Wikipedia:Teahouse: Difference between revisions

New to Wikipedia? See our tutorial for new editors or introduction to contributing page.
Note: Newer questions appear at the bottom of the Teahouse. Completed questions are archived within 2-3 days.

Read the newest questions
Skip to bottom

Most recent archives
1213, 1214, 1215, 1216, 1217, 1218, 1219, 1220, 1221, 1222, 1223, 1224, 1225, 1226, 1227, 1228, 1229, 1230, 1231, 1232

Disputed text

Hello, I have added text to an article and it keeps being removed by another user, who says that the author I quote is not worth including. I have provided links to the author's credentials on a university website, but the text keeps on being removed. Is there usually a resolution to these sorts of dispute? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saint Michael 2010 (talk • contribs) 15:03, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Saint Michael 2010. You and Cagwinn seem to be edit-warring on Lucius of Britain, and you both need to stop. What you need to do, according to the policy on dispute resolution, is to start discussing the matter on Talk:Lucius of Britain, which neither of you has yet done (I see that Cagwinn was involved in a discussion there four years ago, which mentioned David Knight's book; but there has been no recent discussion). If you cannot reach agreement, then the DR page I pointed you at tells you how to proceed. --ColinFine (talk) 15:50, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, I will put something on the talk page next week. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saint Michael 2010 (talk • contribs) 16:02, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Michael 2010 is pushing fringe theories and refuses to abide by WP:UNDUE. David Knight is NOT a recognized scholar, he is a fringe author with no qualifications and none of his bizarre theories have been accepted by genuine scholars in the field. Cagwinn (talk) 19:15, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Cagwinn! If your statement is indeed true, then you would be far more likely to receive a receptive response if you carefully (and judiciously) laid out your proof in the article's talk page as ColinFine suggested and were willing to discuss the issue peacefully with Saint Michael 2010. Thanks for your efforts to improve Wikipedia! —zfJames Please add {{ping|ZfJames}} to your reply (talk page, contribs) 02:23, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Knight's book has already been discussed a bit on the article's talk page. The fact that you don't see any scholars of Roman era Britain citing Knight's book speaks to its utter lack of notability. Also, Knight is an archaeologist, not an historian, and he naively treats medieval literature such as Geoffrey of Monmouth's fictitious Historia Regum Britanniae as if it is a genuine historical source (which it is not). Knight is a fringe author with fringe theories - thus, per WP:UNDUE, his ideas about Lucius of Britain do not belong on Wikipedia. Cagwinn (talk) 06:46, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And your discussions about the article and its source don't belong on this page, Cagwinn, but on the articl'es talk page; or thereafter as directed by WP:conflict resolution. --ColinFine (talk) 10:15, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clear conflict of interest - how to report?

A local scandal is affecting someone who has a Wiki page that was pretty clearly created by them (or someone close to them)and continually updated by them. They now seem to be adding personal information about the scandal which attempts to lessons the charges against them (which were reported in the national newspaper), without providing any citations. How can this be dealt with? Ross Porter (Canadian broadcaster) NOTE: this page has been repeatedly called up for COI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.189.56.241 (talk) 15:54, 15 June 2018 (UTC) Thanks. 205.189.56.241 (talk) 15:32, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. The place to report this is Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. Please note that you need to notify anyone who you report there that you have done so, by posting on their talk page. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:01, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Cordless Larry 142.216.128.5 (talk) 16:04, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Citing a private e-mail from a credible source

Hi All,

Apologies in advance if this is covered in a policy somewhere; I've looked in various places including on WP:CITET but none of the source categories are quite right.

This is regarding a Finnish TV series, where the Wikipedia article contains an error (a relatively minor one, but still) in what comes to the personal details of the main character, both in the Finnish (presumably original) article as well as the English one. I searched for a reputable source to clarify this, but couldn't find one, so I contacted the production company. The series producer replied by e-mail to clarify the matter. So far, so good.

However, I would now like to correct the mistake in the article(s), but how do I do this when I still don't have a citable source? Or should I therefore not?

Thanks — DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:11, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DoubleGrazing. Interesting question. I think my approach in this situation would be to post what you've already said here on the talk page of the article in question, and paste in elements of the email you received from the production company. If you asked there whether anyone minded if you changed the content accordingly (and then waited a while for a reply) it would probably then be OK to be bold and alter minor details of the type you seem to be referring to. The difficulty comes when a statement already has a citation to a source which is incorrect, and you have the right information, but a poor source. But by having that discussion on the article's talk page, all editors in future will at least see what information you have dug out, irrespective of whether editor concensus allows it to remain there, or not. Others might take a different approach, but I think from what you said that this would be OK. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:42, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nick Moyes, that's pretty much what I was thinking also, just wasn't sure. In this case no source is currently cited so there's nothing I need to contest, which probably makes things easier. Ta muchly, :) DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:53, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to have to disagree with Nick here. Local consensus can't override WP:V – one of our central policies. Personal communications can't be used as sources here because nobody else can verify them. I think the best you can do is remove the statement in question altogether, since it isn't referenced. But you can't include information sourced from an unpublished email.

@DoubleGrazing: – Joe (talk) 17:01, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Joe Roe, I hear what you say, but... The detail I'm looking to add is entirely uncontentious; in fact, anyone watching the series could most likely gather the same info first-hand themselves (I could probably cite the series as a reference, I just don't know which particular episodes). I also think it would genuinely add useful information here, given that the article as it stands has at best an ambiguity, at worst an actual error. I guess I could go back to the production company and ask them to post something on their website, but this seems a bit OTT just so that I could mention what is after all a minor point on Wikipedia. Moving forward, how should I resolve this, now that I have two opposing pieces of advice? DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:40, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you can cite the series itself if its something uncontroversial. In fact, you don't even need to cite it. See MOS:PLOTSOURCE. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:55, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Creating my own article.

My question is for all the members of the Teahouse - How will I create my own article about someone one Wikipedia? Please answer me on my talk page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gamer10101 .

Gamer10101 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamer10101 (talk • contribs) 16:34, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no expert, but seems to me like WP:HOW could be a good place to start. DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:44, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gamer10101, welcome to our Teahouse. Forgive me for answering here, not on your talk page, as you requested (though I will post a copy there). We have many other editors who like to see answers to questions. But I will leave you a 'talkback' notification when I'm done. Addding to what DoubleGrazing has suggested, you do need to be aware that creating a new article is one of the most difficult challenges here, especially for a newcomer. Firstly, you person needs to meet our Notability (people) criteria. Whilst you might think some Youtuber with half a million followers is clearly notable, that's irrelevant from Wikipedia's point of view. So do please read and appreciate that to demonstrate notability, you absolutely must cite references that show the person has been written about, in depth by independent, reliable sources. Se we discount their own blogs, YouTube pages and social media accounts, and other peoples blogs and websites, but require instead newspapers, media outlets, books and journals which have written about that person, thing, or place in some detail. Thanks, by the way, for declaring your Conflict of Interest over Draft:Abdur Rahman. (It's not this person is it? If so, I urge you not to write about yourself, especially as, just like me, that person doesn't look to be anywhere close to meeting our criteria for notability. See Wikipedia:Autobiography.)

To help familiarise yourself with how things work here, do try out The Wikipedia Adventure and then read Wikipedia:Your first article. It is almost inevitable that you will make a mistake if you plunge right in to article creation straight away. It's often best to make lots of smaller edits across multiple pages to'get a feel' of how things are done. When another editor reverts what you've done, please don't be upset, angry or offended. Consider the reasons they gave for reverting that edit, and try not to do it again. It's OK to politely ask them to explain why they've undone something you thought was perfectly reasonable. That way you'll more quickly learn what to do and what not to do. The one things we don't do is editing, reverting,editing, reverting between two editors - that's a surefire way to get blocked from editing, as is blindly carrying on when other more experienced editors have asked you not to do something again. So, we discuss our concerns on talk pages - whether it's on the article or on an editor's own talk page. Finally, your question asked about creating 'my own article'. Nobody here owns any page - even if its about themselves. Everything is in the public domain and can be constructively edited by anybody,providing they follow our guidelines (of which, sadly, there a rather a lot). But we're always here at the Teahouse to help if you get stuck. Good luck, and welcome to Wikipedia! Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:32, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Broken Link

Hello. I am new to editing broken links. I tried to fix a broken link on River Town Saints article. I replaced the link with the correct url, but a Check url=value message appeared. If you click on the link it takes you to the correct web page, so I'm not sure what I did wrong. Please advise. Thanks. I forgot to add my nameCalliopeMuse (talk) 17:21, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaned up that ref and a few others, using a different format. David notMD (talk) 18:58, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where to appeal an AFD discussion with merge outcome

Is Wikipedia:Deletion review, the right place to appeal an AFD discussion where the outcome was merge? Pratyush (talk) 17:15, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@PratyushSinha101: Welcomt to the Teahouse. The first step is to contact the closing administrator and ask if they will re-assess their close. If you still disagree then you can challenge the close at Deletion Review. Please note though that a deletion review is not to re-argue the case it is only to assess whether the AfD close was good ie that the closer properly read the consensus of the discussion and that there were significant and material errors in the AfD process. Jbh ^Talk 22:18, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jbhunley:, that helps. Thanks. Pratyush (talk) 08:31, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cannot create any page without an administrator

Hello. We have a problem in our national wikipedia, it seems that none of the titles I try in the national language are allowed. They are on the "black list" and require the administrator to create the page. We onle have 3 administrators and they seem to be very busy. At the same time, there is 350 articles to be published in the national language. What should I and my colleagues do? Is this restriction working for any national wikipedia, or we are the unlucky ones??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RashLightning (talk • contribs) 17:23, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RashLightning, welcome to the Teahouse. Your account has no edits at any other language. I don't know why you go out of your way to make formulations which conceal which language you want help with but please reveal it if you want to give us a chance to help you. Also give an example title. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:33, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Newbie who has just posted draft article and mangled the footnoting process

I have dialogued over the past 24 hours with Ian Thompspn, Orange Mike and DESiegel (and thank you all.)

I've made an attempt to draft an initial posting of an article about a TV show (now entering its 4th season), starting with my disclosure of a financial relationship to the production company. I've stuck to facts and externally published articles. It seems I've managed to mangle the footnoting process though:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tcampo123/sandbox/Matter_of_Fact_with_Soledad_O%27Brien#cite_note-4

Happy to make any changes as advised -- or better still for any other users to change/fix as they like.

Thanks.

Tom — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tcampo123 (talk • contribs) 17:32, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, Tom. Another user has fixed the immediate problem (look at the history of your draft to see what they did). I suggest you read referencing for beginners. --ColinFine (talk) 21:41, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Tom, I haven't looked at all your references, but the four or five I have looked at are all clearly based on interviews or press releases, and are therefore not independent. This doesn't mean you can't use them, but it does mean that they do not contribute in any way to establishing that the show meets Wikipedia's criteria for Notability. --ColinFine (talk) 22:02, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Colin, again for your ongoing help, guidance and especially patience. (I've also thanked Chiswick Chap for his extensive help.)

Re meeting the bar for Notability, I'm going by the following postings as examples of comparable television shows. If you check the references, most if not nearly all are articles resulting from news announcements/press releases about these shows if not directly from press releases themselves. Simply the nature of the beast when it comes to TV programs and the like. I'm hoping the governing criteria in cases of these types of article submissions revolve around the nature of the language used -- For example, I'm taking care to avoid any "hype" or heavily promotional language -- rather than the initial sourcing of the information about such shows, sourcing which almost inevitably originates with publicity about the show.

Examples (based on program genre/format):

Sinclair Broadcast Group's "Full Measure with Sharyl Attkisson": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_Measure_with_Sharyl_Attkisson

"Fox News Sunday": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Sunday

CNN's "State of the Union" with Jake Tapper: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_the_Union_(TV_series)

Again, if you check the sourcing, it's typically from news releases, articles derived from news releases, and/or the program's or network's own website.

Addressing the Notability criterion in terms of one aspect: "Matter of Fact with Soledad O'Brien" -- based on Nielsen data -- now has an audience reach comparable to that of "Fox News Sunday" and far surpassing those of "Full Measure" and "State of the Union."

I'm happy to answer any additional questions and to try to make any further additions/adjustments that would permit me to get my draft to a stage where it can be reviewed for full publication>

Thank you again!

Tcampo123 (talk) 19:01, 16 June 2018 (UTC) Tom[reply]

We have many articles which do not meet our standards - usually because they were created some time ago, when the standards were less rigorously applied. "Other stuff exists" is never accepted as a valid argument. If you find an existing article does not establish the notability of the subject you are encouraged to:

Tag it with a template such as {{notability}}
If you are willing to spend the time, look for suitable sources for it, and add them (or suggest them on its talk page)
If you can't find any, nominate the article for deletion on the grounds that if you can't find suitable sources, the subject probably doesn't meet out criteria for notability. See Deletion process.

