbnunwHVRTM and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35cL9LfO4-4.

Thank you, Hieucapps (talk) 6:19, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

@Hieucapps: Thank you for those links-I'll check them out when I'm back home on my PC. Meanwhile, do you need any more support from me or other Teahouse hosts, having gone through the links I gave you? We're here to help. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 19:04, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

How to Handle Possible Plagiarism from Website?

I noticed an article about an educational institution that has wording and sentence structure that are eerily similar to the institution's website. I am not sure which came first--whether the article copied the website, or whether the website copied the article. I am copy-editing the article, but what is the proper thing to do regarding the editor who wrote those sentences? Is there a proper way to bring the alleged plagiarism to the editor's attention? Thanks. – Kekki1978 talk 17:48, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I guess what I'm asking is whether there is a template I should use, or is the expected thing to just mention it on the editor's Talk page, or what. Thanks. – Kekki1978 talk 17:50, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

@Kekki1978: Check the copyright date on the website and compare to the edit history of the article. Many websites do copy Wikipedia, so good job on realizing that as a possibility! If you do deduce that the website came first, then go to the editor's talk page and leave a message- a rephrasing of what you said here would be great. Thanks for asking, and happy editing! -A lad insane (Channel 2) 18:35, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Many websites 'borrow' content from Wikipedia, and if so, are asked to acknowledge the source. Some do, some don't. David notMD (talk) 18:47, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

@A lad insane:@David notMD: Thank you, both, for the guidance! – Kekki1978 talk 19:19, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

biography and article submissions

Question for Angus WOOF but anyone can respond.

Angus WOOF said regarding biography submission ofMpower2 ( mark L. Power)Biography is rather disorganized and should be sorted better by chronological order. It also needs a lead paragraph to show that his most important Wikipedia-notable achievements are. Need secondary sources independent of the subject.

I am taking on your observations with a resubmit soon. But I will continue to have a problem with citations and secondary sources for the following reasons.The time covered (early 1970s through 2000) and especially the subject covered (fine-art photography in Washington DC) was very poorly covered in the mainstream press at the time. The fine art photography actvities that were covered were written by me for the Washington Post so I have no choice but to cite my own articles. The other difficulty is the age of the citations - the Washington Post archives only go back to 1997 and most of my citations are from the 70s and 80s. Many of the smaller alternative publications did have better coverage but they also don't have accessible archives and in fact most have ceased to publish.

I am currently working on another Wikipedia article which seeks to redress that lack of historical evidence called "Washington DC fine art Photography, 1967-2000" which will have many of the same citation problems. One of the motivations for posting this on Wikipedia is because perhaps others conversant with the period will see it and contribute their own edits to make up deficiencies in the citations as well as the content of the article.

Thanks in advance for your thoughts

Mpower2 - Mark L. Power — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpower2 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

@Mpower2: Just an FYI - the older newspaper sources don't have to be online to be used - you can still cite reliable sources that aren't on the web, as long as someone can look at a library archive and check them. The NY Public Library has searchable archives for older issues. [[1]] TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:36, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Prevalent Musical Figures/Artists pages are not approved?

Hi, How do I get musical artist pages approved? I did two articles for two well-known local artists from Auburn, Alabama, and both were denied. How do I get them approved ? If lesser-known Nashville music artists can have pages, why can't the well-known local artists also have pages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musiclover849 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

@Musiclover849: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Please review Wikipedia's notability criteria for musicians written at WP:BAND. Any musician must meet at least one of the listed criteria, as shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources, in order to merit an article here. Each article is judged on its own merits, see WP:OSE. If you see other articles that you feel do not meet the notability criteria, please propose their deletion at Articles for Deletion. 331dot (talk) 21:33, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Article Deleted

Hello, an article I published was deleted and I'd like to get the text back for future use. Can you let me know how to do so? Thanks.Egw1119 (talk) 22:17, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

@Egw1119: See WP:REFUND for guidance. RudolfRed (talk) 22:21, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

How to report vandal

some one just put their selfie on the Elizabeth Acton page, the first picture under Early Life. how to report/change? I'm just the tiniest of gnomes but I am horribly affronted by page vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alayambo (talk • contribs) 09:14, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

