From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Teahouse  (Redirected from Wikipedia:THQ)
Jump to: navigation, search

Question forum »Host profiles »Guest profiles » Welcome to the Teahouse! A friendly place to learn about editing Wikipedia.


WP teahouse logo.png

I wrote an entry, how do I post it?[edit]

I have written an entry, but I don't know how to post it so that everyone can see it. Help!

MyTeksi (talk) 06:14, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, MyTeksi. Your draft article has a long list of improperly formatted references at the end, but lacks inline references. Please read Referencing for beginners and reformat properly. Please also read about the Neutral point of view and edit your draft accordingly. Make no claims that are not supported by reliable independent sources. Read Your first article and comply with its recommendations. Once you have done every reasonable thing to improve the draft, let us know here at the Teahouse, and an experienced editor will take snother look. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:27, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

My article is short[edit]

My article has no context what do I do? Phxcpugeek254 (talk) 05:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Phxcpugeek254, welcome to the Teahouse. That message was incorrect, your article has enough context to determine the subject. However what it doesn't have are sources that show the list is notable. Per WP:LISTN: "Notability guidelines apply to the inclusion of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list." Basically, you need to find newspaper articles that report on this group of teams. --NeilN talk to me 05:46, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Bullying by another editor? Subjective?[edit]

Hello, I have been stalked and bullied by a member Epeefleche ever since I ADDED (note: not deleted, but ADDED) twice as much content to a page that he had contributed to. Much of the links to topics are to other Wikipedia pages; not so much a sources, but as links to show a cohesive story. An example is that from the main page here I added a number of external sources, but also linked to Wikipedia pages, such as this one since it has to do with Mussolini stealing said Obelisk, and then the Italian Government sending it back/repatriating it. I used the picture from that page, as well as some text and linked to it. But before I could even grab an external link (even though I really shouldn't have to...since it's all there on the Wikipedia page) the user Epeefleche undid all my work (hours worth) and gave me a "warning" on my talk page that I could be banned from editing if I did not "cite my sources". How is this possible? Nothing I am putting up is my own opnion, conjecture or's fact and just happens to be captured on other Wikipedia pages that I can link to for support/to tell a cohesive story. What can I do to sto this? Who can I get involved to mediate? thanks so much TrinacrialucenteTrinacrialucente (talk) 05:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Trinacrialucente. Please take a deep breath, sit down, and have a relaxing cup of tea before making further accusations that an experienced editor like Epeefleche is "stalking" and "bullying" you. The first thing that you must realize is that one Wikipedia article is never a reliable source for a statement in another Wikipedia article. Never, ever ever. That's because Wikipedia can be freely edited by anyone, and though our accuracy in general is high, any given article at any time may contain false information or vandalism, either obvious or subtle. A well-written Wikipedia article contains references to actual reliable sources. If you actually read such sources, and if they support the content you want to add to the other article, feel free to cite them. But please never cite Wikipedia itself. And please do not accuse editors who enforce well-established policies of stalking and bullying. Thank you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, I can certainly do both as I have been doing (linking to the Wikipedia page AND using the sources therein). but rather than undoing my work before I have a chance to hit submit, instead of simply writing [citation needed] would that not be a better way to handle this?

Every editor (including you and Epeefleche) has the right to revert if they sincerely believe that another editor's additions are problematic. My personal policy is to reference any substantive addition I make to, at least, the URL of a reliable source, and then transform it into a complete reference within a few minutes. Accordingly, I find that a very small percentage of my edits are reverted, saving me much heartburn. The primary burden for proper referencing is on you, whenever you add content. Those are the facts of life here on Wikipedia. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Edit summary fill-ins[edit]

What happened to the function whereby when you added an WP:Edit summary, the software automatically gave you suggestions on what to use based upon previous Edit summaries that you made in the past? BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:31, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi BeenAroundAWhile is that different to the autofill feature that the browser has, because i get those suggestions as long as I haven't cleared autofill. Flat Out let's discuss it 04:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Used to be: I would start typing in the Edit summary and then the software would present me with a list of summaries that I made in the past beginning with the same word or letters. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:59, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


How can one find a catalog of all templates? DawnDusk (talk) 03:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. All templates are listed here; I think there are about half a million of them. --David Biddulph (talk) 04:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Adding on, I believe Wikipedia:Template messages is the most comprehensive (and organized) directory. Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace lists messages you may leave on editor talk pages (warnings, notices, etc.). ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 04:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Whoa... Half a million... Thanks. DawnDusk (talk) 04:18, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

How to center photo in infobox?[edit]

Hi there - I'm working on the Paul Steinhardt page, and need help centering his profile photo. Thanks! Sleepy Geek (talk) 00:38, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Sleepy Geek. Most infoboxes make their own image formatting and only want the filename. It's documented at Template:Infobox scientist. I have fixed the syntax.[1] PrimeHunter (talk) 00:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks so much. I am really enjoying my experience on Wikipedia, primarily because of people like you! Sleepy Geek (talk) 01:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

CSD A7[edit]

Please can someone explain to be in basics what CSD A7 is? I am trying to create an article, but I am not having much luck. Thanks for any help! CaptainWill98 (talk) 22:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Welcome! WP:CSD A7 is a speedy deletion criteria that allows for accelerated deletion of main space articles that don't show NOTABILITY (importance on a large scale). To demonstrate this you should have References to news articles and other non first party sources. If you need time to work on the article and add references I suggest creating it at Draft:Youth Representative Party instead where A7 isn't appliable and work on it there until its ready. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 23:28, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Quick but important clarification: A7 doesn't seek notability, just a claim of significance. An article subject may not appear to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, but if the article makes some sort of credible claim of being important or significant, then it doesn't qualify (with or without sources). ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 00:13, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
SuperHamster is right there, but also remember it may pass A7 and other speedy deletion criteria, but will still be vulnerable to a articles for deletion. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 00:20, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, that's really helpful. CaptainWill98 (talk) 06:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

New editor![edit]

What do you think makes part of a good edit? And how can you improve edit quality, like from just grammar mistakes, to adding some good information?22:10, 26 March 2015 (UTC)~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newrunner769 (talkcontribs)

All of that! Amy edit that isn't harming (Vandalism or unreferenced additions) is helping. There are large backlogs of articles needing copy editing and that's a great place to start. Just remember if you add information, you need to add a Reference as well. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 23:30, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Where do I ask for an article to be created[edit]

I tried creating an article, but I'm not that good at it, and the article was declined. Is there any way that I can ask someone with more experience to create it? I would also contribute to the article in any way I can. The article that I am asking to create is Free Rider HD. Dominic951 (talk) 20:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Simple enough, my friend. You put your request for an article at, uhh, Wikipedia:Requested articles. (Have a donut before you go.) BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:15, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Alexa rank[edit]

Why does not .org websites have Alexa field?
It shows "Unknown Field" in Visual Editor
aGastya  ✉ let's talk about it :) 17:47, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Can you point us towards an article where this occurs please? --LukeSurl t c 18:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't know: i found it for some website (most likely to be first there is no dot-org infobox: but has no infoboxes. i will try to recall for which site this query generated
aGastya  ✉ let's talk about it :) 04:59, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Deleting content because of size[edit]

I've begun work on The_Legend_of_the_Legendary_Heroes having a massive character section by splitting it into a new page List_of_The_Legend_of_the_Legendary_Heroes_characters. That doesn't change the problem of the wild amount of in-universe information for the characters (both the main characters on the first page and the others on the page I created). But I also read Wikipedia:Article_size#Content Removal, which seems to bind me in what I can actually do (I know all the information is correct as a fan of the series). Can someone take a brief look at the pages and recommend me a course of action? DawnDusk (talk) 17:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I see that you made a statement on the talk page of the main article, Talk:The Legend of the Legendary Heroes. That was the right place to discuss. I see that you then took the bold step of developing an article about the characters. My further advice would be to wait for discussion on the main talk page before deleting any content from the main article. I know nothing about the series, but you appear to be asking a policy question, and discussion about the series itself should be on a talk page. I think that what you did was reasonable. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

World Wide What?[edit]