Given what you have revealed about yourself, you may have a conflict of interest in involving yourself in those articles, but provided you are open about who you are, and you are seen to be trying to apply Wikipedia's standards, rather than attacking the competition, I don't see a problem. --ColinFine (talk) 23:57, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, as always, Colin.

I certainly don't mean to come across as attacking other TV shows; quite the opposite. I was merely addressing the notability question by comparing this particular TV show to others that have pages by citing the industry's governing criterion for measuring notability of TV shows -- namely, audience reach.

There is another consideration I neglected to include when addressing the notability question in my earlier response -- incomplete if not confusing information. When one searches "Matter of Fact" in association with a TV show, they find this page about an Australian TV show:

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

Again, this is in no way to suggest any de-legitimization of inclusion of the Australian show named "Matter of Fact" -- rather to argue it raises the merit of a page (of whatever length) clarifying that there is also a US TV show -- to "supplement the record," if you will.

Once again, I appreciate not only your time, patience and guidance, but your acknowledgement that (admittedly after a couple of fits & starts in terms of format/protocol) I've been forthright about my COI and tried to adhere generally to Wikipedia standards.

I would like to submit my article for consideration but I wanted to address the lingering concerns you raised before doing so. I'm happy to address any additional questions or concerns prior to submitting -- or, if you feel I should go ahead and submit, I will do so.

Thanks again.

Tcampo123 (talk) Tom —Preceding undated comment added 19:11, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Submission

Hello! Could Draft be reviewed? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kathrinelilholtnielsen (talk • contribs) 18:09, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Kathrinelilholtnielsen and welcome to the Teahouse.

I'm afraid we don't generally expedite reviews of drafts already in the queue, but your draft hasn't even been submitted. But don't submit it until you have provided some notability references that meet the requirements of WP:NACTOR. So far, none of your references comes close to establishing notability. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:09, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where to start and what do i need to know?

I finally decided to make an account for Wikipedia. I just wanted to maybe know from some experienced users out there for where did you start and how? And maybe what i NEED to know and where i should begin. Steeltree1 (talk) 19:32, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Steeltree1 ! I've left a bunch of links on your talk page, they're a great place to start! valereee (talk) 19:41, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Steeltree1 welcome to the weird and wacky world of Wikipedia! I suspect every editor has their own tale of how they began editing, but I suspect many, like me, looked up things they either were particularly interested or knowledgeable in and were surprised to discover obvious things missing. If they had access to good books or found online sources of information cite to support content they wanted to add they might have made that first, tentative step add editing. When they discovered this didn't actually break Wikipedia - but improved it a little bit - they may have started on a fantastic journey of contributing to the world's greatest encyclopaedia. I see you've already taken your first steps by removing inappropriate content from articles relating to your home town. Brilliant work - and well done for leaving an edit summary to explain what you've done. I'd suggest tempering your enthusiasm just a little bit, and avoid edits like this one. I'm not sure I'd know how to respond if you'd left it for me! (But we do have a system of Barnstars where one editors, impressed by the contributions of another editor, can leave them a supportive barnstar to show their appreciation. Anyway, good look. Give The Wikipedia Adventure a go - see if you can collect all 15 badges in its six Missions. Come back with questions on editing any time you get stuck. Regards from the English Midlands. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:03, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How do i report or point out a user?

I have found a user who has made inappropriate edits to some articles, i have tried to get rid of it, and they were recent. Steeltree1 (talk) 19:54, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AIAV Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 20:23, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Steeltree1: welcome to the Teahouse. The first step should always be to communicate with the user on their talk page. The link provided by Thegooduser above leads to a noticeboard where repeat vandals can be reported to the administrators, but it is unusual that action will be taken if the user hasn't been warned about their behaviour, first. If you let us know which article(s) are affected you could perhaps get a better and more specific answer. :-) --bonadea contributions talk 20:55, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably The Kingswinford School. While I agree that it was appropriate to remove the sentence you did, Steeltree1, I think the editor who added it was editing in good faith - they evidently have strong opinions, and may not be aware that opinions are not appropriate in Wikipedia articles. You should certainly start by engaging with them on either the article's talk page or their User Talk page. --ColinFine (talk) 22:09, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Uploading an image from a site with granted permission

I wanted to inquire about uploading an image to Commons from a site that has provided other images on several Wikipedia articles. There is a box with permission details for each uploaded image from this site and to quote that partially, the following is written: "Wikimedia has received an e-mail confirming that the copyright holder has approved publication under the terms mentioned on this page. This correspondence has been reviewed by an OTRS member and stored in our permission archive." So in light of this, is it possible to upload another image from this site as long as the permission details (the box) are noted? Flyingspacecat (talk) 23:12, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Flyingspacecat Does the permission email recieved by OTRS specify each image individually or does it cover all images on the source site? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 23:20, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Roger (Dodger67) I don't have access to the email as it requires an OTRS login but the ticket number (ticket #2008012510003504) for every image uploaded to Wikipedia from this site is the same. So I've guessed it's one email correspondence concerning the entire site. Though I wanted to be sure which is why I've inquired. Flyingspacecat (talk) 01:54, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Archive Date

So I've been wondering this for a while, and I've been meaning to ask. On citation templates, there's an option for 'Archive Date'. I've always been putting the date when I archived it or the listed date if I wasn't the one to archive it, but if I archive it and the archive site, e.g. the Wayback Machine, gives a different date since it's on GMT, do I put that date or what the date was for me? E.g. it's June 15 where I am, but the Wayback Machine lists it as June 16. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheTechnician27 (talk • contribs) 01:34, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello TheTechnician27 and welcome to the Teahouse.

It's best to match the archivedate parameter with the date that is part of the timestamp in the archiveurl. You can put your current date or the UTC date in the accessdate, that's not as critical. Or you can put a date in the past that represents when you verified that the reference content. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:35, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello TheTechnician27. |archivedate = should give the date-stamp of the archived page, as recorded by the archive, to help in finding the page in the archive, and to provide context of what version of the page was archived. |accessdate= should give the date on which you (or someone) most recently verified that the page as it then stood supported the statements that it is being cited for. This is often the date on which you added the citation, but not always. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 13:59, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I want to for Mayor of Amritsar Karamjit Singh Rintu

Please guide me how I can create a Wikipedia article for current Mayor of Amritsar Sr.Karamjit Singh Rintu in office from Jan 2018 Karamjit Singh Rintu (http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/punjab/karamjit-singh-rintu-is-amritsar-mayor/532962.html)https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/amritsar/karamjit-singh-rintu-is-new-mayor-of-amritsar/articleshow/62617274.cms — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chunghwaace (talk • contribs) 08:04, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Chunghwaace, and welcome to the Teahouse. It's a rather broad question, but the most important thing to start with is to make sure there's enough information for you to create a Wikipedia article in reliable sources. A couple of in-depth texts focusing on the person would be good, or it's possible they can't really have a Wikipedia article either. Hopefully, you should be able to find this for the mayor of a large city. Pay attention to sourcing your statements. Apart from that, I think that reading Wikipedia:Your first article is probably the best advice I can give you. /Julle (talk) 09:19, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Chunghwaace. I might be misinterpreting, but your choice of words "establish a page for" makes me think that you might be making a very common mistake and thinking that Wikipedia is like social media, where people "have pages". It is not: it is an encyclopaedia, and what we do here is not "establish pages for" subjects, but "write articles about" them. An article about a person should summarise what people who have no connection with the subject have chosen to publish about them - including material critical of them, if that has been reliably published. Wikipedia has very little interest in what a subject, or people connected with the subject, have said about themselves; and no interest at all in how the subject wishes to be portrayed. If there is an article about a person, then far from that article being "for" that person, the person and their associates are strongly discouraged from editing the article directly. --ColinFine (talk) 10:25, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks --ColinFine (talk) /Julle (talk) This is about newly elected Mayor of Amritsar City, Punjab and lots of independent sources available for references like news paper and Election Commission of India links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chunghwaace (talk • contribs) 09:53, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected wikipedia pages

Dear Sir/ Madam,

I was wondering when an editor is allowed to protect/ semi-protect a page and with what authority. If the content in the page is unreliable/ untrue, is there anyone to cross-check that and edit the information? I understand that Wikipedia is not peer-reviewed, but when one sees information that is miss-leading, but at the same time protected, what is the way to go about removing it, if any?

Thank you very much in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.5.126.135 (talk • contribs) 04:59, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi anonymous editor, and welcome to the Teahouse! A Wikipedia administrator can protect or semi-protect the page if deemed necessary, usually because of vandalism or because of edit warring when the involved parties should really discuss the article instead of just changing it back and forth. If you want all the details, you can read Wikipedia:Protection policy. If you come across a protected article with errors, we recommend that you point them out on the talk page of that article. /Julle (talk) 09:13, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Editor with IP ending in 135. Requests for protection to be added or removed from pages can be made at Requests for page protection. Protection is normally added only because of persistent vandalism, or to deal with an edit war or other dispute that renders the page unstable. Protection is mos toften removed when the original reason for protection no longer applies. To suggest an edit on a protected page, use {{request edit}}, {{Edit semi-protected}}, or {{Edit fully-protected}} (as appropriate) on the talk page of the page to be edited. Provide a detailed description of the requested edit, usually the exact requested text. Also provide one or more citations to reliable sources that support statements in the requested edit. Without sources the edit may well be declined. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 13:54, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Help with naming an article

I want to create an article about the "Côté Gold Project" (website). How should I make the name of the article (what appears in the wikipedia URL):

Cote_Gold_project
Cote_Gold_mine
Cote_Gold_mining_project
same as above, but with the accents: Côté_Gold_project (or _mine, or _mining_project)
same as above again, with this variation: Cote_Gold_gold_mine (see Rosebel_gold_mine, where for a gold mine, "gold mine" is in the article name)

Considerations:

This is a mining project, not a mine yet. Still it will become a mine. Should I use #1 for now, and later, move the article to #2? Or use #2 right away?
If we don't use the accents, we still need to show the accents on the actual encyclopedia page. Could I use the "DISPLAYTITLE:Côté Gold project" tag (or Côté Gold mine, or Côté Gold mining project) within the article?mmorel 12:08, 16 June 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MMorel (talk • contribs) 08:16, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MMorel, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Before even considering what the name of such an article would be, consider whether it should exist at all. Is this project notable? Has it been written about in several independent published reliable sources in significant depth? That means sources not affiliated with the owners or promoters of this project, sources with a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking, such as mainstream journalists or academic sources. That means not press releases, not interviews with project spokespeople, not fan sites or one=-person sites or blogs, not sources with a poor reputation for accuracy, not "news stories" that are just rewrites of press releases, and not sources with any financial stake in the project. see WP:ORG and WP:CORPDEPTH for more details. Unless several such sources discuss the project in significant detail, there cannot be an article under any name. Also consider WP:CRYSTAL, since Wikipedia is not the place for speculation on things that have not yet occurred.

If, after considering all that, you think that an article is warranted, then please follow WP:COMMONNAME, This says that the name most commonly used to refer to the project in reliable English-language sources should usually be used. If the name has changed over time, recent sources are usually favored. Other names can be created as redirect pages, and included in the article, if supported by reliable sources.

If you decide to go ahead, MMorel, I strongly urge you to use the Article wizard to create a draft under the Articles for creation project, so that it can be reviewed by anj experienced editor before being moved to the main article space.

I hope this advice is helpful. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 14:19, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As DESiegel says, it's odd to be worrying about the name of the article (which can easily be modified later) without first checking whether the article is likely to be accepted. But, to answer your question, I suggest "Côté Gold mining project", with the accents and without the underlines. Maproom (talk) 07:43, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Samrat Reddy page!!

I created a celebrity page for my friend and actor from Indian Cinema Industry. He is currently also a contestant of Bigg Boss (Reality TV show similar to Big Brother) and has done more 22 movies in Indian Cinema industry but his page is rejected under notable profile.

Please help me how i can get his page up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amunnagkumar (talk • contribs) 14:10, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Amunnagkumar: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You were given the reason that the draft was declined- the sources offered do not adequately indicate how the subject is notable, as Wikipedia defines it. In this case, the relevant notability guidelines would be WP:NACTOR. What is needed are multiple independent reliable sources that offer in depth coverage of your friend and indicate he meets the notability guidelines.

I would also note that any article about him would not be "his page", but a page about him. Wikipedia is not social media to merely tell about people. 331dot (talk) 14:29, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hello, Amunnagkumar, and welcome to the Teahouse. There is really only one answer: more and better cited sources. Currently the draft cites only two sources. One of them has only a single brief paragraph about Reddy. The other is entirely about a beauty award won by his sister, and not about him at all. That might be a start for an article about the sister, but is not relevant to an article about Reddy. Do not resubmit until you have found and cited in the article several independent published reliable sources about Reddy, that discuss him in significant detail. These should not be fan sites, purely local coverage, press releases, blogs or other one-person sites, interviews with Reddy, or things published by Reddy or his associates. The must not be mere routine or passing coverage, or inclusions in online directories or lists. Each such source should devote at least several paragraphs to Reddy or his work. They must together establish that he is notable in the special sense that Wikipedia gives to that term. See our guideline on the notability of actors. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 14:39, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that as Reddy is your friend, you have at least a mild Conflict of interest and must be particularly careful in writing about him here. Any article must be neutral and fact-based, not designed to praise or promote him. Read our guideline on conflict of interest and follow it, please. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 14:42, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Amunnagkumar. Judging from the words you use, I think part of your problem might be that, like many people, you have a misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is. There is no such thing as a "celebrity page" in Wikipedia: there are many articles and some of these are about celebrities. Articles are one kind of page in Wikipedia, so it is not wrong to refer to them as pages; but I think that doing so encourages people to think of them like pages on social media: they are not, they are fundamentally and crucially different. --ColinFine (talk) 16:40, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Someone hacked into my contributor account - what can I do?