It has been reverted, as have a number of subsequent incidents of vandalism. You'll find advice at WP:Vandalism. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:52, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Alayambo: Thanks for spotting & reporting the vandalism. Acwilson9 (talk) 23:19, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Manual of Style

I understand that if an article has strong national ties to a particular country, it should be written in that country's variety of English. I found one caveat. In an article about a person, which variety of English should it be written in if a person was born in a country that they don't reside in? Is there a guideline to this? Should I seek a consensus on the Manual of Style talk page? I am asking this because I was wondering whether I should propose that Meghan, Duchess of Sussex should be written in British English rather than American English. Mstrojny (talk) 17:21, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

There are arguments for both varieties of English in this case, so I would go with the fall-back rule that the variety first used should be retained. This would be American English, dating back to 2007 with "Theater". If you look at the talk page of that article, you will see the advice to use American English. Dbfirs 17:26, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Dbfirs I understand that on the talk page, it says to use American English. I will not propose a change there. Should I go to the MOS talk page and seek consensus for which variety of English should be used when someone lives in a country they were not born at? Mstrojny (talk) 17:36, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't think the manual of style needs to dictate that the variety of English matches the country of residence, though this will usually be the case if there are no other considerations. You could put forward an argument that Meghan is now closely associated with British English, and you will get both support and opposition. Personally, I don't think it is worth the hassle to try to change the status quo. Dbfirs 17:42, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

As Mark Twain satirized in Huckleberry Finn, it is possible that Americans are more interested in British royalty and nobility than the British are. Acwilson9 (talk) 23:37, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

question

I have no idea what to do sir — Preceding unsigned comment added by As241fsazdatry7 (talk • contribs) 00:12, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

@As241fsazdatry7: Welcome to Wikipedia. To get started, check out the Tutorial or the learning game Wikipedia Adventure. RudolfRed (talk) 00:17, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I am a newbie

Hi I am Maaz. I hope every one is having a good time. I want to contribute and i am looking for some one to help me with tips and tricks to learn as quickly as possible.

I hope to have a good time in your community.

All the Best!

Regards Maaz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maaz47123 (talk • contribs) 08:55, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

@Maaz47123: Welcome to Wikipedia. To get started, check out the Tutorial or the learning game Wikipedia Adventure. --Gronk Oz (talk) 11:38, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

My Article is not appearing in search

I have published my first article lately and its a report about terrorism. Incidents happened in last five years, how do i check if it has been published and its being useful for others? its not even appearing in search. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maaz47123 (talk • contribs) 09:21, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

@Maaz47123: Apart from your questions here at the Teahouse, the only other edits that are recorded for your account are to your own User page, User:Maaz47123. That seems to be where you have put your new article, though it's not where it belongs - that page is for information about you. However, before you pursue that any further, you should check the existing articles at List of terrorist incidents. If you think you have anything to add, you should build on those existing articles rather than starting a new one. I hope this isn't discouraging - it surprises many new editors to discover that writing a new article is one of the most challenging tasks. Instead, I suggest starting out by improving existing articles so your information is made available to readers in the most accessable way.--Gronk Oz (talk) 11:46, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Maaz47123, Welcome to Teahouse. You did not submit your article (the content is on your user page - see here User:Maaz47123). Pls read WP:Your First Article and referencing to familiar yourself the requirements needed prior submit the aritcle for review. You could use Wikipedia Article Wizard to create your draft page. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:49, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

profile pic uploading

how i can upload my profile on wiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vijay dhanoutu (talk • contribs) 11:28, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

@Vijay dhanoutu: Welcome to the Teahouse. I think you may have a misunderstanding about what Wikipedia is - we are not a social medium and we do not have "profiles" of users. Instead, we have volunteer authors who write articles on notable subjects to build an encycolpedia. Each author has their own User page (yours is User:Vijay dhanoutu) where you can put information relevant to your Wikipedia editing (such as what languages you speak).--Gronk Oz (talk) 11:51, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

How to get Traffic to your website

As we all know that making a website is not a big thing, but the main thing is to rank your website in search engine and for which we do SEO. Here is the problem my website is rank on Google or different search engines, but the traffic to my site is low. My question is how to get the traffic to my website? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alijaffary (talk • contribs) 11:31, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

This page is for asking help with editing Wikipedia, so this is not the place to advise on how to get traffic to your website. Having said that, making a website is not a big thing, but building a good website that will attract traffic is a very big thing, on which businesses spend vast amounts of time and money. The website you linked to is confusing and poorly designed, and the English is so bad that it is unlikely to attract any customers. I suggest you seek advice from a professional website designer.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:01, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Image upload

Good day guys! I am currently working on an article and needed to upload a descriptive image, I had recently uploaded the image successfully at Wikipedia commons and don't how to get it uploaded on my sandbox.