I have noticed that infoboxes of many websites don't show www. in URL. And many browsers also lighten it (for example www. in will be a bit dull). So should the https://www. be given importance and added there?
(note: that is actually not a link)
aGastya  ✉ let's talk about it :) 16:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello, aGastya. I don't see anything in the Manual of Style about this. Many websites are set up so that the www. is optional anyway (in the sense that the URL with www. and that without it go to the same place) and in those cases I don't think it matters which you use. --ColinFine (talk) 17:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
but@ColinFine; should not we use how actually it is supposed to be?
aGastya  ✉ let's talk about it :) 17:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
If you can tell what it is supposed to be, aGastya, by all means use it. I don't know how you are going to tell that. (If you mean that URL's are "supposed" to have the www. on the front, that is emphatically not the case. The parts of a URL before the domain name can be anything the domain owner chooses). --ColinFine (talk) 18:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Hopefully someone knows a more concrete answer, but I'm inclined to believe excluding the "www" is the norm, unless necessary. Template:Infobox company, for example, specifies that "www" should not be included. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 19:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
okay: i felt that the http://www. stuff is also important but if it is specified not to use; i won't!
thank you both!
aGastya  ✉ let's talk about it :) 04:48, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
As web browsers have gotten "smarter" over the years, the importance of the "http://www" stuff has declined. I wrote columns in industry trade publications back in the 1990s emphasizing the importance of accuracy in typing in web addresses correctly. Those days are over. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Can someone help me generate an IPA pronunciation?[edit]

I'd like to add a pronunciation guide to the Grodziskie article for how to say the name. IPA mystifies me, so I'm not the best person to take a stab at it. It sounds like grew-JISK-yuh, with some extra rolling of the R. here is a youtube video with the speaker saying the word at the 1:45 mark. Thank you for any help you can provide. Neil916 (Talk) 15:41, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey Neil. There might be someone along directly who will know but a tailored place to ask for help with this is the language section of the reference desk, where German is discussed all the time and many "speak" IPA fluently.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:35, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll post the request there. Neil916 (Talk) 18:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Great. I see you already got an answer. Just noting I should have said Polish!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:47, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

How to become a host?[edit]

I want to become a host. Please give me some tips. Samved shaji nambiar (talk) 13:41, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Commendable enthusiasm, but you need to gain experience in using and editing Wikipedia before you try to advise other people. For starters you can read the various links which were provided to you on the IP user talk page yesterday. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:11, 26 March 2015 (UTC)--David Biddulph (talk) 14:09, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, there Mr -David Biddulph.[edit]

Hi, there Mr -David Biddulph. It was me Samved Shaji Nambiar who asked to make an article about Lord Tweedmouth,but my name wasn't there because when I was typing the question I wasn't logged in. Thanks for answering my question "How to make an article"Samved shaji nambiar (talk) 13:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Lord Tweedmouth, I see this has already been answered below, but here's a link to the article, which already exists. Feel free to improve it. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 17:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
We should also point out that Dudley Marjoribanks, 1st Baron Tweedmouth is the article on the individual who bred the Golden Retriever, and Lord Tweedmouth (which redirects to Baron Tweedmouth is about the baronetcy line he began. I encourage you to help improve either or both of these pages (or any other article in this wiki!). Happy editing --LukeSurl t c 17:17, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

How can I make an article?[edit]

I wanted to create an article about Lord Tweedmouth but i don't no how. Please give me some tips on the topic how to create an article.Samved shaji nambiar (talk) 12:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. By a strange coincidence, another user asked a very similar question here yesterday, see #Please make an article about Lord tweedmouth below. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

References Notability[edit]

Dear Editors,

I am new to Wikipedia. The article that I am keen on publishing has been rejected several times due to content, references and notability issues. I have since attempted to edit it. May I know if I am on the right track?

Thank you in advance! (talk) 08:39, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

After a quick look over it, it looks like you've done a great job making a well researched and sourced contribution to the encyclopedia, which is awesome! As for notability, unfortunately, I'm not as familiar with determining notability as some here will be but my gut is saying this scholarship simply doesn't affect enough people or is well-covered enough. But I hope you stick around and continue to contribute to the project. Sudo edit this page (talk) 12:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
@Sudo edit this page: or @C: Please read WP:GNG, notability isn't based on how many people it effects as much as it's based on how many news articles exist about it. Also whats up with your signature? EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 17:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
@EoRdE6:. I'm not sure why you edited the signature of Sudo edit this page, but I've reverted that part of your edit. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
@David Biddulph: That explains alot. I was very confused why his talkpage went somewhere different from his userpage, but that makes more sense. Thanks!
@EoRdE6: @David Biddulph: (hopefully I'm learning this tagging thing right) looks like my post was in between some edits to my signature and I accidentally posted a botched revision of my signature. Apologies for the inconvenience, and yes I am 100% User:Sudo edit this page and not at all User:C. >Sudo fetch user page >Sudo leave a message 21:10, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Using Google Scholar to get records for a specific author[edit]

I hope somebody can provide a pointer to the information I need; if not, then perhaps a quick tutorial? I just saw an example here of using Google Scholar to list an author's publications and citations, even calculating their h-index. I want to use that more generally, but with lots of experimentation I can't work out how to get the record for a particular person. For instance, I tried Nobel winner Brian Schmidt but the search cannot find him (it did find three other people with the same name, but not the astro-physicist I wanted). Are there instructions for how to find the records for a specific person, such as Brian Schmidt? Gronk Oz (talk) 08:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Interesting tool. It looks to me as though it is up to the author to set up their own profile and even then it is private unless that author elects to make it public.CV9933 (talk) 11:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
The Help and Get my own profile links at the bottom certainly indicate that. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:10, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Ah, I see. So it's worth checking, in case the person has set up and maintained their profile, but I won't depend on it. Thanks for the help!--Gronk Oz (talk) 14:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

How to deal with new users making good faith but completely un-encylopedic additions[edit]


I'm a sort-of-new user who's tried my hand at RC patrolling lately. After looking over user warning templates, how should I deal with users who make seemingly good faith edits that are completely unhelpful? Example: Sudo edit this page (talk) 05:21, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Sudo edit this page. For the example shown, I would use a warning for improper humor like {{uw-joke1}}. However, especially given the username of the editor in question, more likely I would simply revert and ignore per WP:DENY. You show a large amount of good faith by calling that edit good faith. John from Idegon (talk) 06:47, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your help! It seems like if in doubt, writing such seemingly bizarre edits off as jokes would work. I'd rather assume too much good faith ten times than not quite enough once, therefore my inclination to make judgments like that. Also I made the mistake of worrying too much about how to address the user and didn't actually revert it- oops! Sudo edit this page (talk) 07:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

why i could not create an article. its about a website like khan academy[edit]

i tried several times to create an article i write something like that 'learnersbd is a non-profit educational organization created in 2014 by group of students to create a learning platform for students. learnersbd offers mocktest to the learners to improve their skills free of cost. And other features are also provide free for a students.' but it always deleted. please would u tell me how to complete my article about this site.Hasib07 (talk) 04:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Hasib07. Not everything that exists in the world is suitable for a Wikipedia article: we require that subjects be notable, in Wikipedia's special sense. What you need to do is to find where reliable places (such as major newspapers, or books from reputable publishers) have written substantial articles about the organisation: social media doesn't count, nor do blogs, nor does anything published by the organisation itself, or based on its press releases. If you can find such sources, then you can write an article, which must be almost entirely based on what those sources say: I would advise you to use the article wizard, and develop the article in 'Draft' space. If such sources do not exist, then it is not possible to write an acceptable Wikipedia article on the organisation at present, and I advise you not to spend the time on it. --ColinFine (talk) 17:29, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Can I upload a non-free but common use image for a draft?[edit]