Someone took over my contributor account ... do I have any options? I just registered a new one, but I would like to have access to my history. Please let me know if anyone has any ideas - thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronniebrown2 (talk • contribs) 17:52, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ronniebrown2: There have been no contributions from Ronniebrown in a year and a half. Why do you think that your previous account was taken over?

Do you have an email address connected to the previous account? If so, you should be able to recover your password. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:03, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian.thomson: My previous account was Ronnielbrown - the email associated with that account also has been hacked and taken over and Yahoo does not offer any human support for that, they just say to register a new account. The person that did this is just purely malicious - how do I add comments here? I just edited the source to add this in, is that how you are supposed to do it? ronniebrown2 (talk) 18:10, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That account has only made one edit in two years, and had only 163 other edits before that. The best course of action would just be to post a note on the user page for your current account that you used to edit under that prior account, and maybe leave a note on that page that the account was compromised and a link to your current account. There's really not much we can do beyond that because we don't have any means of verifying who you are. You might want to add a (filled-out) Committed identity template to your current account so that you can recover that one in case of any future incidents. Instructions for getting a hash for that template (do not put your raw, unencrypted personal information in the template) can be found here or here. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:20, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pro pic

How to upload profile pictures — Preceding unsigned comment added by G. YuvaKrishna (talk • contribs) 18:23, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, G. YuvaKrishna. The copyright holder, who is usually the photographer, should upload the image to Wikimedia Commons, using the easy upload wizard they have there. Please be careful about the use of the word "profile" because Wikipedia is not a social media site, and we do not have profiles. We have biographies of notable people and userpages for Wikipedia editors. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:46, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abusive Admin

I have just started editing mostly on the talk pages. I am getting threats from an administrator who seems to have an agenda. I made some suggestions and this person attacks me.KirinMagic (talk) 18:45, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would highly advise you to take their advice, or you will be blocked. 331dot (talk) 18:48, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But their advice is a threat. it is on the talk page and it is a suggestions. Are you saying an administrator can threaten. I thought that was against Wikipedia rules. Sounds like he is an Antifa facist himself You could block the administrator insteadKirinMagic (talk) 19:01, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have not been attached, KirinMagic, nor threatened. You have been editing on some rather controversial topics, including at least 2 which are subject to Discretionary sanctions. This is a general rule, not for you alone, and not only for those of a particular PoV. You have engaged in disruptive editing, adding negative content without citing a reliable source that supports the statement. You have added outright defamatory content to at least one article, which was reverted and revision deleted. You have been warned that continuing in this pattern will lead to a block. This is a proper warning, and not at all abusive. I advise you to heed it. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:05, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I will add that Sounds like he is an Antifa facist himself is a personal attack. Makign such attacks is in and of itself grounds for a block, KirinMagic. Comment on content, not on contributors, and do not engage in Casting aspersions. All you need to do is edit in accordance with Wikipedia policies, and there will be no blocks. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:10, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Des check my talk page. And I put one edit on a main page and it had two sources and had one poster agree. Calling Antifa a hate group is like calling the KKK a hate group. Since when is the ADL not considerate a legitimate source? I advise you three to respect the rules as well.KirinMagic (talk) 19:08, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked KirinMagic indefinitely. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:14, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) KirinMagic, I read your talk page fully before posting in this thread, and several of your recent edits as well. The merits of the edit(s) are for the article talk page, but it is my view that the ADL did not say that, at least not in the cited source, and your other "source" is nothing of the sort. You need to back off on this. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:16, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This account is a sockpuppet of User:MagicKirin, who was blocked indefinitely way back in 2006 for engaging in the same type of behavior. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:36, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Who is vandalizing Secretprojectrevolution, if anyone? I stand accused. What makes which edits vandalism?

Good thing I'm anonymous. This vandalism accusation seems to be a slander! --50.201.195.170 (talk) 02:28, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. Another IP editor incorrectly described your edits as vandalism. However, you twice tried to add a BitTorrent link that does not function properly. I tried the links without success. So, it was correct to revert your edits, although the reason given was not correct. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:47, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IP Editor ....170. vandalism is an edit intended to harm the project, intentionally introduce misinformation, intentionally remove valid sourced information, or the like. Classic blunt vandalism is the replacement of an entire article or section with profanity. subtle vandalism can be changing a few numbers in a table so that they are no longer what the source said. In short intention is important. Any change that is intended in good faith to improve the project is not vandalism.

However, as Cullen328 explained above, many edits that are not vandalism are nonetheless nor appropriate and should be reverted. Inserting non-working links is one such case. and as per WP:ELNO, most BitTorrent links are not appropriate even if they work.

Please be careful with terms like "slander". We have a poli9cy against making legal threats on Wikipedia. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:14, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The vandalism accusation still hasn't been retracted.

This bullshit accusation that I added a link that does nothing seems to be levied by people without a bittorent client. In a normal system with a normally-installed bittorrent client, the client starts; I tested it before saving. Again, if there's something wrong with this magnet link on wikipedia, show us one that does work and we can compare. Seems some other users are fighting over it now... 50.201.195.170 (talk) 16:53, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The other IP editor who accused you of vandalism has been blocked and experienced editors have acknowledged that your edits were not vandalism. What more do you want at this point? Have you read WP:ELNO? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:33, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was coming here to make note of it, but now I see the account of the person who accused me of vandalism has NOT been blocked, and is defending their telling me to fuck off and claiming I was, I kid you not, spamming! : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:IndianBio&diff=prev&oldid=846201311. I will. What more I want remains clear. In a normal system with a normally-installed bittorrent client, the client starts; I tested it before saving. Again, if there's something wrong with this magnet link on wikipedia, show us one that does work and we can compare. And deal with that account? 50.201.195.170 (talk) 18:48, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello? Again, the link works for me; what seems to be the problem? As I said when I added it, "Obviously the Officially released BitTorrent should be included"--50.201.195.170 (talk) 17:30, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear IP, I think that next to the youtube link, an inclusion of http://bundles.bittorrent.com/madonna-revolution/ might be suitable as an html/plain-text landing page. Both the youtube and that seem to be ‘official sites’ of the distribution. The magnet link is not as suitable link. And no, it is not obvious that it should be added, our rules are stricter than that, and is still subject to WP:EL. —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:43, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose http://bundles.bittorrent.com/madonna-revolution/ is a reasonable alternative, so lets go with that. Any objections?

PS Your comment is confusing. A lot of typos? WP:COPYVIOEL isn't a problem since this the torrent is official; I see nothing at WP:EL that says magnet links or links to torrents are disallowed categorically. As I see it, it is obvious that there's no good reason not to include a link, assuming one is aware that it is a link to an officially released clearly legal, clearly notable torrent. You are crazy if you think you can tell what's obvious to me better than I can. You are welcome to your own opinion but you have no business telling me what mine is. --50.201.195.170 (talk) 20:11, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How do I delete User:Ejey adroit?

How can I delete my user page article?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ejey adroit (talk • contribs) 05:13, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ejey adroit and welcome to the Teahouse! Only administrators can delete pages, so I have gone ahead and treated it as a U1 deletion request (meaning you requested it) in addition to the fact that it was a copyright violation (G12). If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to let us know. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:41, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Translation from 'Books' section of Japanese WP article - help wanted please.

I have done my best to translate the titles of Hideo Haga's many books from his Japanese WP entry into English using Google Translate. I am not certain how accurate the result is, or whether I should simply have transcribed the original titles using the original Japanese text instead. What is the usual procedure? Can other editors fluent in Japanese assist please? Jamesmcardle^(talk) 08:00, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go the extra mile, Jamesmcardle, and first:

Check if some of these books have actually been translated. I.e. 『日本の祭』 is probably Japanese Festivals. 『ラ・フィエスタ世界の祭りにこがれて芳賀日出男作品集』 may (or may not) be La Fiesta: All the World Loves a Festival.
Next, check if secondary sources have already translated the titles of Japanese works. I.e. Sons of God, Worshippers of God is given, probably for『神の子神の民』.
Then, give the rest in the original Japanese and, optionally, romanization and/or your translation. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:07, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your advice Finnusertop. I'll check his titles on Worldcat and hope the dates and my rough translations line up. Good to know you think it ok to use original Japanese for those for which I'm unable to track down a reliable translation.Jamesmcardle^(talk) 10:12, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suspicious deletions (twice) of my contribution

I've twice had the same contribution deleted without explanation from "OKEx" since April 22, 2018.[1][2] My contribution is half a sentence that cites a study critical of the article's subject, a cryptocurrency exchange. For various reasons, I suspect the deletions were made not to improve Wikipedia but to improve that company's public relations, foremost among them my discovery that the first time my contribution was deleted, the entire article had been overwritten by copying directly from the company website's "About Us" page, and without identifying the company as its source.

Any recommendations for how I should pursue this? It's possible that the company is perpetrating a fraud and covering it up, but it's also possible that my seemingly credible source is wrong and being unfairly critical of the company, or at worst deliberately seeking to harm the company. No one will discuss it with me.[3][4] I refuse to engage in an editing war, but I also want to help protect Wikipedia from abuse. Adelphious (talk) 18:24, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When someone deletes referenced content, with the edit summary "Made minor introduction changes", it certainly looks suspicious. I see you have started a discussion on the talk page, as is recommended. I suggest you wait a few days, then if you get no response, restore what was removed. Maproom (talk) 19:56, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Maproom: Thanks for responding, Maproom. The second deletion ended the sentence (and paragraph) with a comma, suggesting the deletion was accidental. Furthermore, my latest talk page comments date May 23, whereas the second deletion occurred later, on June 7. I therefore have no reason to think that editor will see my talk page comments, and some reason to think the edit was accidental. Does that make a good case for reinstating my contribution now, or would you still suggest that I wait a few more days? Adelphious (talk) 20:14, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I gave it some more thought. The comma ending suggests an accidental deletion, and the "Made minor introduction changes" confirms that deleting it was not the editor's intent. Assuming good faith on the editor's part, the deletion was most likely accidental, and correcting it would therefore not be edit-warring. I'll reinstate the deleted reference now. Adelphious (talk) 21:44, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot both username and password

Does anyone know what can be done if one forgets one's username and password. I have tried everything and it rejects me every time. There must be a way to retrieve one's username so one can create a new password. Thanks so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:4048:BA00:DD2B:8FC:95E1:D505 (talk) 19:00, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you assigned an email address to the account, no.

Do you remember any of the pages or articles you edited with that account? If so, you might be able to figure out what the user name was.

But again, if you did not assign an email address to the account, it's lost. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:11, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One practical approach is to click the "View history" tab of an article you contributed to in the past and find the name associated with your contribution. More general advice offered by many security experts is to use a password program like KeePassXC that stores all your passwords in an encrypted form accessible by one master password. So long as you keep a backup (e.g. via email) of your tiny password database (a few dozen kilobytes in size) and keep a written copy of your master password someplace safe, you'll never lose another credential pair again. Adelphious (talk) 19:13, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just a little suggestion anonymous user, what you are describing happens quite often. When this occurs, it will be fine if you create a new user name. Immediately after you create your new account, post a note to your new userpage stating that you had to create your new user account because you forgot your old username/password. Other editors patrol new account creations for users who create multiple accounts for questionable reasons. By explaining your reason for creating a new account, you can usually avoid being blocked from editing. Please write down your new username and password so this doesn't happen again. Creating a third username may be questioned. Best Regards, Barbara ✐ ✉ 20:40, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

I have made several references/citations, etc. throughout a draft article. Is there a way that this can automatically populate or do I need to create a specific reference section typing up each reference one-by-one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattketchen (talk • contribs) 19:30, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mattketchen: You can repeat a single reference throughout the article by naming it.