Please how do I upload an image for an article(A draft yet to be reviewed) on my sandbox? Ohanwe Emmanuel .I. (talk) 12:25, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Just link it like you would for any other picture: [[File:NSE President Otis Anyaeji.png|thumb|caption goes here]]. For more help with images, see Help:Pictures. Eman 235/talk 12:29, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Expertise

Is it necessary for me to have expertise in a topic to edit a page on it? For example, is it appropriate to edit a page on a disease if I haven't studied medicine? I'm sorry if this question is addressed somewhere else, I'm really new and kind of intimidated by Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LemonOrangeLime (talk • contribs) 19:10, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

@LemonOrangeLime: Welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for wanting to make it better. No, you don't need to be an expert on a topic to create an article for it. You can learn about that process at WP:YFA. It is not easy to create an article if you are new to Wikipedia, so you may want to spend time improving existing articles until you have some experience. Check out WP:TUTORIAL and the learning game WP:ADVENTURE RudolfRed (talk) 19:27, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes....but you are not using an accepted referencing format at articles such as Banti's Syndrome. And remember to 'sign' your comments here and at Talk pages by typing four of ~ at the end. David notMD (talk) 22:54, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

@LemonOrangeLime: ...also, the Teahouse is a good place to ask any question related to editing Wikipedia. Worst-case scenario, we tell you to ask it at another, better-suited place (but you might not know which before asking!). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 13:12, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Translation

Hello everyone. I tried to translate a page from German to English. However, after finishing the translation an error occured stating that I have no permission to create new pages. How do I get this permission? Thank you in advance. Have a nice day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Judith Otteneder (talk • contribs) 14:40, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Responded on user talk RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 15:09, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

More precisely, JO used the {{help me}} template to ask the same question at User talk:Judith Otteneder, and had an answer there. I believe standard practice would be to answer Teahouse questions on the Teahouse page, not on user talk, if the question has not been asked and answered anywhere else. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 13:16, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Use of other languages in English Wikipedia articles

Hello. What are the rules for using other languages in English Wikipedia articles? For example, I am writing an English article about a certain subject that concerns Chinese people without English names. Am I allowed to write their names directly in Chinese? Thanks.

— Saulnier Mullings (talk) 13:04, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Always consider the readers first. Most readers of the English WP will not be able to recognise, still less pronounce, Chinese characters. Therefore it is essential that a romanised form is used. It may make sense to use traditional script when discussing name variants. See Sun_Yat-sen#Names for an example of using all forms. MOS:ROMANIZATION and WP:CHINESE give policy in this matter. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 13:19, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I hope you don't mind if I ask you a few more questions which aren't directly related:

Should I be asking these questions here (replying to your reply, like I am doing now), or should I start a new section altogether?
Is there any way to be automatically notified when someone replies to me? I only found your reply by going to the Teahouse and manually locating my post yesterday.
When editing an article, how often should I "Publish Changes"? If I do it often, I have less risk of losing my edits if my computer crashes, but I will have to write many edit summaries for very small edits, and the edit history will be more cluttered. Is there a strict, official guideline?

Thank you once again.

– Saulnier Mullings (talk) 10:41, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

In general questions should be asked in an appropriate place. If it is a general question about editing WP, then here is fine – conversely a detailed question about a particular page should go to the talk page for the article. I personally would only start a new section if asking about a completely unrelated topic.
If the person replying want's to attract attention then there is the {{ping}} template. This is normally used to alert editors that they are being dragged into a conversation they weren't part of. More generally, if you ask a question then you should check back regularly. Your WP:WATCHLIST may help here.
Over the last 35 years my answer to this question (going back to text editors on files) has been along the lines of: how much re-typing do you want to do? If typing in continuous text, maybe every paragraph or two. Personally I tend to edit sections and save as I leave the section. You won't be wrong if you save too frequently, you may be angry if you don't save frequently enough!