When can such images be uploaded? Also, how can one find out more information about copyright, image uploading, image use, etc.? Thanks. DawnDusk (talk) 03:11, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi @DawnDusk: Welcome to the Teahouse! Non-free images should only be used in live articles. As a result, simply hold off on uploading the non-free image until the draft goes live.
As for more information, here are a few links you might find helpful:
Hopefully these help out. Feel free to reply with any more questions. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 03:17, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Face-smile.svg Thank you! --DawnDusk (talk) 03:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

help editing a particular page[edit]

can some one help me. I edited the Highlands Army Air Defense Site Wikipedia Page and accidentally deleted the Geo-reference box in the upper right corner of the page and I don't know how to put it back up. Jamesnewman1976 (talk) 23:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello Jamesnewman1976, welcome to Wikipedia, and to the Teahouse. One way to get the information back is to click "view history" at the top of the page, which should take you here. From there, you can find an old revision of the page that still has the Geobox in it. You can then click "edit source" on that page, copy the code for the box, and paste it into the current version of the page. Hope this helps! Howicus (Did I mess up?) 23:33, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

tag filter on the user contributions page[edit]

Hello, I just want to know if you type in anything on the tag filter of a user contributions page will it cause any changes to the user contributions page or not?Studentcollege (talk) 21:25, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi again, @Studentcollege: The tag filter doesn't cause any changes. Entering in a tag name from this list will return any of the user's contributions that have been tagged as such. For example, entering mobile edit as a tag filter will show an editor's mobile edits. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 22:08, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much I appreciate it.Studentcollege (talk) 22:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
If you don't mind me asking, why are you so concerned with contributions and trying to figure out the impossible? Especially considering you (or at least this account) has none outside of here. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 22:47, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
its just that when you do anything on Wikipedia whether its contributing, getting resources to provide information, or simply just helping out with another contributer sometimes you gotta think before you do anything on Wikipedia because you gotta make sure what you have contributed was the right thing to do or not.Studentcollege (talk) 01:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Studentcollege. One of Wikipedia's fundamental principles is to assume good faith. Basically, this means that editors assume that other editors' edits and comments are made in attempts to help the project, not hurt it. There can still be discussion, disagreement and criticism - all in good faith, unless there is obvious vandalism, etc. So every change I have ever made on Wikipedia is recorded in the logs for all to see (you can see it here), and I am okay with that - even my mistakes, because they were honest mistakes which then got fixed. So why not give it a go - find an article that needs some work, and make a change to provide some good, verifiable, well-referenced information. Then stand back and admire how the article is better than it was before - that's what we're here for!--Gronk Oz (talk) 03:42, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Nice advice, Gronk Oz! BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:23, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Trolling my work with incorrect info![edit]

Hello! I'm fairly new to Wikipedia. Recently, I made a few, very well cited contributions to this page: My contributions dealt with the "Horn Section Debate" in the "Credits and Personnel" section. However, someone keeps trolling the page and inputting information regarding the horn section that is neither cited nor true. It currently reads:

It should read:

I will change it again now. This is the third time I'm having to make these changes. Is there any way to stop these edits from being made?

Thank you for your help, Wikipedia Community!

Kmg318 Kmg318 (talk) 18:55, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

No, do not change it again or engage in an edit war. Discuss the issue on the article's talk page, and follow the guidance at WP:DR to resolve this. RudolfRed (talk) 19:30, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi Kmg318. I agree with RudolfRed and suggest you try and discuss this at Talk:Uptown Funk to get feed back for other editors working on the page. Even if we know something to be 100% true, we still need to show that it can be verified through reliable sources. You wrote in "Reinstating previous edits that were overwritten. My information is correct and cited." in this edit sum which is fine if that's what the sources say. Perhaps clarifying this on the article's talk page will help reduce the chance that the information is removed by another editor in the future. Just a suggestion.
Some other comments and advice. Referring to other editors as trolls simply because they have reverted your edits might be viewed as not "assuming good faith". Wikipedia has policies against making personal attacks and such comments might be interpreted as such. The best thing to do in such cases is often to try to find out why your edit was reverted through talk page discussion and stick to commenting on content and not on other editors. Lots of misunderstanding are cleared up through talk page discussions. Also, I've noticed that your marking almost all of your edits as "minor" when the fact is that they are really not. I suggest you take a look at "WP:MINOR#Minor edit", particularly WP:ME#When not to mark an edit as a minor edit. Knowingly and continuously marking edits as "minor" when they are not might be seen as disruptive by some and something not really conducive to collaborative editing. - Marchjuly (talk) 03:09, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Where are the advertisement articles?[edit]

I would like to find the category of articles written like advertisements in order to attempt to rectify this but I cannot find this category. Rubbish computer (talk) 17:46, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

@Rubbish computer: Welcome back! That can be found over at Category:Articles with a promotional tone. Thanks for your contributions! EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 17:47, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
That was very quick! Thank you. Rubbish computer (talk) 17:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Country links[edit]

Should not the country of article of people on Wikipedia be linked?
aGastya  ✉ let's talk about it :) 16:19, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

The country is usually linked in an infobox and once in the running text. WP:CONTEXTLINK is generally against linking it in the opening sentence but it's often done anyway, including the current version of the article Van Cliburn used in an example where it's not linked. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
@PrimeHunter; but the country United States isn't linked in the infobox of Van Cliburn. It should be there or not?
aGastya  ✉ let's talk about it :) 03:54, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
@Acagastya: I don't know a guideline. I view many sports biographies and if an athlete represents their country then maybe a link is more common. If a country subdivision is linked in the infobox then the country itself is often not. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Okay, thank you :)
aGastya  ✉ let's talk about it :) 14:34, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
There is such a thing as overlinking. So, when you already have San Francisco, California, there is no reason to add United States after it because where else would California be? Other examples of overlinking abouind. Same goes for London, England, or London, Ontario, or New London, Connecticut. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
But @BeenAroundAWhile; what if (let me take a direct example) Kakrapar: It is where i live. It is in Gujarat. Which many a times thought as Gujrat. So if the place is not well known, should not be country added?
aGastya  ✉ let's talk about it :) 04:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

warning Templetes[edit]

Where is it that I can find warning templetes to put on articles/user talk pages signed, MrWonka Lets talk! 15:43, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. You will find some at Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace, also at Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace/Multi-level templates. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:46, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Old media contributions[edit]

A very long time ago, I added a number of my own photographs to Wikipedia. I have decided that I would like to remove these. Where should I list them for deletion? Thanks Elinor.Dashwood (talk) 15:19, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's problematic. When you uploaded them, you did so with a license acceptable to Wikipedia (or more likely to Commons). Those licenses are irrevocable and you cannot now retract them. Now, if your images are not used on any articles it may be possible to request deletion, but not sure how successful you would be.--ukexpat (talk) 16:19, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

how can you display the "source code" (Wiki formatting from the edit page) in the actual article?[edit]

For example, in a Talk page, I want to display to the reader the proper way to format a citation. I want the reader to see the text that generated the citation, for example:

[1] RobSVA (talk) 15:16, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

to make it clear, I don't want the reader to see [1], I want them to see < ref name = "bryanmarquand" > {{cite web| url= htt p:// |title=E etc. RobSVA (talk) 15:20, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello. If you use <nowiki></nowiki> tags markup will not be processed and everything will appear as it's coded. If you use the code template as well you can get some nice formatting to go with it: <ref name= "bryanmarquand" >{{cite web|url=|title=E}} --LukeSurl t c 15:31, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
thanks! I had struggled with that for quite awhile. I think that i gave you proper credit at Talk:Eric_Sollee (the talk page for Eric_Sollee. Note: I'm still working on figuring out all of the Template:Code options. RobSVA (talk) 15:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  1. ^ Bryan Marquard. "Eric Sollee - The Tech". 