For example, <ref name="somethingsomething">{{cite book|title=Book Name|last=Surname|first=Author|publisher=Company}}</ref> could be repeated in the article as <refname="somethingsomething" />. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:52, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Mattketchen. Reference sections are automatically created and populated when you use the inline syntax <ref>{{...}}</ref>. See the Examples and Variations sections of Wikipedia:Citation templates for inline and other approaches to citation. Adelphious (talk) 19:55, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dori Monson

Is what is going on, on this page enough to report the user OnceASpy for edit warring? They are trying to downplay a controversy by saying the show is a comedy one but its political and what they keep adding is unsourced. I'm not the only user to revert them and have warned them for warring on their talk page and tried discussing on the articles talk page but they just keep adding it back in. I don't really want to get myself in any more trouble by reverting it again as unsourced. NZFC^(talk) 20:07, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello NZFC and thank you for leaving your comment here at the Teahouse. The Teahouse is the place to answer questions from new editors about editing rather than reporting difficulties with other editors. I know it can frustrating but you can probably get a better answer from other editors who know how to deal with this kind of problem. Your contributions are still are appreciated. I see that you tried to work out this issue with the other editor on the the article talk page. You may want to leave a note for administrators at WP:ANI but be cautious and stick to the facts so that you aren't the one that gets 'in trouble'! Best Regards, Barbara ✐ ✉ 20:50, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Wiki Pages Offline

I plan to create approx. 40 pages for the architect C. N. Otis

I plan to clone the following pages from Frank Lloyd Wright as a starting point and then edit that structure to apply the content for Otis and his 36 buildings

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Lloyd_Wright (edited for Otis content)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Frank_Lloyd_Wright_works (edited to link to Otis's 36 buildings

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_D._Martin_House (cloned/edited for 36 buildings)

What is the best working environment to clone the source code for the above pages and then revise for the Otis content ?

This working environment should allow for linking among the 40 pages to test everything before submitting the 40 new pages for inclusion in wikipedia

I have tried Wikidpad and Zim but they don't seem to allow the source code as a starting point

Any advice would be appreciated

But no, I do not have any need or interest in starting "small" by editing existing pages my sole goal is to create these pages for Otis

Thanks

Lew Lewis buttery (talk) 21:30, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lewis buttery and welcome to the Teahouse. I would suggest not doing what you propose. Instead write the articles on Wikipedia one at a time, maybe just as stubs to begin with. Use your sandbox - you can create multiple sandboxes with any names you choose in your user space and link to them if you wish. See Help:Sandbox tutorial. You will need to show first that Otis meets Wikipedia's standards for notability, that is already well known as shown by multiple published references in reliable sources. See WP:CREATIVE for the standards. StarryGrandma (talk) 03:42, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As a former systems analyst/programmer I don't see the need to re-invent the wheel when the entire structure is already there for me to use by cloning the FLW pages. I will find a way to do this .... Lewis buttery (talk) 04:56, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By "clone the source code" you presumably mean "copy the Wikified text" (where "Wikified" means "using Wikipedia formatting of links and styles".) That is a very different thing from simply using the same structure as the previous articles; emulating the structure is fine, and you can easily do that by copying the table of contents, changing the headings, and using that as a skeleton for your text. Basing a new article on the text of a previous article is extremely inefficient. You must "reinvent the wheel" as far as the textual content goes. You cannot copy someone else's sentences verbatim to a new article, even if they should fit the content of the new article. You also cannot copy sentences and change a few words to fit that content. The text has to be written in your own words (except for direct, attributed quotes - but that does not apply here) and rewriting a text based on existing sentences is much more time consuming than simply starting with the information and writing in your own words. Even paraphrasing a single sentence can be frustratingly slow compared to writing a sentence from scratch, because it is an extra effort to completely disregard the phrasing and structure of the original sentence. This is not computer code, it is human language, and so different principles apply. (In addition, Frank Lloyd Wright is rather a long article and so would be impractical to use as a model for that reason.) More information here. --bonadea contributions talk 06:30, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, @Lewis buttery: the article Calvin N. Otis exists (as mentioned on your talk page, another editor created it as a well-sourced start article to help you out) and you will not be able to replace/overwrite that entirely with something you have created offline. --bonadea contributions talk 08:45, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well that is not good news at all - I know David was trying to help by creating that stub but if I do create the complete set of pages for Otis then there needs to be a merge as I will have reams of content for Otis's bio than that stub provides

am I to understand that each time pages for a "New" architect (for example) are to be created they must be done from scratch ? I find that seriously hard to believe :( Lewis buttery (talk) 12:34, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Lewis buttery: The vast majority of any Wikipedia article is continuous prose. There is very little markup or "code" (templates etc.) and so it doesn't make much sense to begin by copying an existing article. Some people do—and you are free to—we're just saying it's not very efficient.

As to your original question, you can write wikitext offline in any text editor, but again it doesn't make much sense to do so. Wikipedia is designed to be an iterative and collaborative project. Don't think that you have to upload finished articles or test things beforehand. You can just start writing the articles "live". Mistakes are easily fixed by you or others. That's how it works. – Joe (talk) 12:51, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I give up on Wikipedia I will plan on creating the Otis pages as webpages

I do NOT want to reinvent the wheel (structure) of these pages Lewis buttery (talk) 13:51, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis buttery, what a fascinating problem! You are in the right place because you are a new editor wanting to make significant contributions. I can tell you that I work extensively off of Wikipedia to create content. I began to be concerned because it seemed that some editors were taking an intensive interest in what I considered to be drafts and works in progress. My drafts were critiqued and I didn't want to waste time responding to criticism by others and I desired a private space.

One way to see if your off-wiki draft is formatted correctly before anyone else sees it is to paste it into your sandbox and select preview so that you can see how it will appear when it does become an article. After you see the preview, just cancel the whole edit. That is how I check to see if I've coded my new article correctly. I've even used Word to draft up such articles. You probably will want to keep a copy of your article offline anyway.

You can also have your own wiki! I am not endorsing any commercial hosting companies but there are some available who will host your wiki for $. It can then become personal draft space for you to work in. I like your idea about using another good article as a template and I do that all the time! Once I am satisfied with my off-wiki article I just paste it into Wikipedia. Please know that your contributions are appreciated and valued. If you need any other help, please leave a note on my talk page. Best Regards, Barbara ✐ ✉ 21:02, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article on Emanuel Rubin

Hi,

I have been trying to create an article about Dr. Emanuel Rubin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Emanuel_Rubin), a pathologist who made an impact in the field of pathology research and education. I wrote the article using the existing article about James Watson (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Watson) as a template. I have added all the sources from the internet I could find. Also, I asked Dr. Rubin to photograph some of the evidences, so to support the article with proofs.

Nevertheless, the article did not pass the review, and at this point I need some help to correct it. I am not sure how to make a neutral point of view and other requests by the reviewer. Please see the comments I got: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Emanuel_Rubin

Thank you for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pranggio (talk • contribs) 21:36, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Pranggio. Welcome to the Teahouse. It's late here, so I'l keep this short. No doubt others will comment, too. This article is far too long. Too long for me to read through, to be frank. "Less is more" - so please cut out all the waffle. The lead paragraph only needs to be about three lines long, explaining who this person is and why they're notable. Give citations to support every key fact like awards and honours. i.e. prove they meet our notability guidelines for living people. There's lots of detailed biographical stuff which is uncited. Why is that? Please don't write from personal knowledge. Use only what published sources say - and these must be independent of the subject, not based his own words inside a book cover. I hope this helps - I suspect he may well meet our notability guidelines, but right now, yes, this article seems to much like an advert or a eulogy. Focus on the world-wide impact of his textbook, and supply sources to demonstrate this, if you can. Regards Nick Moyes (talk) 02:00, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pranggio. As an acomplished academic Rubin should have an article, but everything in it needs to have been published elsewhere in a reliable source. I have a guide to writing articles about professors here that might help. I've added a link to Rubin's curriculum vitae and a link to his faculty web page at the end of the draft. StarryGrandma (talk) 03:30, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion regarding Creative Commons

Hello, I recently uploaded many pictures on Wikimedia Commons, but some of them have been nominated for deletion. Those pictures are all screenshots from a Youtube video which shows that it is under Creative Commons 3.0. The video says "Do Not Re-upload" but it is released under CC 3.0 so I'm confused now. Didn't the uploader simply mean that the video shouldn't be re-uploaded anywhere? Because I've always uploaded screenshots from videos released under CC 3.0 and they've all been approved in the past. Can somebody please clear up this confusion? Jesstan01 (talk) 22:32, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, Jesstan01, great to have you back at the Teahouse. Good question, too! I'm afraid we can't resolve or formally advise on issues that relate to Wikimedia, as this has it's own separate rules, and copyright is a complex issue we can't offer advice on. You should really raise your concerns on the deletion discussion pages or, better still, seek broader input on the principle of YouTube's licencing at Commons:Village pump/Copyright. (You could also search their archives for past discussions on this topic (like this one, and no doibt there are others).

However, I can certainly see your confusion. The YouTube video description under 'Show More' clearly indicates a Creative Commons licence (though it is unclear to me whether YT distinguishes between commercial and non-commercial use - their link takes you to this CC licence explanation), whilst the video itself contains scrolling text saying please don't re-upload to any other website, as its copyright. Of course, even under a CC licence, the creator always retains the copyright - the CC licence doesn't give that away...it just requires attribution to be made whenever it's reused. I have had my own YouTube videos downloaded and re-uploaded, which is quite annoying, so I can see why they ask this not to be done. I wonder whether they made a mistake in the licence they uploaded it under? But, there again, other videos on the Bugaboo.TV channel also show the same Creative Commons licencing. Whether screen shots from a Creative Commons upload should be deleted because of that scrolling text is a matter for discussion at Wikimedia, not here. But do feel free to raise the points I've outlined above on Wikimedia, taking care to provide the link to show which Creative Commons licence YouTube is referring to. They will be able to interpret and advise. Sorry we can't. Regards from a K-Pop-rich household. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:25, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, Jesstan01, but Commons is a separate project, and you need to take the question up there, not here. FWIW, I agree that the source appears to be labelled inconsistently, and I do not know how to resolve it. I suggest you ask at commons:COM:VPC. You might also add a comment at one of the relevant sections in commons:Commons:Deletion requests/2018/06/15 explaining that the source claims CC-BY-SA, and that you have asked at COM:VPC. --ColinFine (talk) 23:42, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick Moyes and ColinFine: I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that Wikimedia-related questions couldn't be asked here. I'll do as the both of you have advised. Thank you for your help! Jesstan01 (talk) 23:47, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jesstan01: Don't worry at all - best way to learn. There's now a question on that YouTube video asking the same question. Doubt it'll get a response though. Can't imagine who put it there! Nick Moyes (talk) 23:51, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick Moyes: Hahaha, who could that possibly be? ;) Jesstan01 (talk) 00:18, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

So, and yes this is a newbie question. I've been using VisualEditor to create my first Wikipedia article. I've been putting in reference citations at the end of sentences, paragraphs, specific quotes from authors/experts, etc. I've been inserting the pieces I'm referencing to as I've gone along. However, how do I populate these references sources in the reference field using VisualEditor? I'm not sure if I have to create a Reference list and populate the references one by one, or if there's a way to auto-populate this field. Any advice? Thanks again, from the super newbie.

p.s. I appreciate the welcomes, the advice I've received so far, the patience, and your continued help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattketchen (talk • contribs) 22:45, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mattketchen Welcome to Teahouse, I could not find any article which you mentioned you have added the references as above besides you work on a few TWA exerices - see here [5]. If you have done so using an IP address prior you signed up, then kindly provide the article name. To show the references cited under the "References" section in an article after inline citations are provided in the body text, what you could do is to add {{reflist}} under the "References" section. Once the edit is saved, then you would able to view them. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 01:23, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Remove speedy deletion template on Kwao Lezzes-Tyt

I recently had a tag on one of my articles I wrote on a person to be deleted. The Wikipedian said there is a form of advertisement in the writings which indicates some violations in the Wikipedia rules. Changes have been made to the page Kwao Lezzes-Tyt. Can someone here help me with going through the page and getting the template removed?? Shammahamoah (talk) 23:42, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You work for FFHypeTeam. This article has been spammed and deleted multiple times. Are you trying to add the article as part of your work? Guy (Help!) 23:47, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Revdel

Is edit summary deleted in a deleted page?Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 01:48, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Thegooduser and welcome once again to the Teahouse.

Deletion and RevDel hide the deleted material from ordinary users and editors, but the material remains on WP's servers and can be viewed by administrators. Some things, removed under OVERSIGHT are removed even deeper; I don't know for certain if that material can still be found by oversighters or if it's really, really gone. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:38, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I read Thegooduser's question as asking whether the edit summary of revdel'd edits can be accessed. Per WP:REVDEL: RevisionDelete can hide the text of a revision, the username that made the edit or action, or the edit summary or log summary. However for 95% of revdels the edit summary does not need to be hidden, since only the edit itself contains a copyvio or doxing or grossly disruptive material. On the other hand, sometimes, only the edit summary is revdel'd. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:54, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Help would be appreciated

Hi everyone. Really trying to be patient and do everything I can to get Jamie Tate , a very well known and notable producer and mixer in Nashville over the last 20 years ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jamie_Tate ) . It was declined under the pretense that the Grammy claim could not be substantiated ( at least by Wiki standards). So the changes were made. Now I was just advised that a Wiki or Discogs ref is not a " reliable source " . Discogs and All music not reliable? Aside from that, many if not most of album credits are not officially documented by the industry online. And moreover, this guy has received many many official plaques and recognition from the RIAA; one of the few real and legit sources that officially recognize producers and mixers but the RIAA do not keep on online record. So we can't use allmusic or discogs, we can't show documents and awards that are on in his possession and letters from the Grammys or RIAA mean nothing. And what really confuses us here is if you look at many of his peers who have been accepted ( if you need examples there are plenty ) and who have had less success are published without much being referenced , and many being wiki links. So what do we do here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.80.186.39 (talk) 02:34, 18 June 2018‎ (UTC)[reply]

Hello IP user and welcome to the Teahouse.