HTH, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:48, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks a lot!

— Saulnier Mullings (talk) 14:04, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Please help

Hey i am trying to make a page about history please send me direct link so i can make the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by UsmanpakAli (talk • contribs) 13:50, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

It is not clear what you need. "History" is a very broad topic, and the article history already exists. Make sure the topic you want to write about is not already covered in the encyclopedia.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 14:16, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Doubt

Hai, I'm new to wikipedia editing. It's been two weeks that I'm here but I don't know what to do. How will I know that I need to edit something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RuksanaJalaludeen (talk • contribs) 14:47, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

@RuksanaJalaludeen:People approach editing in different ways. One way is to just making small edits whenever you see an improvement to be made. Another is to specialize in one area (eg. adding references to statements where a citation is needed, researching certain topics, creating tables). But I will say that most new editors get frustrated with having their work removed, often for reasons they don't understand. That is why we sometimes recommend new editors begin with The Wikipedia Adventure, since it will bring you up to speed quickly about the basics of editing at Wikipedia. Happy editing!--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 15:00, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Table fix

Hello Teahouse good and wise folk –

I don't fiddle enough with tables and so I do not see the easy fix. The List of Seattle Mariners Opening Day starting pitchers is missing the closing bracket or something, so that all the article references are piled into the last cell of the table. I made a failed effort to fix this. Sometimes I have the patience to figure it out but not today. Many thanks GeeBee60 (talk) 14:01, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi GeeBee60. It was fixed by [2]. The table end |} must be at the start of a line. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:49, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks thanks GeeBee60 (talk) 15:07, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Needing help

Hey guys! How can I find and add a reliable source and put a poster in my article? I'm new to Wikipedia and edit sources but I don't put reliable sources. I'm just pcreating a Punjabi movie article and need sources. Can you help me? We are the Great (talk) 14:57, 19 April 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by We are the Great (talk • contribs) 14:54, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

@We are the Great:Google is your best friend. You can also use any books, magazines, or newspapers that you may have access to. You may also reach out to the Wikipedia library get access to sources. Once you find a source, however, it is important that you add it to an article in the correct way. Watch the video on the right-hand side of this page to learn how.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 15:08, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

A self-demonstrating article about vandalism I created for the laughs

Here. Should this be a humorous policy page? ᴀɴᴏɴʏᴍᴜᴤᴤ ᴜᴤᴇʀ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 21:35, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

No. You should blank it. It serves no purpose and I personally see no humor in it at all. John from Idegon (talk) 22:49, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

+1 Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:52, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Per User page, AU claims to have retired. David notMD (talk) 23:00, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Maybe because they went to the supposedly newbie-friendly place and got told their work was shit by a gang of regulars?

Seriously, folks (@John from Idegon and Gråbergs Gråa Sång:). I understand that we cannot always muster diplomacy when it comes to self-promoting SPAs or obvious vandals, but that one was clearly a good-faith attempt at humor. You do not need to pretend something is funny or interesting when it is not, but you need to keep the Teahouse a friendly place. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 13:09, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorry Tigraan...in one way you are correct, but not the way you are claiming. Especially coming from a supposedly "retired" user, no one should have responded per DFTT. In the future, when you have a complaint with a fellow Teahouse host, take it the talk page and ping them. Doing the laundry in public is much more unfriendly than giving an honest answer. John from Idegon (talk) 16:01, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

New users being treated different?

Picking on newbies seems to be the case in reading some of the comments here, and also going by one of the 2 persons who's been removing all of my work. The main problem I'm having with this one person is his rudeness towards me. Anyway, he keeps removing the updates I made to the page as I only made it easier to read - and my work was removed at first without any reason given, then with a snye remark after I requested a reason for his actions. That's uncalled for and very rude, and if this is how all new users are treated, then that says something real bad about this place. Respect should be the number 1 thing and kindness should be shown to all. I'm new here and I'm gotta make some mistakes at first, that should be no big deal, plus I still got to learn all of the many different rules - so please give me and others who are new some time to learn the ropes without being rude to us. Thing is, I don't feel what I wanted added to the page in question was in any way in error at all, yet it was taken down without a reason given and when I explained why I made changes to improve the page, he ignored me.