Unusual edit history[edit]

I have been watching another editor's (A) talk page. Recently, at least one edit was made by another editor (B). When I look at the diff page, Editor B is attributed at the very top of the page, but the attribution following the edit is Editor A. I find this very unusual. Who should I direct my concern to? Thanks in advance for your help.__DrChrissy (talk) 13:23, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey and welcome. If possible could you just provide a link the the page or the user's name? While I don't see anything wrong here with what you've told me, I may be missing something. There is no problem with user's editing their own talk page, and usually every other edit is actually by the talk page owner so editor A being second in the editor history doesn't seem to be an issue. Also may I also remind you not to remove or re-factor other user's talk page comments or placement. Thanks! EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 13:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Difficult to tell without seeing the case in point. Some editors use different words in their signature compared with their user name. Other users have changed their user name. In other cases edits may have been left unsigned, thus possibly giving the impression that the edit was made by the editor who makes the subsequent (signed) edit. If you give us a diff to the example, we can look at it. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:55, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
he is asking about this dif. after i reverted i warned the user which led to the user getting blocked You all can explain that to drchrissy; there is nothing bizarre there but he is inexperienced and is very suspicious of me at this time, as we are tangling elsewhere. Jytdog (talk) 14:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, this is the diff [[2]] I am concerned about. (I did not post it before as I did not wish to draw attention to particular editors).__DrChrissy (talk) 14:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Perfectly clear in the history. Jytdog was reverting this edit and this one, both of which were vandalism by IP who has now been blocked for disruptive editing. If you want help in how to read a page's history, try Help:Page history. - David Biddulph (talk) 14:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I ~think~ what is confusing drchrissy is that i didn't leave a note on the Talk page when I reverted the 2nd instance of vandalism (Alexbrn reverted the first one himself), so drchrissy couldn't see what had been done on the Talk page itself. generally when dealing with vandals we don't waste time writing about it on the talk page, but drchrissy will need to hear that from someone else. Jytdog (talk) 14:45, 25 March 2015 (UTC) (wierd, this comment and the one below have the same time stamp. i will tag mine ec to clarify Jytdog (talk) 14:46, 25 March 2015 (UTC))
Thanks for your help here.__DrChrissy (talk) 14:45, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

clarification on non-free use for art of specific geography[edit]

Hi - I am hoping someone well versed in non-free use can advise me on using images of artworks in the Barjeel Art Foundation wikipedia page here: The collection is specific to modern and contemporary Arab art (and is one of the best in the world!). My understanding is that it would be fair use to show artworks as they illustrate not a school of art but an equally relevant classification and one that is typically under-represented online so educational value is high. If someone has time I would really appreciate if you look at my fair use rationale and let me know what I am doing wrong or if it is even possible to allow these onto wikipedia.

thanks C. Cmclean74 (talk) 12:04, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Anyone? Maybe I am not posting this in the correct place or posting correctly? Sorry it's my first time in the teahouse.C.Cmclean74 (talk) 11:52, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
You posted OK but don't forget that everyone who responds here is a volunteer. The copyright/licensing expert volunteers hang out at WP:MCQ so you may get a faster response there.--ukexpat (talk) 12:35, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Ah yes of course. Thanks for the info - I will try the question over there.

thanks C. Cmclean74 (talk) 06:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Please make an article about Lord tweedmouth[edit]

Lord Tweedmouth lived in Scotland. He was the first person to breed a Golden Retriver in the 1800s.He used an English water spaniel and a Wavy coated retriver to get a Golden Retriver. (talk) 11:27, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Hint: did you try looking at Lord Tweedmouth? --David Biddulph (talk) 12:56, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Welcome. You are very much encouraged to help improve the existing Lord Tweedmouth article, Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit! I've left a bunch of links at User talk: to help you get started with being a Wikipedian. --LukeSurl t c 16:28, 25 March 2015 (UTC)


I don't want to change my signature but I have one query.
I found that the textbox in preferences where we modify our signature has a limit.
So what if the (i gusee .css) code is longer?
or should one create a new page of (...)/User:Username/Signature: type the code there and then in the preference page type {{Username/Signature}}?
aGastya  ✉ let’s talk about it  :) 10:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

The length limits (both in display and markup form) are deliberate, for reasons outlined at Wikipedia:Signatures#Length. --LukeSurl t c 10:28, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Also, the signature guideline specifically forbids the use of templates in signatures. G S Palmer (talkcontribs) 13:09, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! aGastya  ✉ let's talk about it :)

Referencing feedback confusion[edit]

I received feedback for my article stating "the references are either mere notice of its purchase by another company, or straight press releases. ." I don't understand what the references would need to be as an alternative. The article was declined originally due to the references now adequately showing the subject's notability, so I added further references. Please can you assist with this? Thanks in advanceJoe lineker (talk) 09:53, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Welcome! The references need to be to third/second party sources such as news articles about the topic. While references by the company can verify facts they don't prove that the articles subject is notable. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 13:53, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Joe lineker. The point is that a Wikipedia article should be based almost entirely on what other people, unconnected with the subject, have published about it in reliable place. If such people have not written much about it, or have written only in unreliable places such as social media sites, blogs, or wikis, then there cannot be an article. --ColinFine (talk) 23:54, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Article page count for specified category using "magic words".[edit]

Hello from Malaysia : ) I'm trying to find some statistics on article page counts of specified categories related to my country. There use to be a tool on Wikimedia Labs but it is no longer running. Googling leads me here but I am really lost. have no idea how and where to key in these 'magic words'

Help:Category#Displaying category trees and page counts

Is there an expert who can help?

Many thanks. DC

MYMMMC (talk) 08:23, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. I don't claim to be an expert, but from the help page which you linked you can count the pages in Category:WikiProject Malaysia articles by using {{PAGESINCATEGORY:WikiProject Malaysia articles}}, which renders as 8,837. At the time of writing, that is 8838, which is the 8835 pages + 3 sub-categories listed at Category:WikiProject Malaysia articles . --David Biddulph (talk) 08:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks so much for the reply sir! That giant sum is what I am looking for.

But I'm still somewhat lost. Where did you key in {{PAGESINCATEGORY:WikiProject Malaysia articles}} ? In the search box? The edit page? a special page?

I'm interested in finding a fast way to total up article counts in major categories of articles related to malaysia (e.g. number of Malaysian sports, culture, politics, etc.) I will also do so in other major languages relevant to my country (malay and chinese). Do you know if this method works for other languages?

Say right now, if I wish to add up articles in ''

what would be the step by step procedure? Sorry for the trouble.

Thanks so much again. MYMMMC (talk) 10:43, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

You would be looking for Category:Buildings and structures in Malaysia which counts inaccurately 56. Ohh ok I see the issue here. Unlike what Meta:Help:Category#Count claims, it doesn't count articles in subcats. Hmm, I'd have to research when this changed. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 13:58, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Help:Category#Displaying category trees and page counts, as linked by the OP, makes it clear: "Each subcategory counts as one page; pages in subcategories are not counted." --David Biddulph (talk) 14:04, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
@David Biddulph: Soooo Meta:Help:Category#Count is ridiculously wrong... I'll head over and fix it now then. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 14:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Newbie question about first sandbox effort[edit]

This is my first effort creating something in my sandbox, and I know I'm doing lots of stuff wrong and I could probably find out what needs to be changed by reading all the FAQs and tutorials, but I was hoping I could get help from some veteran editors and users so it won't take me so long to figure out.

I am creating an article of a politician, and the legislative body shows up in red in the infobox. I am hoping this will link to the draft page:

The government body is listed in Wikipedia but does not have an independent wikipedia page. I attempted to create one from an associated page for the Fresno County page in Wikipedia where the Board of Supervisors is mentioned, but my first attempt was rejected due to format (though I used the same format as was used in the wikipedia article), and lack of attribution.

Another question I have regards proper linking to published articles.

Anyhow, I would appreciate any help you can provide before I try to move this over to the article pages -- and I'll need help doing that as I can't figure that out either.



EDIT: Thanks, Flat Out, for the changes! By looking at those edits, I was able to figure out what to do with the rest after looking at how you made the edits. It would have taken me so much longer trying to figure it out myself.