Producers are often unsung heroes and one consequence of that is there is very little published about them on which to base an encyclopedia article. In order to meet notability requirements, it's not sufficient to point to their work, credited, award-winning, or important. Without published references, no WP article is possible. A photo of the award, listings of his contributions to Grammy-winning recordings, personal testimonials - all of this falls short of what is needed for an article. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:50, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kensei Taba

I would like to know the basics of setting up a profile for my instructor Kensei Taba

i am up for deletion of the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peelsan (talk • contribs) 04:29, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Peelsan. The article in question, Kensei Taba, is an unreferenced biography of a living person. This is contrary to policy and so it must be deleted unless you fix it promptly. An acceptable Wikipedia biography summarizes what published, independent, reliable sources say about the person. Your personal knowledge is not acceptable for the encyclopedia. Also, your article has obvious errors. You wrote that the war in the Pacific started in 1944 and ended in 1948. The correct dates are 1941 to 1945. If you make such obvious mistakes, how can we trust the rest of the claims you make? Please read and study Your first article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:51, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Peelsan. Your choice of words "setting up a profile for" makes me think that you have a (very common) misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is. That phrase is appropriate to social media, or a directory. Wikipedia is neither: it is an encyclopaedia. What we do here is not "set up profiles for": instead, we write articles about. An article should be based almost entirely on what people who have no connection with the subject have published about them - Wikipedia has very little interest in what a subject says about themselves, or what their friends or associates say about them. If there is little or no material published about them by people unconnected with them, then it is impossible to write an acceptable Wikipedia article about them - the jargon for this is that they are in that case not notable. --ColinFine (talk) 09:28, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

thank you I will work to make it as yo have asked and did not mean any disrespect, and am thankful of this opportunity of your help and guidence — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peelsan (talk • contribs) 19:59, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nicky Summer

Hello, please can you let me know how I amend the page in question so that it is not deleted? Although I had saved it, I had not even formatted it yet :-) thanks for your help. Iona — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iona Lewis (talk • contribs) 08:30, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that this is about User:Iona Lewis/sandbox? If this is intended to be a draft for a new article, you need to read the useful links provided to you on your user talk page, including WP:Your first article. The important thing is that an article must be referenced to published reliable sources. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:55, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Heinz Nigg

Hi, someone form the help desk suggested to me that I could move the page Heinz Nigg from draft space to article space myself. I did so. Here the linkk: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinz_Nigg. Would someone please check if I did that correctly, because I am not very familar with Wiki editing. Best, visualstudies Visualstudies (talk) 08:52, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Visualstudies. Yes, you moved it correctly. There were just some AfC templates at the top to remove, which I've just done. – Joe (talk) 08:58, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever suggested that you to move it was mistaken or confused. The most recent review declined approval of the draft. You need to address the matters raised in the review, then resubmit for further review. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:03, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@David Biddulph: That is not true. AfC is an optional process and Visualstudies is entitled to create articles in mainspace just like any other autoconfirmed editor. Worldbruce correctly advised them of this at the AfC help desk. – Joe (talk) 09:11, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. There is one problem left. One of the pictures of the draft did not move to the article space. Here the link to the photo: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Zürich_Opernhaus-Krawall.tif The photo should be added right after the citation (11) together with the following caption: Still from the video about the Opera-House-Riots. Could you do that? That would be great. Best, Visualstudies (talk) 09:25, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Visualstudies, you removed that image from the draft yourself, in this edit. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:32, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I could sort this out. The photo is back now. Thank you! Visualstudies (talk) 10:17, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After I edited the photo I had to redo the changes I did before. And now this text has come back as well: "This article, Heinz Nigg, has recently been created via the Articles for creation process. The reviewer is in the process of closing the request, and this tag should be removed soon. WARNING: Draft:Heinz Nigg is 14,608 bytes. If it is not a redirect with only 1 edit in its edit history, this may be a "copy and paste" move. To avoid losing the edit history, administrators should consider merging the history of the AfC draft into this article. Non-administrators should consider placing {{Histmerge|Draft:Heinz Nigg}} at the top of this article before removing this AFC submission template." What to do? Visualstudies (talk) 10:31, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Visualstudies: You re-added the AfC templates that I had previously removed. I'm not sure how. Perhaps you made your changes to an old version of the page (thereby restoring it), instead of the most recent one? In future please use the "show preview" and "show changes" functions to make sure that you're making the changes you intended and no others. – Joe (talk) 10:41, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, I added the photo to the new version, but it was a photo that I had used in an older version. So maybe that was the reason for the drawback. Anyway, without your help it would have been difficult to get things moving. Thanks to the TEAHOUSE EDIT WINDOW! Best, Visualstudies (talk) 11:00, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Roe is techically correct, you can move a draft to mainspace yourself. But by doing so, you run the risk of its being deleted. I've tried to check the references in Heinz Nigg, and not found any that are clearly of reliable independent sources; so deletion is not implausible. Maproom (talk) 12:16, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here I have another question. Someone added this on the article: "Authority control: a template to link Wikipedia articles to various library catalogue systems". But the template does not seem to work properly. It should link to the libraries where the books of Heinz Nigg are located like the 'British Library' (bit.ly/2DVqks4) or the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek (bit.ly/2rZRE2I). Can anyone help me to place the template correctly? Best, Visualstudies (talk) 06:58, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stuck creating a basic wikipedia article on Ballerina (programming language)

Looks like I need help creating Draft:Ballerina (programming language) article.

While I have created and edited some wikipedia articles in the past - I am stuck with that one. :)

I believe that this programming language has enough traction to deserve an article of its own:

It is an open source project that already has 224 contributors,
IDG listed it as number one in their "Top programming languages you should try".
There is an upcoming BallerinaCon conference in July,
There are articles in The New Stack and InfoQ - these are well-known and well-regarded in the tech community - just see the number of wikipedia articles already using InfoQ as a source.
It is supported in Microsoft developer tools,
Already referenced in some other wikipedia articles, e.g. Comparison of programming languages.

Thanks in advance! Dmitry — Preceding unsigned comment added by DSotnikov (talk • contribs) 09:45, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot to declare your conflict of interest. Guy (Help!) 09:50, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DSotnikov. Notability is the concept we use to determine whether a subject should have a Wikipedia article, and is concerned purely with the availability of reliable sources on that subject. So most of your points are not something we would take into consideration. However, I'm inclined to agree that the articles in Techworld, The New Stack, and InfoQ, establish notability. I'll publish your draft for you now.

However, if you do have a conflict of interest as Guy suggests, please refrain from editing the article further. – Joe (talk) 09:55, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Calling some experienced editors to prevent edit war

As you can see here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dennis_Prager, there is a conflict wherein an editor is forbidding the use of The Atlantic as a source. Since The Atlantic is very reputable and used as a source throughout Wikipedia, I think the editor is wrong. But I don't want to edit-war. So can someone else weigh in? You can also see the issues in the page's history of changes https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dennis_Prager&action=history Localemediamonitor (talk) 10:18, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Localemediamonitor. The Dennis Prager talk page warns about attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints, and you're recruiting editors who think The Atlantic is a reputable source. I have my own opinion about the back and forth. I'll start a Dennis Prager section on your talk page. Adelphious (talk) 00:37, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Review and Publish Robert_Miller_Gallery Page

Would it be possible to have more detailed feedback regarding the creation of this page? Any immediate tips on how to improve it?

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

Thanks and Regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tns0321 (talk • contribs) 12:01, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tns0321: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The draft currently does little more than state that the Gallery exists and is associated with notable people. Unfortunately, notability by association generally is not sufficient to merit an article. The subject itself must have in depth coverage in independent reliable sources, indicating how it is notable on its own, in order to merit an article here. 331dot (talk) 12:18, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clear Genius

Has anyone heard of Clear Genius? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roy Mayo (talk • contribs) 13:54, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. At least, not until I Googled it. Please don't think about trying to create a Wikipedia page for it unless the product clearly meets our Notability criteria. See also WP:PRODUCT. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:30, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References and categories.

For some reason, I creating Draft:Ultra-Ever Dry sees a number 2 and 3 whenever I am calling {{reflist}}, even if the same content is put in the <ref></ref> tags. How do I call reference number 2 twice? And, what exactly is a "hidden category" and what qualifies it as a hidden category? Is it even a category? What makes it so hidden? It is hidden? Like, really? 154.5.169.5 (talk) 14:27, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, IP user. It looks like you've gone and got yourself blocked. But anyway, it's an interesting question which others might like the answer to, and you can use when your block expires. The trick is to give the reference a name, and then call up that name each and every time you want to use the reference. There's a short explanation of the process here. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:25, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Organization Name Change

I am working on editing the Wikipedia page for The Children's Center for Communication/Beverly School for the Deaf. Unfortunately, the overall page is under the old name of the school, Beverly School for the Deaf. I have been unable to find out how I can do this because the current displayed name is no longer correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by William Swett (talk • contribs)

Hi, William Swett. You're very welcome to ask questions at the Teahouse, but please don't ask the same question in more than one forum, as you did two minutes later at the Help Desk. You're are paid to promote your school - but we're all volunteers here, so duplicating answers is not something we wish to encourage. Sometimes it can take a day for a user to receive an answer. That's not an unreasonable time to wait for help, though we normally respond a lot quicker than that. Please also note that you have a clear Conflict of Interest in editing for your school, which you should declare in accordance with the policy I've just linked to. Not only that, we do require you to declare that you are remunerated under our WP:PAID policy. Non declaration can lead to editors being blocked, but it's a simple process to ensure you stay within our guidelines. Finally, in future, please would you also remember to sign every post you make with four tildes, like this: ~~~~. It adds your username, the date and time. That way we know who said what, and when. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:07, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why does my article not meet notability requirements?

Hello all. I recently submitted an article Draft:Chele Farley which was declined on "notability" grounds. According to the guidelines, "Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject". I provided the editor who declined me exactly that- coverage in mainstream published and reliable sources like Politico, NY Post, NYDN, and multiple local papers across the state - Here are a few examples. She is the *only* other major party nominee in an upcoming election for United States Senate. I understand the basis for the rule of notability when it comes to politicians - not every city council member or county legislator needs an article. However, Farley is running for United States Senate, and thus is an important topic for millions of New Yorkers trying to decide where to cast their ballots in November, and Wikipedia is one of the first places that many of them will look to. She has been covered in numerous publications, both national and local. What else do I need to change to this article to get it published? YankeesFan85 (talk) 15:04, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi YankeesFan85 -- based on your description and the draft, I agree that it appears Farley is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. While it may help administratively, I think the drafts process is unnecessarily harsh to newcomers sometimes. In general, I think a good strategy for addressing topic-specific criteria is to acknowledge if they are or aren't met, but then always make a clear case for WP:BASIC which overrides any topic-specific notability criteria like WP:NPOL anyways. I'm not too familiar with the drafts process as I never wrote one, but maybe you could edit the article to more clearly point out and use the big name sources you mentioned, add some others you can find, and then resubmit with a note for the reviewer noting what changed but also anticipating what wiki policies apply with a good reason if you think they shouldn't. Best, Habst (talk) 15:25, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the word of support. I am more than willing to make whatever edits necessary to increase the quality of the article, but I am concerned that the exact same editor will simply decline my draft again (see their talk page), as they have stated that they will not change their mind. What am I supposed to be doing here? YankeesFan85 (talk) 15:52, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would respectfully disagree with Habst. It is well established that merely seeking a political office does not merit someone an article, which would mean that Farley would need to be notable for something else in order to merit an article, and I'm not really seeing what else would merit her an article. If she beats Sen. Gillibrand(which from what I know is probably unlikely) she would merit an article as a sitting US Senator, but she doesn't as a mere candidate. I understand that Wikipedia is often used as a source of information for current events like campaigns and elections, but it is not a voter guide just as it is not a business guide. 331dot (talk) 18:02, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the article to mainspace based on my and Habst's assessment. If someone disagrees with notability, proceed with WP:DEL. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:17, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think deletion should yet be considered necessarily, but the article should remain in draft space until the outcome of the election is determined. I've seen this done for other similar articles, and I've suggested this on the article talk page. 331dot (talk) 19:55, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is now being discussed at Talk:Chele Farley, and further discussion should probably occur there, or at a deletion discussion. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}

How do I begin

Hello Teahouse friends. Matt the newbie again. So, I'm ready to start my article. I would like to use VisualEditor. I've got my content written and edited in Word. I've cited several noticeable references. But, now what? Do I draft my article in the sandbox and move it over once I'm satisfied? And if so, how do I move it over and publish, or request to publish? Thanks again for your help. Hopefully I'll be providing the help once I learn what I'm doing. I guess you have to start somewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattketchen (talk • contribs) 15:07, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Mattketchen, welcome back. No need to rush - take your time (you've still got 14 more badges in Te Wikipedia Adventure to collect yet!) Whilst you can go straight to create a draft through this Articles for Creation wizard, you might find it just as easy to copy the preliminary text into your own sandbox page. You can save those edits (it's called Publish changes - but it's not publishing it into the main encyclopaedia yet). Work on it there, looking at how other people have written similar articles, ad how they're laid out. When you think it's near to ready, you could pop back here for some friendly feedback. If you go down the AFC route, you'll see a special 'submit review' button. One difference is that drafts get deleted after 6 months if they've not been edited, whereas you can keep your sandbox for as long as you like. And yes, you're absolutely right, you have to start somewhere. Most people take the cautious route and start learning how Wikipedia works by making small edits to other existing articles. Creating a new article from scratch is the hardest thing for a new editor to achieve. So, without that little bit of practice and experience, it can be a bit disheartening to be told you're nice new article fails to meet a critical guideline here. Hope this helps - and good luck! Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:17, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note also, Mattketchen, that under recently changed rules, if an AfC draft is declined and resubmitted multiple times without "significant progress" towards a finished article, it may subject to deletion if it is judged to have little chance of success. Under the circumstances, I must now advise all new users not to use the AfC process at all. Note that you can make a userspace draft, similar to a sandbox, but with a specific name at a page such as User:Mattketchen/Topic Name (Replace "Topic Name" with an appropriate name for the prospective article). This makes it easier to work on several different prospective articles and keep them straight, in my view. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:29, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright ok from heirs: how to clear with Wikipedia?