Again, the page in question that I edited was changed back twice by this same person. He gave no reason the first time and the second time I counted what he noted and I feel I made my point to him. But now he doesn't write me back. So what am I suppose to do next? If I put my corrected info back up, my guess is he will just remove it again. I'm not saying who he is or what page he keeps changing back, but I will be happy to go into full detail as to who he is and what my reply to him was - if this is the place to do so. Is it? If not, where do we resolve this kind of issue? Kenotoo (talk) 21:28, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Kentoo, am I correct in assuming you are talking about this? Please realize that article has been here a long time, and that there are standard formats for broad types of articles. Instead of insisting on doing it your way, which isn't working, perhaps you should consider engaging the editor you are in conflict with on how to do it correctly? I'm sure he'd be happy to direct you to the appropriate guidelines to help you understand why what you are doing is incorrect. If you don't understand the links he gives you, come back here and ask for help. Everyone here is a volunteer (across the board. No one who works on English Wikipedia receives any compensation of any kind from Wikipedia for what they do. No one). Most editors want to work on what they want to work on. For many, training newer users isn't necessarily what they want to do. It isn't infrequent that you will receive very direct responses from other editors. That isn't rude. I see no evidence of anyone being rude to you. Article content is decided by consensus. You are editing against long standing consensus on how album articles should be laid out. Every new editor comes to Wikipedia with varying levels of misconceptions on how Wikipedia works. Those who stay lets go of those misconceptions when schooled by more experienced editors. Those who don't do not stay, either because they just don't enjoy working in our somewhat complicated systems or because their editing privileges get revoked. Listen and learn. Experience is the best teacher for most anything in life. This is no exception. John from Idegon (talk) 21:53, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I can clearly see why many new users leave, as some of you folks don't understand what the word "rude" mean for starters!

Yes, that page has been up for years and it has had missing and hard to read info on it for years. Why is incorrect track info allowed to stand on some pages - like that one, and when a person fixes the page and makes it easy to read - he is made to be the bad guy by another user? Please tell me what I did wrong on this page, since your many info pages - while helpful, doesn't cover this at all. This page in question makes no sense at all - it talks about track numbers that aren't noted anywhere on the page. So I fixed them so the personal info on the page made sense. So why was that removed? What did I do wrong there? Why is hard to understand info on this page being allowed to stand? No, I don get it at all. Please explain. Kenotoo (talk) 23:16, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

@Kenotoo: Perhaps a consensus for the edits can be made at the talk page of the article or at WikiProject Music or WikiProject Albums. See WP:BRD for more helpful tips related to that. Don't forget to keep your WP:COOL; it's a discussion, not a dance-off. It's not fun when edits get undone, especially ones that are done in good faith. StaringAtTheStars^✉Talk 00:55, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

To StaringAtTheStars.... Thank you kindly for that info. I ran an online message board for 21 years and understand all of that, and the points on that page are excellent. If only everybody else followed that advise! I didn't come here for any of this debating. I've seen so many mistakes at these pages for years that were never fixed - and within an hour of working on some of them, my work is taken down without any explanation - and not explaining why my work was taken down - is flat out rude. If it had to be taken down - fine, but nobody has yet told me what was wrong with what I placed up there. Kenotoo (talk) 07:26, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Kenotoo. You made a number of changes to The Rolling Stones (album) without leaving an edit summary explaining why; your changes were subsequently undone by Dan56 who also failed to leave an edit summary explaining why. Ideally, you both should've left edit summaries explaining why the edits were being made, not only for the benefit of the two of you but also for anyone else who might be trying to figure out what was going on. You then reverted the undo, and left this edit summary. When you describe yourself as an "old insider to the Stones" it makes it seem as if you're adding your own original research to the article; moreover, when you request that another editor email you before making any changes to "your work", it seems as if you're trying to claim some kind of ownership over article content. Neither of those two things are really in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, which might explain why you were reverted again. Edit summaries certainly should've been left by Dan56 explaining why your changes were reverted and his not doing so was not really helpful; at the same time, I wouldn't say it was rude per se.