Any tips on how to get the red out of "Fresno County Board of Supervisors" in the infobox? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mchenfresno (talkcontribs) 04:58, 25 March 2015 (UTC) Mchenfresno (talk) 04:26, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Mike and welcome to the teahouse. Several things. The wikilink to the county commission is red because there is no article on it. IMHO, it won't ever have one because generally county commissions are not notable. It follows then that neither are county commissioners (unless of course, they meet meet WP:GNG). There is a better chance of showing this fella notable due to his professorship, but I'll let someone else explain that. At this point, you only have one reference that can be used to show notability and that's the newspaper. You cannot reference anything to Facebook. And unless you are the professional photographer that shot the photo back in 2006, the photo is a copyright violation. Only images appearing on US federal government websites are public domain. John from Idegon (talk) 05:03, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Mchenfresno. I disagree at least in part with John from Idegon on this matter. I believe that county boards of supervisors are notable, at least in California. Please see Alameda County Board of Supervisors, Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors, Marin County Board of Supervisors and San Francisco Board of Supervisors for examples, though San Francisco is a special case as a combined city-county government. Many county supervisors in California are highly notable and have Wikipedia biographies, and you can see such links in the Alameda County article. However, I do believe that you need better independent, reliable sources on Borgeas. Search the Fresno Bee archives, and so on. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:17, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, John. Their are about a dozen County Boards of Supervisors listed in Wikipedia, e.g., for California: San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego, Sacramento, etc., with their members also listed, so I thought Fresno County Board of Supervisors should also qualify.

I will remove the Facebook link. Mchenfresno (talk) 05:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry. I meant, "There are ..." It's late ... .

Mchenfresno (talk) 05:15, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Worthy of note is that Wikipedia currently has over 60 biographies of members of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, many of whom served decades ago. Fresno County's population is comparable to San Francisco's, and is actually a bit larger. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC)


Hello. So I saw here that the editor before myself committed vandalism(!!!!). So I reverted both of their edits then "warned" them on their talk page. I just today learned how and the opportunity arose. So, did I do it right? -DangerousJXD (talk) 00:57, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Looks good to me, except in the future I would advise against being that...dramatic with the edit summaries :). Howicus (Did I mess up?) 01:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Needs more exclamation marks. ;-) --Gronk Oz (talk) 04:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Where can I find the March initiative for supporting women editors and subjects?[edit]

When I started editing wikipedia earlier this month, I received notification about an initiative for Women's History Month in support of encouraging women to edit wikipedia and to increase the coverage of women as subjects. I was interested in returning to it this week, but cannot find it. Any ideas? LLRungegordon (talk) 21:08, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi @LLRungegordon: Welcome to the Teahouse. You might be talking about the Art+Feminism worldwide editathon, which occured a couple weeks ago. You can read more about it (and its accomplishments) here. I'm sure there will be more upcoming women's initiative events - hopefully someone else might know more about that. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 21:32, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Maybe it was about Wikipedia:WikiWomen's History Month/2015/Events. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:08, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I've created unique pages as drafts with my sandbox - how do I delete those?[edit]

Specifically this page: User:Librariabryan/sandbox/heroes meetup

I used that page as a draft and it can go away. I'm learning it might be best to draft off site, and paste into wikipedia when I think an article is good to go.

Librarian Bryan (talk) 17:46, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. You can tag it for speedy deletion by adding {{Db-u1}} or {{Db-userreq}} at the top of the page. I have taken the liberty of changing the url to a wikilink in your question. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:53, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't know why you say that it may be best to draft off site. Drafting in user space is convenient, and now you have been told how to delete the drafts when you are finished with them. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:05, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree with above that it is much easier to draft in userspace or Draft space for, and then you can check the code and formatting EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 18:37, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! Learning the speedy deletion tag is super helpful. Librarian Bryan (talk) 18:58, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Adding to the comments by others, Librariabryan, I recommend that you do the majority of your drafting on your own Wikipedia user pages. I am an old guy, and I sometimes make rough notes and lists of page numbers of my references using physical paper and pen. But when the actual writing of encyclopedic prose begins, I do it in a newly created user page. Think of it this way: A good Wikipedia article is much more than prose. It also includes a lead, section headings, a table of contents, properly formatted references, images, internal wikilinks, external links and categorization. By far the best way to create such an article properly is right here on a Wikipedia userpage or draft page. Every time you save your draft, you will see it exactly as it would appear as a finished encyclopedia article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:30, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

How do i create a disambiguation page[edit]

Recently editing List of birds of the world I triee clicking Spatula and it resulted in a kitchen utensil how can i create a redirect to redirect it to Anas without a disambiguation page?Owlsofeurope (talk) 17:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I see what the problem is, which is that the word spatula refers both to a kitchen utensil and to a genus. Do you want to create a disambiguation page that directs to the utensil and the genus, or, without a disambiguation page, to put a hatnote at the top of the page for the utensil to link to Spatula (genus)? Those are the two ways to do this. Which approach depends on whether the utensil is the more common usage, or whether the utensil and the genus are considered approximately equal. In my own opinion, the utensil is the primary usage. In either case, a new page can be created for the genus. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
I have created a stub on the genus of duck. It really needs expansion, but I don't consider myself qualified to do that. There already was a disambiguation page. I have changed the hatnote so that the kitchen utensil now directs to the disambiguation page (although the utensil is primary), and so that the disambiguation page now also includes the ducks. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:44, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


Our webpage was flagged as not having proper referencing but most of the information comes form only one website. I put the reference at the bottom but I'm not sure what I need to do from here.Giatec (talk) 15:53, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Your draft doesn't have any references. You need to read the useful links which have been provided to you, both on your user talk page and in the feedback on the draft. Links include WP:referencing for beginners and WP:reliable sources. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:12, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
And maybe WP:COI if "your" article is about your company.--ukexpat (talk) 00:16, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

How do I go about creating a new article?[edit]

Where do I find the detailsSleighmaker (talk) 15:08, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi and welcome! The Wikipedia:Article wizard is a good place to start. Remember it must have References or it may be Speedy deleted. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 15:13, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse. I have put a number of links on your user talk page, including WP:Your first article. - David Biddulph (talk) 15:14, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


I recently received notification my page was patrolled on Wikipedia, I am confused though because the page is User:Ραφ13π, so why I have been notified of it being patrolled when it is someone elses userpage, can you help me? I'm really not sure what is going on. TeaLover1996 (talk) 15:07, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi TeaLover1996. You were notified as the page creator.[3] PrimeHunter (talk) 15:15, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
@PrimeHunter:, Are you sure, I thought I might be in trouble for something. TeaLover1996 Lets talk about it 15:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
@TeaLover1996: I'm sure. The page history shows you created the page. A patrol notification just means somebody checked the page and found it to be ok and not something like vandalism or spam. See meta:Help:Patrolled edit. In this case the page creation was an accident but you made it ok by blanking. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:36, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

using a template as part of a statement[edit]


I have received messages reminding me to sign my posts on talk pages, which I am aware about. Sometimes, though, I add templates in the same section as my message, which automatically signs my name. In many cases, the template appears as part of a sentence I am saying, such as:

... For these reasons I would like to suggest a: {[subst:requested move}}...

The IP user sending me the reminder placed an unsigned template after the incomplete statement, before the actual requested move template, i.e.

... For these reasons I would like to suggest a: {{subst:unsigned}} {{subst:requested move}}...

The unsigned signature makes it clear who added the text preceding the RM template, but seems to interrupt the flow of the sentence and the seamless transition from the statement to the RM. So, my question is this: is this how the post is to be signed? Or is the unsigned template not necessary as per above?