Help. Back in March, I uploaded my article from my sandbox for comment. I also inadvertently uploaded images of Martha Simpson Eastlake's paintings and sculpture without clear copyright approval. I finally tracked down her niece, Dr. Joan Simpson Burns. Martha had no children. She left her estate to her brother, George Simpson Eastlake (who is on Wikipedia) who in turn left it to his children. His daughter was quite unaware of the copyright issues. See text below. How/where do we do this? I've been away from Wikipedia for some months and having to relearn a lot, so any clear directions are much appreciated! Thanks in advance, Carolyn Leigh

Dear Carolyn, That's great. Marty did some fine art and she was a remarkably wonderful person. I will try to send you some images of her work that I have hanging in my house and that I am very fond of and that I believe are truly art. I'm assuming that whoever has some of her works owns the copyrights to them. You can use whatever I send. You may be interested to know, if you didn't already, that she gave up her art in order to help Bill Eastlake and always said if she would have any claim to fame it would be because of him. Typical thinking of a woman and infuriates me. Ran in our family -- Anne Roe and GGS, Joan and James MacGregor Burns. Bill divorced Marty when she got too old for him; Anne never managed the career she could have had if she had been able to devote herself to it instead of helping GGS, I, Joan, have been working hard to achieve what I should have much earlier, having divorced JMB after helping him for twenty years. Marty thoroughly deserves her own Wikipedia article. Joan Burns — Preceding unsigned comment added by CarolynLeigh (talk • contribs) 17:49, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CarolynLeigh, and welcome to the Teahouse. I am sorry, but You can use whatever I send. is not a sufficient release of the copyright. To be eligible for Wikimedia commons (the preferred location for free images) The image must be released under a free license, such as CC-BY-SA. The license must run to anyone in the world, permititng anyone to reuse the content for any purpose, including commercial uses, without royalty or other fee, and permit anyone to create derivative works. The only restrictions are that th work must be attributed properly, and reusers must release under the same license.

Furthermore, i am informed by an editor who works with the OTRS team (the group of volunteers that confirm such licnese grants) that forwarded emails are no longer accepted in most cases, as they have been faked in too many cases in the past. The copyright owner should send an email directly to the permissions address "permissions-commons AT wikimedia DOT org". See Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries for a sample release email, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for the process]], and see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the process whn started by the copyright holder. Be aware that some of these pages speak of forwarding an email to the permissions address -- my understanding is that this is out-of-date.

I hope this is helpful. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:41, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

.svg upload gone wrong

I uploaded File:Town of Richmond Hill, Ontario logo.svg, and the image turned all black. Here is the original image: https://www.richmondhill.ca/en/images/structure/logo.svg

Could someone tell me why this happened? If it's irreversible, I could probably just find a .png version. Thanks! The Verified Cactus 100% 00:55, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, VerifiedCactus, it's good to see you back at the Teahouse.

I'm not sure what you are seeing. That logo, as uploaded to Wikipedia, renders just fine for me. Just remember that, as a non-free image, this logo cannot be used in user space or draft space. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:39, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@VerifiedCactus: "all black" sounds like it's just a big black rectangle. Comparing your links in Firefox, I guess you mean the text is black at File:Town of Richmond Hill, Ontario logo.svg instead of green in https://www.richmondhill.ca/en/images/structure/logo.svg. The originally uploaded file Media:Town of Richmond Hill, Ontario logo.svg has green text for me. Our software converts svg files to png files when they are displayed. I don't know why the color changed in this process. Maybe the svg file didn't follow some standard. You could post to Wikipedia:SVG help. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:37, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@VerifiedCactus: Hello! The software that is used to convert SVG files into PNG files for display has some odd quirks to it. The SVG you uploaded was fine according to the SVG standard, but the conversion software is a bit more strict (Details are at c:Help:SVG#Stylesheet and phab:T68672. At this point, it's probably safe to call it a longstanding bug, but it appears that it will be fixed fairly soon. In the future, WP:SVG help is often a better place for questions about SVGs. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 10:15, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Thanks for changing it! The Verified Cactus 100% 23:42, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Creating taskforces of WikiProject, getting assessment stats etc

Hi all, I've started setting up taskforces for WikiProject Computational Biology, for regulatory and systems genomics and computational biology education so far: I've added a single article to each taskforce just to check that my modifications to the WCB template were successful, more articles will be added in due course.

The WP:USMIL task force cited in the taskforce examples suggests that it should be possible to get separate assessment statistics for each taskforce, I assume as a subset of the assessment statistics for the parent WikiProject - is this correct? And if so, what do I need to do in order to create the assessment statistics tables? I've attempted to update the project data for RegSys as a test, but the assessment tool says that RegSys is not in the database. I get the feeling I'm missing something quite basic, any help appreciated. Thanks! Amkilpatrick (talk) 08:45, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Amkilpatrick, welcome to the Teahouse. I'm sorry you've had to wait so long for a response, though I can't offer you any guidance. You are to be congratulated for taking the initiative to enlist editors and promote topic improvement. I fear your question may be a little too technical for this forum and could perhaps be directed towards either the Help Desk or Village Pump (technical). Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:33, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nick Moyes, no problem, thanks for getting back to me! I'll try posting on WP:VPT, appreciate you pointing me in the right direction! All the best, Amkilpatrick (talk) 18:19, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New or existing Wikis

Do the following Wikis exist?

I would be happy to create the first one [ 1). ]; and I am asking if the second [ 2). ] is appropriate as a Wiki? I am wishing to further the cultural acceptance and change laws for the cause [euthanasia], and envision a Wiki as a central repository for scientific writings, anecdotal accounts, editorials, pleas, grass roots organization and Organizations, information about existing resources, and movements, and jurisdictional legal variations and successes, and real time easily editable and 'update-able' data. If a Wiki is not the correct approach I am asking for references to existing hubs where I can find more information about euthanasia for my friends with ailing parents, from you all reading this?

1). WikiRecovery: [Or WikiSupportGroups] A list of online support groups, for individuals who are dealing with both 12-Step Type issues, and diseases, or family with diseases. Also and group support for people link to locations and schedules for F2F meetings. In addition, it could be a place where new groups could be be requested and developed.

2) WikiEuthanasia: [Or WikiDyingwithDignity] -- Ronald A. Neff D.D.S. (talk) 11:56 am, Today (UTC+9)

Hi Ronald A. Neff D.D.S.. It's not clear what you mean by "Wiki". Do you mean an Wikipedia article? In Wikipedia speak, the term "Wiki" is often used as explained in the article Wiki to describe a particular type of website such as Wikipedia, but its not really used to describe individual articles. So, if you'd like to create you own "Wiki" for those particular subjects, then you probably can; however, Wikipedia is not really intended to be serve as a free web-host for projects such like that. If that's what you want to do, you should look into things such as Wikia, etc.

Now, if you are interested in creating Wikipedia articles on these subjects, then I doubt they would be considered appropriate for Wikipedia as explained in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not just from the way you're describing what you want to do. Basically, an appropriate Wikipedia article is as described in WP:GOLDENRULE. Wikipedia already has articles about Euthanasia, Support group and Right to die, so it doesn't need more general articles on those subjects. You're more than welcome to try and improve/expand those articles if you'd like as long as adhere to relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, particulary Wikipedia:Five pillars, when it comes to editing. If you do that, you'll probably be fine; if not, you'll probably start having issues with others fairly quickly. I can also see from your username that you are doctor (dentist?), so you actually might be able to help contribute to improving Wikipedia in quite a lot of different ways. At the same time, as explained in Wikipedia:Expert editors, you need to make sure not to assume that your opinions or knowledge should be given more weight than those of other editors. Wikipedia is a collaborative editing project with people from all over the world contribtuting, and all members of the Wikipedia community are basically the same and expected to adhere to the same policies and guidelines. Finally, your signature should go at the end of your talk page posts. If you're not sure how to do that, please refer to WP:SIGN. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:58, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ronald A. Neff D.D.S.. I'm pretty sure you meant the first of the possibilities that Marchjuly suggested: a completely separate wiki, with its own pages, contributors etc. If so, you can certainly do that either on something like Wikia. But here (or anywhere on Wikipedia) is not an appropriate place to discuss this, and certainly not to request help or appeal for members. --ColinFine (talk) 10:14, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Name/Signature: How do I make/edit this?

I’ve seen many different times that users have their username under responses in talk pages, like this one. I have also seen that these are usually very colourful and would possibly require large amounts of editing to put there by hand.

I would like to know how I can edit mine, which is very boring at the moment.

DragonSlayr^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:20, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again DragonSlayr15001; We're glad to answer your questions here at the Teahouse.

The page that describes what you can do with your signature is at WP:SIGNATURE. The place where you can change how your signature looks is on your Preferences page, "User Profile" Tab, under "Signature". Adding a signature is just a matter of adding four tildes or clicking on the signature box in your wiki editor. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:27, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That was pretty helpful. Now I would like to know how to color the text in the signature.

DragonSlayr^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:20, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to you, though, I figured it out! Thanks for that! Now, I just need to change the background color...

DragonSlayr15001 ^{(me) (talk) (contribs)} 07:33, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did it. I finished my signature, thanks to you, jmcgnh, and a few others on the Teahouse. I will keep my old signatures here, just so you can see what it used to look like.

DragonSlayr15001 ^{(me) (talk) (contribs)} 22:29, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe this.

I searched up a Wikipedia page that was about me and found out it was deleted. I thought you guys would be interested in me? Because it says that I was mistaken as The Disney Brain and I'm not really a YouTuber at all. Somebody seems to be not noticing some information about me. Actually there was a draft somebody made for me and it also got deleted. Why would you use a photo of me for that article/draft? Because I wasn't famous enough? Kylericardolaifatt 03:50, 20 June 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kylericardolaifatt (talk • contribs)

Hello Kylericardolaifatt and welcome to the Teahouse.

It's certainly possible for someone to be famous in some area and still not meet Wikipedia's notability standards. It's not because of lack of fame, it's because of a lack of reliable, published, independent sources that can be used as the basis for an article. While this may mean that WP is a bit behind the times as far as tracking the meteoric rise of new-media personalities, it goes back to ensuring that readers have a way to verify anything that a WP article says about a subject. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:04, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kylericardolaifatt. Kyle Lai-Fatt was deleted by an administrator named Cryptic per WP:A7; actually, it was deleted twice by Cryptic without a few minutes of each other most likely because somebody tried to re-create the article again after it was deleted the first time. I'm not an administrator so I cannot see the content which was deleted, but you can post at User talk:Cryptic and ask for more details if you want. You might also want to read Wikipedia:Why was the page I created deleted?, Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing, Wikipedia:Too soon and Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything just for some general information about articles and why they are sometimes deleted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:28, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Kylericardolaifatt. Here is the complete content of the deleted article: "Kyle Ricardo Lai-Fatt (born in 1974) was the Assistant Project Manager for Visual Concepts. He now works with Swirl." The editor who created that article has been blocked, for good reasons.