That, however, should not be what we're focusing on though; you were WP:BOLD and subsequently WP:REVERTed by another editor, so now the best thing for you to do would be to WP:DISCUSS the changes you want to make at Talk:The Rolling Stones (album) and see what others think about them. Please not that it's Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, not Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, revert back, discuss. Anyway, try to show how the changes you want to make are in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. It could be (as pointed out above by John from Idegon) that Wikipedia articles about double articles number the tracks in a particular way as explained per Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Album article style advice#Track listing, but these are things you can discuss on the article's talk page or at WT:ALBUM. Now, just for reference, if you look at the "Track listing" section I linked to in the previous sentence, you find that it says the following:

For albums that were originally released on multiple discs, either CD or vinyl, the track numberings should start at 1 for each disc, like this, as opposed to continuous numbering, like this.

You were trying to number the tracks continuously which is probably why you were reverted, but once again it would've been much better if Dan56 had left an edit summary explaining this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:55, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

To Marchjuly First, there are already, several pages up on the Stones album pages alone that show the tracks continuously, and they have been that way for a long time. Why is it okay for that to be done on some pages and not on on other pages? Please explain, as nobody has yet. Plus, the "Personal" section to the album in question makes totally no sense as it is written because of this. So I solved that problem so the track numbers corresponded with what was/is written in the Personal part of the same page. I wasn't finished working on the page and I planned to add more info and citations, but when I did return only an hour later, Dan56 had already removed all of my work without any explanation as to why it was removed (regardless of what he is now claiming below, and the timestamps should prove this fact). As I noted, I'm new here and I learned from this that you shouldn't publish anything until you have it all down and finished first.... As far as me being "an old insider to the Stones", I didn't mean what you wrote (or did somebody else write that and not say who they were?). It only meant to say, that my info is good info and not just made up. Also written above is: "it seems as if you're trying to claim some kind of ownership over article content" No I am not, you are assuming wrong. I was only asking for common courtesy there, as I've also been a newspaper reporter/writer for over 40 years now and that's how it's done in the business by newspaper editors. But I guess common courtesy isn't followed here by Wiki editors? Again, I'm still learning the ropes here, but unlike Dan56, I will not be rude to others, especially newbies, who should be helped (as many are doing here, thanks) and not treated differently only because they are new Kenotoo (talk) 15:42, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I left a message at their talk page—explaining that they were introducing incorrect information into the article—soon after the reverts; see here. And I see it is still not registering. It would have been better if they were not so high-maintenance. Dan56 (talk) 13:18, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Dan56, come on now and tell the truth, as you know your didn't leave that message until after I had to ask you why your removed all of my work and you didn't explain why. Then you had to leave a uncalled for remark to me before you finally did. I did not leave any "incorrect information" on that page. Kenotoo (talk) 14:55, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Your obsessive interest and hang-up over not being properly coddled in interactions with another editor seems more important to you than rectifying the track numbers in the personnel section of the article you originally edited. There are numerous "newbies" vandalizing articles or introducing incorrect information--which you did; there is no such thing as "track 7 on side two" of the LP record--without an edit summary, yet you expected one from me justifying what you had not yourself in your first edit. You want to be treated as a newbie ("learning the ropes") when you want the niceties, and you want to be treated as an expert and veteran when you want your edits to not be challenged and do not want advice given to you by those who challenge them, or to be proven wrong; this is childish. I think there is a competency issue here, or one of hypocrisy and solipsism (on your part). I have offered a solution, several times before--replace the track numbers with the song titles, for the personnel section--which you have not responded to or commented on once in your repetitive, ramblings-on. So I am backing away from this dead-end debate, because what I value more than proving myself correct or right to others is my time, energy, and peace of mind. And that is my last lesson for you, as a newbie. Dan56 (talk) 16:01, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