Thank you for your time, <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 14:25, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. If I'm looking at the same place that you are, the tagging as unsigned was not in the part of the section before the template, but where you had also inserted text in the previous section but not signed it, see this diff. The user who tagged it as unsigned had made the same point previously, at User talk:Some Gadget Geek#If you post in two different sections on a talk page, each needs a signature. If you were referring to a different situation, perhaps you could tell us where? - David Biddulph (talk) 14:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Right, edits like [4] are confusing. A talk edit is expected to be within a single section and not be signed in the next section. Beware of this if you use templates which create a section heading such as {{requested move}}. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:27, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


Hi, I fixed the page Quraysh (disambiguation) but when i search "Quraysh" it directly goes to Quraysh. How can i fix this so that when i search "Quraysh" it goes to the disambiguation page and not to Quraysh. Thank You A.A.Wasif | Talk 12:17, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. The tribe was agreed to be the primary topic, see Talk:Quraysh#Requested move 5 January 2015. Any change would need further discussion there, with evidence that the situation had changed. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:24, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks I'm reverting it back to its original one. A.A.Wasif | Talk 12:34, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
In this case, if there are only two articles, and one of them is primary, there is no need for a disambiguation page, only a hatnote to the other article. If there were multiple uses of the term, a disambiguation page would be useful. If the two meanings were equally important, then the title could direct to disambiguation. In this case, the disambiguation is not needed, and so goes to the primary. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:33, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


What does it mean when there is the word "talk" after a user name? anatomyczarAnatomyczar (talk) 12:02, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. That is a link to the user's talk page. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:29, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi, @Anatomyczar, David Biddulph: This isn't quite correct. A user's talk page is named User talk:Username, with the words "User talk" and a colon before the user name: for instance, User talk:Anatomyczar or User talk:David Biddulph.
anatomyczar, can you give us an example? Or did you just make a slip, so these really are what you're talking about?
(BTW, anatomyczar, the best way to sign a post on a talk page or the Teahouse is four tildes: ~~~~, which will automatically turn into your linked name and talk page and the date & time. Look at the top of this post, just under the title line talk, to see how your username plus four tildes came out.) David Biddulph (talk) 21:13, 26 March 2015 (UTC)--Thnidu (talk) 19:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't know why you say that this isn't quite correct. In the context in which I believe the question was asked, the word "talk" is the link to the user's talk page. Your own signature immediately above is coded as --[[User:Thnidu|Thnidu]] ([[User talk:Thnidu|talk]]) 19:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC), which renders as --Thnidu (talk) 19:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC). Here the word "talk" after your user name "Thnidu" is a link to your user talk page User talk:Thnidu. --David Biddulph (talk) 21:13, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
David Biddulph D'ohhh! Right you are. I'm so used to looking at wikicode... --Thnidu (talk) 05:16, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I think I figured it out. Thanks.vAnatomyczar (talk) 20:20, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Changing the displayed title[edit]

Hi - I would like to change the name of the Wikipedia site My Bubba to My bubba with a lowercase b. Their real name for the band is My bubba and not My Bubba. I have tried to change it using the DISPLAYEDTITLE, but it does not work. Can someone help me out? Thanks!Annika Christensen (talk) 09:09, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Annika Christensen. See Wikipedia:Moving a page. —teb728 t c 09:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Want to upload a profile of real estate company[edit]

Hi guys,

I have been repeatedly uploading information about famous rela estate company in India, but it is been pulled down everytime I do so.

Can someone please help me??

Mihir K88 (talk) 07:31, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Mihir K88. Wikipedia does not have profiles of companies. Instead it has encyclopedic articles about notable subjects, written from a neutral point of view. Ambi Parameswaran was deleted because it was unambiguously promotional, and because at least some versions were copied from, a copyrighted website. If you want to try again, write a neutral article in your own words based on significant coverage in independent reliable sources. I see you are writing about Tata Value Homes at Articles for creation; AfC would be a good idea for Ambi Parameswaran too. More generally please read Wikipedia:Your first article. —teb728 t c 07:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Oh, and don't repeatedly recreate deleted articles; that will only lead to having the title protected against creation. —teb728 t c 08:02, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Sports tournament template[edit]

Greetings, Wikipedians. I found a template, Template:32TeamBracket-NoSeeds, that wasn't being used in any article. It was a nice fit for the 2015 Postseason Tournament article. So I made modifications to it. No documentation page existed for the template. So I made one. I included therein a comprehensive example to illustrate its use. There is an odd problem with the way one item displays in the fourth and fifth illustrations of the example. Towson's score of 73 floats to the top of the box rather than being in the middle. In the sixth example that includes another item displayed which shares a row with this, the problem disappears. I haven't been able to determine the cause. Hopefully, a super template coder will check it out and find the problem right away. I'm concerned that it might be indicative of other problems with the template. Thanks for any help provided. Taxman1913 (talk) 05:09, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Special:Expandtemplates shows the example produces two blank lines after "73" so that cell becomes too high:
| rowspan="2" style="border:1px solid #aaa;" bgcolor="#f9f9f9" align="center"|73

If you code the template to give at most one blank line then it works. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:07, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
@PrimeHunter: Thank you for pointing me in the right direction. I was able to fix it. Taxman1913 (talk) 15:56, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Another user refuses to allow edits to page he created, so I was required to create redundant page. I also cannot tell what changes were made by an admin patrolling the page because it does not appear to have been changed.[edit]

23:58, 23 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alwaysremember (talkcontribs)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Alwaysremember. I'm sorry, but creating a POV fork is not acceptable. As nearly as I can see the other editor's objection was that your addition created an editorial. —teb728 t c 00:54, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
In my opinion, the article 2015 Dallas City Council elections is far from neutral and encyclopedic. I recommend discussing adding the city council races at Talk:Dallas mayoral election, 2015. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:04, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Greetings Teahouse visitors and hosts. These two articles are about two different topics. One concerns the mayoral race and the other (nominated for speedy deletion) is about the City Council Elections. I don't see this as a fork even though there was drama going on in the editing of the first. Also, Alwaysremember has no notice on his/her talk that his/her newly created article is being discussed for deletion. I recommend that Alwaysremember consider going back to tone down the editorializing and generate additional references before deletion proceeds but I'm having trouble finding the discussion that is supposed to be occurring regarding the deletion.
  Bfpage |leave a message  01:29, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
It is a single election in Dallas and both the mayor's race and the various city council races can be covered in a single article, which can be moved to something like 2015 Dallas municipal election. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:40, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
The edit history shows that Alwaysremember was asked to create a separate article for the council elections by one of the editors.
  Bfpage |leave a message  01:48, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
That may be true, but in my opinion, that advice was in error. Worth noting is that Dallas has a Weak mayor system, and in effect, the mayor is just another member of a city council with 15 members, with a fancy, ceremonial title. It is completely appropriate for the entire election for all 15 seats to be dealt with in a single article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:54, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
(ec) I agree with Cullen, beside that it is a fork if only because it copies the mayoral text from the original article, creating a copyvio. (Without that I might have tagged it G11.) Look again for the deletion notice that Twinkle left on Alwaysremember's talk page. —teb728 t c 01:58, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Having one article covering the entire election may be appropriate, but it is not necessary. If two editors can now get along by having an article about the mayor and then having an article about the city council and peace and harmony and two happier editors are now working on creating relevant content, then something good has happened. I didn't know those facts about how the city council operates in Dallas. That would be some good content to include in at least one of these articles!
  Bfpage |leave a message  02:07, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Followup: 2015 Dallas City Council elections has been redirected to Dallas mayoral election, 2015 and its new content copied. This raises an issue of the title of the merged article. I think there would be a consensus to move to an inclusive title, but at least one editor would probably still object. Should a move be proposed on the talk page or at Wikipedia:Requested moves? —teb728 t c 09:31, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I boldly moved the merged article to 2015 Dallas municipal election. If anyone objects, they are welcome to put forward a policy based explanation for their concern. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:47, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Do editors have any recourse against arbitrary deletions citing the notability rule?[edit]

Note to Administrators (16:01, 24 March 2015)

I feel that this question and answer set has become long, unwieldy, and does not contain information that others would find useful. I humbly request your permission to remove this content and i bow to your Buddha nature.--Xyzerb (talk) 16:02, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Not a question for administrators. Threads like this are of value for other readers. It will be archived and deleted in due course. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:06, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your speedy reply. I will not delete this content and will instead wait for its archival and deletion in due course. --Xyzerb (talk) 16:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
If you look at the parameters of the archiving call at the top of this page, you'll see that it is set to 3 days. This counts from the date of the most recent message in the thread. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Local businesses in Charlotte, NC have very little representation on Wikipedia, even within the confines of "Businesses based in Charlotte, NC". The current documentation in Wikipedia for notability seems highly subjective.

For example, a few links from a trade rag are enough to satisfy the notability requirement for Girl Candy Films, but even creating a stub for a medical research company like OrthoCarolina is countered with a speedy deletion plus the nominal effort required to cite rule A7.