If you think that an "assistant project manager" deserves a Wikipedia biography with no other plausible claim of notabilty, then you may misunderstand this website. Do you have any other questions? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:54, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not everyone is interested at you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.148.227.144 (talk) 07:54, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Be polite.David notMD (talk) 09:55, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why? S/he/they is using my voice without my permission right here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1EGEha2frM. Now I can explain, they're using my voice and that is not me! It's somebody named "Max Santana"! Kylericardolaifatt 02:33, 21 June 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kylericardolaifatt (talk • contribs)

I was advising 49 to be polite. David notMD (talk) 11:15, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will be polite if you can put my article back again, please? Can you put it back? Thank you Kylericardolaifatt 19:12, 21 June 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kylericardolaifatt (talk • contribs)

Hello, Kylericardolaifatt. The article Kyle Lai-Fatt, as it stood before, as not and is not appropriate for Wikipedia. If it were "put back" it would soon be deleted again. Each article needs to be about a notable topic. For articles about people, the guideline Wikipedia:Notability (people) explains the various ways in which notability may be established. There is also the General Notability Guideline (or GNG as it is often called). If a topic is not notable, there simply cannot be an article about it, or not for long. In addition, an article needs to make it clear hoew the topic is notable, and needs to support this, in most cases, by citing independent published reliable sources. Do you honestly think that you pass any one of those guidelines and that your notability can be established? If you do, please explain why (be specific), with a few good sources that help establish this. If i agree, i will help create such an article. If you are not notable by Wikipedia standards, then there simply won't be an article about you. I, for example, am not notable. Most people aren't. We have a bit over 5 million English-language articles, most of them not about living people. There are currently over 300 million people in the United States alone, and several billion people world wide. Fewer than one person in three thousand has an article on en.Wikipedia. I repeat, i am willing to help if you can indicate why and how you are notable, and provide sources to support it. Otherwise, complaining about the matter will help no one. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:51, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and Kylericardolaifatt, please do not refer to it as "my article". It was an article about you, apparently (leaving aside that we can't be sure of your identity here). As mentioned in WP:OWN, no one person owns or controls any article, even or especially when that person is the subject of the article. Also, your dispute with someone over use of your voice on Youtube is really not relevant to Wikipedia. We can't help you with that at all, and won't try. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:02, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cryptic: Thanks, CU confirmed and blocked. Doug Weller talk 07:25, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Query

1. How to close a talk page discussion just like AfD pages? Harsh Rathod Poke me! 05:16, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Harshrathod50. Most talk page disucssions don't really require a formal closing and the discussion typically continues on until people stop posting. Some talk page discussions, such as a WP:RFC, may require a formal closing which is done as explained in WP:CLOSE. In other cases, a discussion may be collapsed or hidden if it's deemed inapporpriate per WP:TPG#Off-topic posts, but usually it's not removed altogether except when there is a serous policy violation which needs to be removed. I suggest being careful when trying to close a discussion, especially if the discussion is contentious and you are one of those participating in the discussion. In such cases, it's probably best to just as for assistance at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:29, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2. After I upload a free image here? And I add another cropped revision of it. What is the hack (source code) for using either of them? Harsh Rathod Poke me! 10:46, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Harshrathod50: Please post a new thread next time you want to add another unrelated question. Does Help:Pictures answer your question? (It is hard to give you more detailed instructions without details.) Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:06, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wanted to clarify my claims on the authorship of a particular article

On 14 May, 2018 when I had autopatrolled rights, I created an article about a model actress called initially titled as Yaashika Aanand which was later changed as Yashika Aannand as of June 2018. But the article title was moved by other editors due to the confusive spelling of the actress mentioned by different references when I initially searched to create the article (known as Yaashika Aanand/Yashika Aannand/Yaashika Aannand/Yashika Anand/Yashika Aanand etc). Due to these page moves of this article by others, the article has been mentioned as an unreviewed one and also my Article List page revealed that the article with the title Yashika Aannand was deleted by an editor and later recreated by the same person himself. So I wanted to clarify that whether I would still be the actual author of the article or not? Please help me to clarify my doubts regarding this subject. Abishe (talk) 09:51, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on what you mean by "authorship", Abishe. This, like most Wikipedia articles, has been written by several people. Each of you have contributed bits of text and code to it, some small some large amounts. Each of you is the exclusive author of your respective contributions and a collaborative author of the whole.

Depending on how renaming articles is done, the article's history page usually retains the author record faithfully. If you go to the history page: Yashika Aannand, and click "oldest", you'll see that you are the first author of this article, even if you didn't start it under that name, because the renaming was done correctly.

In practice, who the author is does not matter. Each of you have agreed to the same license to your text that.

I'm a little curious as to why you're asking. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:07, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How to answer for an administrator's question?

How to answer for an administrator's question? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nixela (talk • contribs) 09:54, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you figured it out on Boleyn's talk page, Nixela, although Boleyn is not actually an administrator, just a very experienced user. On Wikipedia, willingness to communicate with other editors when needed is required. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:10, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nixela Hi, good day. To reply / send a message to any editor, please insert {{ping|user name}} in any talk pages except on that editor talk page. In this case if you want to reply to Boleyn, just type {{ping|Boleyn}} (pls type manually and dont copy and paste). Cheers. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:28, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nixela Do note that ping does not generate a notification unless you sign the talk page comment as part of the same edit. Adding a ping to an existing comment does not work. You can also use {{tb}} (or the talkback feature of twinkle) to place a message on a user's talk page, alerting that user to a comment elsewhere. If a user has turned off "mention" notifications, this will still alert the user. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:09, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How do I contribute a photograph?

Re the information on Mule Deer (Odocoileus hemionus) I want to contribute a photograph of a leucistic (white) mule deer that is frequently seen on our neighborhood in the Parker Colorado area. How do I do that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BookCrafters (talk • contribs) 14:37, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BookCrafters. Wikimedia Commons is the central media repository for all the Wikimedia projects. Their upload wizard will guide you through the process of contributing your photo. – Joe (talk) 14:42, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects reverting without reason (?)

I am an electronics technician by trade. Recently I discovered the page of Requested Articles for electronics. As suggested, most of these just need a redirect to the right article. But often, when I put in a redirect and come back the next day, the redirect is gone and the link is red again. What am I doing wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chipveres (talk • contribs)

@Chipveres: Special:Contributions/Chipveres shows many redirect creations and you have not edited any deleted page since 2006 (by the way, your 12 years between edits is the longest I have seen). You failed to give an example so we can only guess what you refer to. My guess: The unidentified redirects are still there but you think they are gone because the old links are red. Pages are cached for performance reasons and may have to be purged to update between red and blue links. In this case you are not doing anything wrong. It's not a requirement to purge pages with old red links. It will eventually happen by itself. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:42, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New user...spam or not?

Hello, I am new to Wiki and want to post this question to the community on what I feel may be a grey area and am looking for some direction.

I am related to a publishing/media site (not a paid editor) but also see myself as a genuinely caring person about the topic and content. As a result I try to add content to Wiki pages which I think are lacking in information and/or citations. Only having done a few posts and still not very familiar with the interface, I've already been cited and *warned* by another editor for posting a spam link. Naturally I will at least initially post references to the site I work with, but do not directly try to promote or discuss the site/company itself or myself. All posts/edits are made in relevant articles and on topic, content is unique to each article and no links are put in line (only as references).

I also understand and appreciate that links are nofollow and don't pass any "link juice" or affect any external page rankings. I understand the COI aspect of Wikipedia since you don't want to degrade content with irrelevant contributions which simply seek to get links up to poor quality sites/pages. Nevertheless, I can't help but wonder if this discourages people who are passionate authorities on a subject from contributing...especially when there are armies of editors out there slinging around opinions on what's "good" content or not. Aside from a time or quantity of edits, what establishes someone as a good editor? It's like not every Yelp reviewer is a professional food critique.

Question is, am i wasting my time? Regardless of any good intentions I may have to add information to Wiki, should I simply just not contribute because it will constantly be labeled as spam? I'm sure there are social adjustments/expectations when there's a system that allows any editor to edit anything....this would be a nightmare situation for a standard publishing practice. Maybe just need more patience or a thicker Wiki-skin?

Any thoughts appreciated. What's the best course of action? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MotoLoco76 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello MotoLoco76 and welcome to the Teahouse. Welcome to Wikipedia as well!

The value of passionate experts is that their expertise informs them where to find reliable sources on a topic. Contributions out of their own authority, based on the expertise in their heads, is not verifiable by interested readers, so cannot be used on WP. We expect every bit of information added to be something that can be verified. It's a central pillar of Wikipedia.

I haven't looked into your contributions in detail, but from your description of what happened you were considered to be in violation of the "external link" policies WP:ELNO. If you were adding links to the publisher you are connected with, whether or not you were explicitly paid to do so as part of your job, that would likely be considered a violation of our conflict-of-interest policy. There are plenty of areas where you can contribute that do not bring up conflict-of-interest issues, so I suggest you focus there as you gain a better understanding of what the community expects. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:38, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MotoLoco76: I have looked a little more closely at your contributions, to be able to comment on them. Every edit you have made so far has involved adding links to the same website. Three different editors have, independently, reverted all those link additions, which means that you would almost certainly be wasting your time (and that of other volunteers) if you add any more links to that site. You said that [n]aturally I will at least initially post references to the site I work with but there is nothing obvious about that - and it looks very similar to the kind of editing where a user looks at an article to find a place to add a specific link, rather than finding a place in an article where information or a reference is missing, and then finding an independent reliable source for it. Finally, please read this policy which is vital, as is WP:CIVIL. This kind of thing is not acceptable. --bonadea contributions talk 19:04, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thoughts and quick responses! Learning a lot about the Wiki community. FWIW I went back to my talk post to apologize and clarify why I reacted the way I did only to find it was replied to with profanity. Said sorry anyway, but it looks like the short format of editor communication can lead to some miscommunications...especially without use of emoticons or other type of communication aids. Definitely something that would take a lot of getting used to and not for everyone.--motoloco76

You had titled your talk page addition "Content Gestapo?" It is no wonder they replied using profanities!! Theroadislong (talk) 20:10, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I left some notes for MotoLoco76 on his talkpage; he hadn't even been welcomed yet. Let's give him some slack, we could always use a great contributor in the WP:WikiProject Motorcycling space. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:33, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please Help me find a botanical term and an existing page

There is a terminology for when due to secondary growth a tree engulfs surrounding foreign objects . But I forgot the term and can't recall it back. There was an Wikipedia page about the term; which contained an image of a tree engulfing a barbed wire fence; upto best of my recall. (The image was from side view, and not from oblique view). Today I searched a lot of page; but could not find the page. Please help me to find the term and the page. Thanks in advance.

RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 18:36, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome @RIT RAJARSHI:. The Teahouse is a forum to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, you may want to try the Reference desk. There are volunteers there who try to answer questions like yours. Hopefully this helps. Coryphantha Talk 19:17, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Coryphantha: I will ask it there.

No rights for IP

Why can’t IP users create pages or use Userboxes? 71.219.141.37 (talk) 19:24, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you can't use userboxes. What error do you get when you try to use one? Only autoconfirmed users may create a new article. You can use the article wizard at WP:YFA to create a draft article to be reviewed. RudolfRed (talk) 19:43, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