To Dan56: It seems that all you want to do is engage in a flame war with me, state falsehoods about me, repeat yourself over and over again on things already covered, be rude, and make me look like I'm the bad guy here. So I'm "one of hypocrisy and solipsism"? I wonder if John from Idegon still thinks you aren't being rude here (or keeping a flame war going with that statement?)? You are being nothing but a bully. I have asked for advise more than once (here and on other pages), so I'm not going to repeat and defend myself to you anymore. I had already decided to take this to the next level, and will, so we will see what happens there. Kenotoo (talk) 06:42, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm happy to note and see that Dan56 took my advise that I offered him about his own advise, which he suggested to me a few days ago, and he took the time to solved the issue. Excellent! Believe me, Stones fans will by happy to see this and now the page reads correctly, other than there's just a couple of very minor changes needed that I will be happy to fix. But the main dispute is now solved, and I hope his nasty talk about me will now go away, since I'm not going away myself - and there's now another 5 Stones LPs from the '60s alone that have the same issue with track listings that make no sense. I guess now that Dan56 took the time to solve this first problem, I can take the time to do the rest, maybe doing so in fixing one LP per day so the track listing on these other LPs also make sense. Kenotoo (talk) 17:14, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I haven't looked into the details of this dispute, Kenotoo, but just to address your question, "Why is it okay for that to be done on some pages and not on on other pages?": it's important to remember that there are almost six million articles on the English Wikipedia and many of those will contain errors or not comply with policy. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:08, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

@Kenotoo: A content dispute (which what this mainly appears to be) is best resolved on the article talk pages per Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. You made a series of edits, but didn't leave an edit summary explaining why. Your intent might have been to make a change and then come back later and add a citation, but there was no way for Dan56 or anyone else to know such a thing. Moreover, that's not really a good approach to take to editing and it's much better to add content with corresponding sources supporting the content to the article at the same time and leave an edit summary explaining why; otherwise, it runs the risk of being removed or undone by another editor. Every time you click the "Publish changes" button, you agree to the Wikipedia's Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. This means anyone can come along and change what you added and even remove it if they feel it's not an improvement in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines and they don't have to wait a set period of time to do so.

Wikipedia is not the newspaper business and how things are done on Wikipedia may certainly be different from how things are done on other websites or by other businesses, etc. What matters with Wikipedia is whether things are done in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Wikipedia editors don't need to contact others in advance to let them know they are going to be undoing edits or making changes to articles. There are times when an editor probably should be WP:CAUTIOUS, but most of the time Wikipedia wants editors to be WP:BOLD; so, Dan56 kinda did exactly what Wikipedia wants him to do. Dan56, however, would've been better off leaving an edit summary explaining why he reverted your edits even if he thought you were some random editor making random changes because it would at least clarified why the edit was being reverted and possibly prevented the same content from being re-added again by you and avoided any possible hurt feelings. Dan56 did post on your user talk page five minutes after he made his second revert to try and explain things; editors are not constantly online and sometimes get WP:BUSY so responses to posts, etc. may take a little time but five minutes is pretty fast. Ideally, the discussion you two are having would should be on the article talk page and limited to discussing the content you're disagreeing upon and not to discussing each other because things start to breakdown fairly quickly when you do the latter. Perhaps, you both should take the dog for a walk, let things cool down a bit per WP:DISENGAGE, and try to restart the discussion on the article's talk page. You're going to need to show how the changes you want to make are in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines because you are the one wanting to make the change. If you're able to establish a consensus that they do, then Dan56 will have no choice but to honor that consensus no matter how much he may disagree with it if he's truly WP:HERE. If the two of you are unable to resolve things through discussion, then try and move to the next step of the dispute resolution process. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:40, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Formatting/indentation characters

Where is the use of characters such as ":" and "*" on talk pages described? Jmar67 (talk) 18:50, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Please see Help:Wikitext. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 19:19, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

And e.g. WP:THREAD or WP:INDENT for more about their use on talk pages. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:25, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

How do I push my article from my Sandbox for review to be a live article?

I just finished an article on my sandbox but I don't know how to submit the article for review. Can anyone help me with an answer please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victor Ani (talk • contribs) 19:31, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

@Victor Ani: Welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for wanting to make it better. Add {{subst:Submit}} at the top of the draft to submit it for review. RudolfRed (talk) 19:46, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Use of Democratic (an adjective) vs Democrat (a noun)

I'm trying to understand why the media of all types and political persuasion will use "Democratic" (an adjective) vs "Democrat" (a noun)when titling the Democrat National Committee, Democrat Party, a Democrat fund-raiser, etc. Is it just that it's such a pervasive thing that it's not worth the effort to be correct? New editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NHSteve16 (talk • contribs) 19:42, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

@NHSteve16: The term Democrat Party is seen as an epithet because the official name is Democratic Party, used as an adjective. See Democrat Party (epithet). TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:52, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