I can understand deleting the stub if I was trying to inject OrthoCarolina into the Fortune 500 list or list it somewhere other than within the scope of "Businesses based in Charlotte, NC". But within that scope, there's no denying that it's notable and at least on par with Girl Candy Films.

Do editors have any recourse against highly subjective deletions of their work? Why wouldn't admins at least extend the common courtesy of telling me to create a copy of my work before deleting the article, edit history, and talk page?


[A7. No indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events)]


Thank you for your time and consideration,

Xyzerb (talk) 15:37, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

New editors are advised to use the Articles for Creation process as a draft rather than creating new articles in mainspace. It appears that your complaint is that you created the article in mainspace, it was deleted, and now you don't have a copy of it. You can get a copy of it at Requests for Undeletion, and then work on it in user space. Your use of your user page to complain about admin abuse does not help your case. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:25, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I wasn't aware of the draft process. However, as far as admin abuse goes, deleting work rather than moving it to a user "special" page definitely qualifies as abuse. I could be wrong--perhaps admins don't have the ability to do such a thing. I suspect that anyone would be annoyed if I deleted their work. For example, if I somehow had the power to delete articles, would most of Wikipedia be unhappy if I deleted an article along with all previous versions and talk history?--Xyzerb (talk) 17:08, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Administrator abuse is generally considered to be the use of administrative tools in an unfair or biased way. Deleting articles that qualify for deletion under criteria for speedy deletion is a proper, not an improper, use of those tools. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:24, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
So deleting a person's work rather than moving it is OK? Would it not be better to tell someone "Your article doesn't meet the requirements for inclusion in the main space, so I moved it to your user page. Address the problems I identified, ask for help on Teahouse, and then resubmit it once it's ready."--Xyzerb (talk) 18:00, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Xyzerb, if you had made the article using the process of Wikipedia:Articles for creation, the article would have been reviewed and you would have received feedback on it and it wouldn't have been immediately deleted. Creating an article right in the main space of the encyclopedia (or in user space and moving it there), makes it subject to the Wikipedia:New pages patrol who reviews new articles and marks ones that meet Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. Once an article has been judged to merit speedy deletion (and any editor can mark an article with a CSD tag), an admin reviews the article to see if it was correctly tagged. If the admin agrees, the article is deleted. But the editor who created it can ask for the article to be "userfy" and moved to their user space. This is usually accommodated unless there are other concerns like copyright violation or violations of WP:BLP. What you might keep in mind is that every day, thousands of articles are created, many of them self-promotional or complete gibberish and the NPP serves to get rid of them otherwise Wikipedia would be clogged up with inappropriate material but it's a constant effort to remove these articles. Liz Read! Talk! 22:48, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Liz. KylieTastic led me through the process, explained what I was doing wrong, and soothed my chapped...demeanor. I wish that my initial attempts were assumed to be in good faith, but I understand considering the circumstances. Please consider all these questions resolved and feel free to close/archive/delete it if you like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xyzerb (talkcontribs) 23:23, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • There is a warning when creating an article is the main space and it suggests creating in another place first. Also usually articles that are speedily deleted have not a lot of content to save, or are not likely to be able to meet Notability. However the article is not actually gone, if you want to keep working on your deleted article, leave a message on the administrators talk page that deleted it, and ask for them to copy it to your user area or the draft area. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 17:16, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your helpful advice. I'm glad to hear my work can be recovered.--Xyzerb (talk) 18:00, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Also, rather than complaining about admin abuse, you can directly contact the administrator who deleted the article. That is, if you want to listen rather than just to complain. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:29, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Did you check to see if I contacted them or are you just making an assumption? I contacted them and 1 of the 4 was very helpful.--Xyzerb (talk) 17:08, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a directory. It appears that you think that Wikipedia should be a directory, and so should list local businesses. Wikipedia is not a directory but an encyclopedia, and articles should be based on notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:31, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Notability matters, but the same rules should apply for everyone. Do you have any input as to why Girl Candy Films merits a listing with a handful of links from a trade publication vs OrthoCarolina with a handful of links from well-known newspapers and journals? It seems that the current process allows admins to approve or delete articles at a whim vs using objective criteria.--Xyzerb (talk) 17:08, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
If you think that an article does not meet the notability criteria, you can nominate the article for deletion via Articles for Deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:24, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
You missed my point. It's not that Girl Candy Films isn't notable, it's that OrthoCarolina is at least as notable.--Xyzerb (talk) 18:00, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Xyzerb you make claims we can not help with because we can not see the references you added. As for Girl Candy Films a quick Google shows lots of hits from sites not related to company, this does not appear to be true for OrthoCarolina. However there are some, the first news article I noticed was [5]. KylieTastic (talk) 17:30, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
A fair point. I've found tons of examples in the last few minutes: [6] and [7] --Xyzerb (talk) 18:00, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, KylieTastic. You have been kind where others were dismissive and you've restored my faith in the process. I'll remove my gripes about the administration from my userpage and I look forward to continuing to make contributions in the future.--Xyzerb (talk) 18:00, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Just want to add a few things. Notability, in this particular case "Notability for Companies and Organizations", is not going to be established by trying to argue that other stuff exists. Notability is best established by showing that the company has received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. In this context, "significant" refers to the type of coverage received, not necessarily the amount of coverage received. It's possible to find lots of mentions of a company through a Google search, but many of these mentions might be considered trivial per "Depth of coverage". Another thing to try and understand is that we editors do not own the articles we create or edit. In other words, it's not "our work". Once something is added to the article namespace, it's pretty much there for anyone to edit. This means that no editor, not even the article's creator, has any sort of editorial control over what goes into an article beyond what is spelled out in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Wikipedia has to be neutral which pretty much ensures that any significant negative coverage a company has received in independent reliable sources (stuff like these [8]) is likely to eventually find it's way into the company's article. Having a Wikipedia article can be a double-edged sword in some unexpected ways. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:26, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. That seems notable to me, but I'm a horrible judge of such things. Added it to Draft:Draft: OrthoCarolina--Xyzerb (talk) 05:40, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
LOL--OK, now even my draft page has been marked for "speedy deletion". However, I've learned from past mistakes and I now have a script that saves my work to Sublime every 30 sec.--Xyzerb (talk) 05:44, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Is this "speedy deletion" bit just an overactive bot script? Is it OK to have unfinished work that's not ready for submission on a draft page?--Xyzerb (talk) 05:58, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
@Xyzerb: Please see Draft talk:Draft: OrthoCarolina for what I think might have happened. Also, I took a look at your userpage. It might be a good idea for you to read through "What may I not have in my user pages?" for a general overview. More specifically, I suggest taking a look at "Opinion pieces" and "User pages that look like articles". Users are given quite a bit of latitude when it comes to their user pages, but user pages which do not comply with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines can be deleted by an administrator. Good luck with your editing. - Marchjuly (talk) 06:26, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. I was not aware that my userpage could not look like an article or contain opinions. I have removed all content from my userpage and will host that content elsewhere.--Xyzerb (talk) 08:39, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
I have sterilized my previous content and my new user and talk page is free of formatting and opinion. Please let me know if I should make any additional edits.--Xyzerb (talk) 10:04, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Re editing of Draft:Satwant Singh Dhaliwal[edit]

Thank you for directing me to teahouse.

I'd like to know if this is to be a complete re-write? Or if there are problems with specific parts of the entry?

jefferyseow (talk) 11:12, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey, and welcome to the teahouse. Your article is looking quite good (much better than most in the Draft area) but needs some simple Grammar and Tone fixes. i'll keep an eye on it and publish it when it's almost ready. In answer, no it doesn't need a full re-write. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 15:01, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. Could you help point out the problem passages? Thank you. jefferyseow (talk) 10:31, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Is there anyone at all who can point me to the problem passages? Thank you. jefferyseow (talk) 03:16, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Rejection cites This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. I cannot see where the article has been written in the informal style and am still waiting for someone to point out the problem passage(s).

Rejection cites Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. I have cited published works, to wit, The Star (a national daily English-language newspaper), Asia Samachar (an independent news portal for Sikhs in Southeast Asia and the surrounding countries like Hong Kong, Australia and New Zealand), The Straits Times (a national daily English-language newspaper), published UNESCO meeting proceedings, publications of the Pacific Science Association and the Malaysian Historical Society and an awards list from the office of the Prime Minister of Malaysia. Blanks were filled in from his unpublished resume and bio in order to make the writing more cogent. I'd like to know which of these is deemed unreliable or non-independent.

Rejection cited Please make sure to avoid peacock terms, that are designed to promote or show-off the subject. I did not use any peacock terms. But I did cite things that notable people said about him in an article. Is citing what someone said in an article not allowed? If citing is allowed, then please someone point out where I have used peacock terms.

Thank you.

jefferyseow (talk) 04:01, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Super Bowl LIII[edit]

I want to know when will the Super Bowl LIII Article will be starting Because I Looked at the Dallas Morning News Website that They Will announce finalists for both Super Bowl LIII and Super Bowl LIV I Hope They Super Bowl LIII Article page will hopefully start in May and then the Super Bowl LIV Page will start later let me know when OK. Big Towel (talk) 21:56, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Big Towel, the articles will probably be created when there is enough information to start with and the whole thing isn't just speculation about where and when. You'll just have to keep your eyes open for the articles. Nthep (talk) 22:50, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Big Towel, according to Dr. Neil de Grasse Tyson, in a live performance at DAR Constitution Hall last month, there will not be a Super Bowl LIII. Specifically, "there won't be a Super Bowl L. Can you imagine the marketers?". at that point, they'll go to Super Bowl 50. RobSVA (talk) 15:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Minimum viable article[edit]

I posted a small article today about a topic that I'm currently researching. I thought Ill start small add to it as I go, and hopefully other people will be interested in a topic. It got deleted - could it be 1. Because it was too short about 3 short paragraphs. 2. Didn't have reference link to where I got the information from (though I added "according to source") 3. Didn't contain links to related topics 4. Was not a part of category (I'm not sure how to add articles within a category) 5. Was too similar to something I didn't find.

It's a first time I'm submitting an article. I'd like it to be on Wikipedia and I think it's relevant. If anyone can point me at the place I can find answers to my questions, something like "common reasons for articles not to pass revision" I would appreciate that.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by J32804 (talkcontribs) 02:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello, J32804. Your draft User:J32804/Distributed Application has not been deleted; it has been declined as an acceptable article, but the draft is still there. Both there and on your own talk page there is a message explaining that it is not adequately supported by reliable sources. As a general rule every single piece of information in an article needs to be individually referenced to a reliable published source.
DAppsFund might qualify as a such a source, but it would need to be used as a reference (see Referencing for beginners) supporting one or more specific statements in the article, not as a generalised external link. However there might also be a problem with that source, as it doesn't talk much about "Distributed applications" at all, but about "Decentralized applications". (I realise these might be different terms for the same thing, but the article needs to use the wording in its sources, and if it uses different terms, justify this with reference to other reliable sources). But the article would also need to find other published sources, independent of DappsFund, which discuss "distributed applications", in order to show that this is not just a bit of jargon used by one organisation, but a phrase which has been discussed more widely in the literature. --ColinFine (talk) 10:38, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

How to upload profile[edit]

Heading added by ColinFine (talk) 15:09, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

"Ask a question "how to upload profile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aman lama moktan tamang (talkcontribs) 10:45, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Aman lama moktan tamang. Wikipedia doesn't have profiles, but I'm guessing that you want to create an article about somebody. Please read your first article, and be aware that Wikipedia only accepts articles about subjects (including people) who have already been written about at length in reliable published sources such as major newspapers. If you can find several substantial articles about the person, then it is worth writing an article about them, but if such sources don't exist, then there is no point in trying. If the person you want to write an article about is yourself, or somebody close to you, then you are strongly discouraged from doing so: please see autobiography for why. --ColinFine (talk) 15:09, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Unconstructive edits and second-hand research[edit]

Hello! I'm new here and was reviewing Wikipedia's core content policies when I noticed that an unconstructive edit was made over at Sophie Hunter's page by Lady Lotus ( She has restored an edit that mislabels a production and removes a credit. User Corsican Honeymoon's edit should be restored due to the following reasons:

  • Calling the production Lucretia an installation is mislabeling the production because installations are inanimate and Lucretia has movements from performers, so it should be properly called performance art. Installation and performance art are entirely different things.
  • Putting the timestamp "(2011)" after Rape of Lucretia suggests that Rape of Lucretia was done in 2011 when it isn't. It's the performance art Lucretia that was produced in 2011 not the opera which was first performed in 1946.
  • Deletion of Magic Flute as credit when the provided reliable source explicitly says that Hunter has directed it. Per core content policy "No original research", an editor can't just remove a credit because she thinks the production didn't happen at all. That counts as vandalism. (talk) 01:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello, The best place to discuss edits to an article is on the article's talk page. I haven't looked at the page in question, but it would appear that the answer to all your questions is "what do the reliable sources say?" If the majority of sources call it an installation then it should say installation; if they call it performance art, then that is what the article should say. On the last one, if the source says so, then that's what the article should say. But please do not throw accusations of vandalism around: vandalism is editing to damage the encyclopaedia, but it sounds from your description as if the other editor believes they are correcting it: whether they are right or not, that is not vandalism. --ColinFine (talk) 00:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Edit/Removal/Deletion of Absolute Factual Information.[edit]

Reference the Edit I made to the debate on which is correct Is Middday 12am or 12pm?

I have just discovered that the absolute facts I added were removed/completely deleted.

Whilst I am aware that it may not have been written in "Correct Form" for Wikipedia, it was, non-the-less completely factual:- I quoted base 12 and base 24 numerological basic elementary mathematics.

In base 12, when 11:59/12:00 is passed, the numerals turn back to zero because 12 is the maximum in ANY mechanical numeric recording device so therefore it reverts to zero, otherwise it would be adding a 13th hour (número logically speaking).

Whilst more recent edits say there are 24 hours in a day and it starts at 12:00 that is also quite wrong - it does not start or end at 12:00 it starts and ends at 24:00.

A new argument therefore is created:- should we always refer to a maximum whole number as that number divided by two.

I feel extremely aggrieved that my edit was removed, cannot understand the thought process of the individual (If it was done by a person and not a bot - which I do not think would misinterpret the edit) and has now left a "perpetual nonsense rule/convention" which is clearly in dire need of correcting and updating.

I expected edits to be made to bring the presentation up to Wikipedia Standard or clarification of the absolutely obvious points that whilst there are "conventions" regarding clocks and times they CONFLICT 100% and are completely OPPOSITE to conventions theoretical, actual, mechanical and physical which was the point I was attempting to make.

In a solid mechanical object already manufactured to operate in base 12 format (decimalised to 2 places) it cannot suddenly grow another 60 minutes to make 13 hours or x2, therefore a 26 hour day.

I would therefore request reinstatement of my edit to allow sensible common sense improvement or correctly relocating if I have posted it in the wrong area because this logical statement CANNOT BE IGNORED OR DISMISSED SO LIGHTLY BY AN INTELLIGENT OR RATIONAL THINKING HUMAN BEING. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HigherIntelligence (talkcontribs) 14:16, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello, HigherIntelligence. I'm afraid that, irrespective of the merits of your argument, it has no place in Wikipedia, as it constitutes original research. In fact, no argument or conclusion is ever acceptable in a Wikipedia article unless it is drawn directly from an argument or conclusion in a single published source. --ColinFine (talk) 00:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


hello I'm Fernando Hazard I'm Male My Age = 21 Years Old My Country = Indonesia I Can Editing Wiki Article And Sorry I'm Editing Your Article.

Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by FERNANDO HAZARD (talkcontribs) 00:52, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

How to approve a pending change[edit]

Hi, I've been an editor for 2+ years with, I think something like 18,000 edits. I want to approve this change: [9]. How can I go about doing that? --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

The error was introduced in this edit last year. I have prodded the editor concerned, & will accept the pending change. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:35, 26 March 2015 (UTC)