But bear in mind, NHSteve16, that the policy in WP:COMMONNAME says that Wikipedia will use the name for something that is found in the majority of the sources, even if that isn't the official name, or some people think that it is wrong. --ColinFine (talk) 20:05, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

The media uses "Democratic" because that is the actual name of the party. And the examples you gave are not just wrong (as in, they do not match the party name), they are also ungrammatical. --Khajidha (talk) 22:22, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

ISUU

I've had an experienced editor tell me that Wikipedia articles are not allowed to use ISUU as a reference because ISUU is "self published" platform - however, ISUU also seems to be a storage location of a lot of sources which are not "self published" - such as The Washington Informer, a reputable African-American newspaper here in Washington, DC + many others.

The editor also told me that I was supposed to get an automated Wikipedia "warning" if I try to use ISUU (no pun intended) as a RS, but that has never happened ???

Question then: Is ISUU as a platform not allowed in WIkipedia as an RS? - regardless of what ISUU as a platform may carry, or who/what the original source - such as my earlier example may be?

Thanks in advance... --Artdoofus (talk) 23:43, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

@Artdoofus: I'm not familiar with ISUU, but if you know what the original source is, just cite that. RudolfRed (talk) 00:18, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

@RudolfRed: --- Thank you... that's sort of what I had been doing - citing the original source - but those citations got deleted by editor with comment that ISUU was a self publishing platform and against WP:RS standards - but it seems to me that if the original source is a RS and it's just using ISSU as a platform to store historical data??? --Artdoofus (talk) 00:51, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

@Artdoofus:, if you're including an online link to ISUU then that may mistakenly but understandably get treated as if ISUU is the source, but sources don't have to be online, just archived somewhere that an ordinary member of the public can theoretically access, even if that involves taking a plane trip to London and visiting the British Library (for example).

If you can derive the original publication information from ISUU, e.g. journal name, publication date, page number, etc., and enter those in the appropriate citation template (without mentioning ISUU at all), there should be no problem if the original source is a Reliable one. In saying this, I am presuming that ISUU is not open to spurious entries, but if this is possible it might be advisable to cross-check items found there by other methods. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.2.132 (talk) 07:16, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

@2.122.2.132: - Excellent recommendations! Let me try that if/when this comes up again!--Artdoofus (talk) 01:10, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you to all who took the time to answer my questions- I appreciate it.--David S. Soriano (talk) 04:25, 20 April 2019 (UTC) David S. Soriano

Richard Herbert Former Welsh Darts Captain

It would seem that information regarding Richard Herbert on the Wikipedia Page is incorrect, Richard was born on the 15 - 06-1969 and he was actually 42 years old when he sadly died,I would appreciate if this could be ammended, Richard has children and grandchildren that will obviously visit this article and would be very confused and distressed at reading wrong information about Richard's birth and death,Many Thanks,Mrs Debbie Herbert and Family of Richard Herbert — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.143.232 (talk) 06:27, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Birthdate now removed since it was unsourced to begin with. A birthdate can be added if it can be found in a WP:Reliable source. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:48, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

How Many Wiki sections actually exist?

How many Wiki sectioins actually exist?

Thank you! --David S. Soriano (talk) 04:28, 20 April 2019 (UTC)David S. Soriano

What do you mean by a "Wiki section"? Meters (talk) 05:07, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

The English Wikipedia currently has about 5,845,056 articles. You can find more statistics about the English Wikipedia at Wikipedia:Size of Wikipedia. If you're asking about something else, please clarify.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:15, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

How can I create another Sub page

I have already created a Sub page. How can I create another Sub page Sir ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SANKU DIRECTOR & CARTOONIST (talk • contribs) 06:51, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi User:SANKU DIRECTOR & CARTOONIST, and welcome to the Teahouse. Your original sandbox has been deleted, but you can create as many sandboxes as you need. Just click on User:SANKU DIRECTOR & CARTOONIST/sandbox 1, User:SANKU DIRECTOR & CARTOONIST/sandbox 2 etc. They don't exist yet but will be created when you type something into them and click "Publish". Please read WP:Your first article and ensure that draft articles that you create are referenced to WP:Reliable sources. Dbfirs 11:25, 20 April 2019 (UTC)