None. The edits were reverted. 71.219.141.37 (talk) 19:48, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The userbox question comes from thie edit by Ponyo. ~ GB fan 19:49, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The IP was adding the userboxes to an IP user talk page, not their user page. Per WP:OWNTALK "the purpose of user talk pages is to draw the attention or discuss the edits of a user. Wikipedia is not a social networking site, and all discussion should ultimately be directed solely toward the improvement of the encyclopedia" and the Userbox usage guidelines state they are "designed to appear only on a Wikipedian's user page" (emphasis mine). In addition, the IP is dynamic and when it cycles through to a new user the misplaced userboxes will be useless. When I removed the misplaced userboxes I noted that they could create an account if they wanted to create and personalize a user page.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:19, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But I can’t create a user page. 71.219.141.37 (talk) 21:04, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A user page is intended to be permanently associated with a specific person. IP addresses are not permanent, not even static ones, and dynamic ones may change quite often. If you want an user page you will have to create an account. An account is free, and does not require you to reveal your off-wiki identity. In fact, it actually protects your privacy better, because an IP address may reveal your physical location or geographic area, depending on your internet connection. An account also allows a continuing record of your edits, and thus a reputation here. However, if you do create an account, I advise you to supply and confirm an email address. It does not need to be your primary email. But if you ever forget your account password, an email is the ONLY way to reset it. An email is not required, but in my view it is foolish to omit one. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:18, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) A user page for an IP address would often be meaningless. Unregistered users may have a different IP address tomorrow or in five minutes while somebody else may get their old IP address, or many people may share the same IP address. Even a static IP address with one person doesn't last forever, e.g. when people move or get a new Internet connection. I had a static IP address, didn't move, and kept the same ISP but one day they sent me a new router (the old one wasn't even broken) and I got a new "static" IP address. It didn't matter because I never relied on the IP address for anything. If you want a user page then create an account. It's easy, free and has many benefits, and the user page is yours forever. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:30, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is favoriting registered users by giving them more rights. 71.219.141.37 (talk) 22:30, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is true that registered users have more rights. If you wish to avail yourself of them, you may register a username. It also hides your IP address from public view, which some find helpful. 331dot (talk) 22:32, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Put yourself in my shoes. How would you feel about this if your me. 71.219.141.37 (talk) 00:19, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would feel that it only made sense to register an account. Many websites don't even allow anyone to post comments without first registering. But that is your choice. For a period of about 2 years i edited only occasionally, never logging in. I chose to accept the limits this put on my posting, although I had an account in perfectly good standing. I now choose otherwise. There is essentially no cost or burden put on you in asking you to register. Nor are you prevented from doing any of the key activities of editing if you choose not to. But a number of tools are not available to those who do not register and log in. In many cases, such as the user page issue, this is because there is no reasonable and reliable way to be sure that a person with a given IP address is the same person as the one who previously posted from that address. But those are the rules of this site. You can argue at the Village Pump to change them if you like. Or you can use an account. or you can live with the (quite mild) restrictions on those who do not. Your choice. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:37, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd feel like creating an account and getting my own user page, and you can get one too. You're certainly welcome to create an account, all you have to do is sign up, and as PrimeHunter said, it's free. Coryphantha Talk 00:48, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We have 34 million user accounts. I don't know of any website where unregistered users can make a user page. It sounds like an oxymoron to me. Most (not all) benefits for registered users are only unavailable to IP's because they rely on the software being able to distinguish you from other users. You are not asked for any information to create an account. Pick a username and password and that's it. An email address is optional. We are not a commercial site looking to sell your data or advertise to you. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:53, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Flip that over and look at it, IP user. How would you like it if your IP address had a userpage, and another user of the IP plastered it with userboxes representative of a position diametrically opposed to yours? John from Idegon (talk) 00:54, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: When responding, bear in mind that OP was previously blocked with the rationale "if you weren't a troll, you shouldn't have acted like one." Ian.thomson (talk) 03:28, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No Ian, you blocked me for editing talk pages. 71.219.141.37 (talk) 17:57, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, you just don't understand what you're doing. That or you're a troll. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:58, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Uploading new images to existing entry

Hi, I am having trouble adding a new image to the Stone Soup Magazine page. When I try to upload a more recent cover of the magazine (to replace the existing very old one), I get a message saying the wikimedia can't determine whether or not it is suitable content. There is no advice given on what to do next, or how suitability is determined (it is a children's magazine with appropriate cover material!). How do I go about getting this resolved? Grateful for any advice. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by J. E. Levi (talk • contribs) 19:46, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Company Page as Employee

Hi!

I'm a marketing copywriter employed by Surescripts.

On my to-do list is working on the Surescripts Wikipedia page.

As an employee, I am obviously a COI editor.

However, if I adhere to Wikipedia's standards - verifiable third-party sources, stick-to-the-facts, non-promotional edits, etc. - can I reasonably update the page as an editor?

My plan is to make proposed changes in the Talk section of the company page, at first, rather than on the page itself. That way my proposed edits can be vetted.

Thanks for your feedback!

Sincerely, Chris — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjbradley 81 (talk • contribs) 20:20, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cjbradley 81, You need to read Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure and follow the requirements there. ~ GB fan 20:25, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjbradley 81 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Cjbradley 81:, I have also added a COI info tag to the article's talkpage. Clicking on "request corrections on or suggest content" it'll automatically add a template to your message to put it in our review queue for requested edits. Hope this helps. GermanJoe (talk) 20:56, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sounds great to me. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjbradley 81 (talk • contribs) 21:23, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Two unrelated questions

First, how do I link to something with brackets in the title? And how do I disable this new editing interface with the colors? -A lad insane (Channel 2) 22:03, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi A lad insane. If you mean an external link with square brackets in the url then see Help:URL#Fixing links with unsupported characters. You can replace [ by %5B and ] by %5D. I guess the colors you refer to is syntax highlighting. Click the pencil icon to the left of "Advanced" in the toolbar above the edit area. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:09, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! -A lad insane (Channel 2) 22:13, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Book covers for article on related subject

Hi, I'd like to put some more images on the chaos magic page. The "founding text" of chaos magic, if you like, is the book Liber Null by Peter J. Carroll (1978). Am I allowed to take a picture of the book cover for Liber Null from Google images, upload it to wikimedia commons, then use it as an illustration on the chaos magic page? Also, what are the rules for using illustrations from inside a book in the same way -- off limits? Rune370 (talk) 22:05, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rune370 and welcome to the Teahouse. Book covers are normally copyrighted, generally by the publisher. Therefor they cannot be uploaded to Commons, which only accepts content that is free of copyright claims, either in the public domain, or under a free license.

Book covers can be uploaded to en.Wikipedia, to be used under a claim of fair use. However each such use must comply with the Non-free criteria, which are rather strict. Book covers are often accepted for articles about the book, but usually not for other articles where the book may be mentioned, unless the cover image itself is discussed in the article. And of course all the other criteia must be complied with. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:07, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[Edit Conflict] The cover of the book and all of its contents will be copyright (unless the copyright owner, presumably Peter J. Carroll, has released them under a suitable and compatible licence, which seems very unlikely). Using illustrations from the book in any way would be an illegal breach of copyright, and would be very swiftly removed from Wikimedia Commons (where useful, non-copyright images are uploaded for use in (any language) Wikipedia).

An image of the cover could be used under the "fair use" criterion, but only to illustrate an article on the book itself (which we don't have at the moment). In that particular case only, a suitably low-resolution image could be uploaded to that article directly. See Wikipedia:Non-free content for a more detailed explanation.{The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.125.75.224 (talk) 23:10, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rune370. The answer to your first question is, almost certainly not. Images uploaded to Commons must be free for reuse - either in the public domain (explicitly or by reason of age) or explicitly licensed with a suitable licence such as CC-BY-SA. It is very unlikely that a book cover from recent decades will be free for reuse in that way.

There are circumstances in which non-free images may be used; they must be uploaded to Wikipedia itself, not to Commons. In fact book and album covers are among the most common instances of this. But I don't think you will be able to avail yourself of that provision for this purpose, because if you look at the non-free content criteria you will see that criterion no 8 is

Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.

It has generally been held that this can apply to a book-cover in an article about the book itself, but not in another article which mentions the book (even an article about the author). --ColinFine (talk) 23:17, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is not quite accurate that An image of the cover could be used under the "fair use" criterion, but only to illustrate an article on the book itself. If in an article about an artist, a book cover created by that artist is discussed, the cover might be usable there. or if in an article about an event, if the image of a book cover became symbolic, and was widely used to represent the event, and this was discussed in the article, an image might be used there. In general, if the cover itself is a topic of discussion in the article, supported by reliable sources, then it could be used as far as NFCC #8 is concerned. But that does not seem to be the case for chaos magic. (Unless the publisher/copyright holder was willing to release a version of the cover image under a free license, which seems quite unlikely). DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:39, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Damn. Well, thank you for all the detailed responses, I appreciate the help. Always good to check these things. Rune370 (talk) 01:43, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fix Spelling mistake

On the article Firebomb Kite I tried to correct the spelling of the word connected, spelled conected, which is in the description of a picture. When I did this, it created an error. I undid the correction, however, the word is still spelled incorrectly. I still don't understand how to edit properly. Maybe someone else could fix the spelling. Thanks.CalliopeMuse (talk) 22:09, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CalliopeMuse. I clicked the "View history" tab at Firebomb kite and then the "prev" link at your edit to see the diff [6]. You also changed two file names but then the software cannot find the files to display them. You have to use the actual file name even if it has bad spelling. If you didn't make those changes yourself then your browser must have a spelling correction feature you should watch out for. "conected" is in a caption and not a file name so it's fine to change that. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:19, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The error was caused by your changing the spelling in the file name itself. I fixed the typo you were referring to, but typos in file names can't be fixed without breaking everything. They're not visible to the average viewer, though, so it doesn't really matter as much. Thanks for being a WikiGnome, though! -A lad insane (Channel 2) 22:21, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.CalliopeMuse (talk) 22:52, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft of Cardiac Amyloidosis Addition Feedback

Hi! I would love it if someone could give some feedback my draft for an extension of the article Cardiac amyloidosis. The link is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Patel.nikita17/sandbox. Thanks!Patel.nikita17 (talk) 23:56, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Patel.nikita17, it isn't at all clear what you are asking. There is some content there that is obviously meant to be some sort of content in development, but it's unclear if it is supposed to be a re-write of an existing article (if so, what article?) or a new article. There is also considerable "talk" content intermingled there. If the talk is specific to what you are doing in the sandbox, please move it to the sandbox talk page. If there is more than one work in progress, please make a separate sandbox for each. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 00:32, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John from Idegon, I have removed the 'talk' from the sandbox and am improving the existing article Cardiac Amyloidosis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardiac_amyloidosis. I would appreciate any comments or feedback for the additions I propose. Thanks Patel.nikita17 (talk) 01:41, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Review my draft and please leave any comments or tips that you think will improve my paper. Thank you!!!!!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bchen1100/sandbox

I am trying to improve the current wiki cupping therapy page. Bchen1100 (talk) 00:39, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bchen1100 and welcoem to the Teahouse. Here are a number of comments, in no particular order:

First of all, a Wikipedia article is not the same a s a traditional academic "paper", and this should be kept in mind.
When you refer to a scientific or medical study, you should mention in the prose the institution and/or researches who carried it out.
Source citations should provide full bibliographic metadata, including title of article, author, journal/newspaper/other periodical, date, page number if printed, and often publisher unless redundant with name of work. See Refrencing for Beginners.
The lead section never has a title
The article subject should appear in the lead sentence in bold.
When dealing with current medical topics (as opposed to historical ones() cited sources should comply with the strict WP:MEDRS guideline.
Is this a school project by any chance?
Other Wikipedia articles should never be cited as sources.

I hope that is helpful. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:52, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DESiegel,

Thank you for the feedback! Yes, this is a school project. I will make sure my final product reflects your feedback, it is insightful.

Bchen1100 (talk) 01:01, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be part of https://dashboard.wikiedu.org/courses/Nor/ENGW_3307_Advanced_Writing_in_the_Sciences_B_(S) I'm not sure what the User:Bchen1100 intends to do with this sandbox, but comments on their experience editing Wikipedia are not appropriate for an encyclopedia article. If the sandbox is a proposal to change or add the contents of Cupping therapy then the appropriate venue would be Talk:Cupping therapy, when they have posted, albeit at the top of the page, not at the bottom, per WP:BOTTOMPOST, so their request for feedback may have been overlooked. Vexations (talk) 01:05, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Vexations. I had just spotted this from Bchen1100's contributions. It appears that the plan is to copy parts of this sandbox into the article, in multiple small edits. Thagt could be ok, but only if the citations are improved, and the soures are of good quality (which i haven't checked yet). Bchen1100, if you would like further, more specific assistance, feel free to post here or on my talk page. I was for a period an online course volunteer, but have not resumed since the new Education Dashboard was rolled out. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:21, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bold, Italics, Underlines, and Strikethrough text

Does anyone know how to make text bold, italic, underlined, or striked?

DragonSlayr15001 ^{(me) (talk) (contribs)} 01:06, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DragonSlayr15001: See Help:Cheatsheet for how to do all that and more. RudolfRed (talk) 01:11, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a question. I have a comment about Ishmael in Wiki

The original Hebrew/Yiddish name for the above name is YSMAEL. That is the Hevrew/ or Yiddish form of that particular name. The Arabic form is with an I. The Jewish form is with a Y. Thus that name was originally Ysmael from the beginning and the Muslim Arab changed the first letter from Y to I, the Arabic form, that is how it is translated in Arabic. The name Ysmael means Israel. How do I know this? My name is Bobbi Ysmael. The family name is Jewish and that is the history of the name as WE know it to be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.119.108.232 (talk) 06:41, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. Because the history of Yiddish goes back less than 1000 years, it is of no relevance to the origin of the name Ishmael, which goes back to antiquity. As for the spelling in Biblical Hebrew, that of course should be discussed in our article Ishmael. Neither Hebrew nor Yiddish nor Arabic has a letter "Y" though they have various equivalents. Many scholarly sources tell us that the name Israel was a name originally given in his adult life to the Biblical prophet Jacob, while Ishmael was the name of one of Abraham's sons. Abraham, another prophet, was Jacob's grandfather in the Bible stories. Ishmael was therefore Israel's uncle, and they are not the same people in these ancient stories. These are two different names. Your family lore does not belong in Wikipedia. We rely on summarizing what reliable sources say. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:21, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

Hello Bobbi and welcome to the Teahouse.

While we love to answer questions about how to edit Wikipedia here in the Teahouse, we generally cannot help answer or respond to off-topic posts. The best policy-based answer I have for you is that the names of articles are based on how a thing is predominantly called in the relevant sources. Origins, subject's preferences, and other considerations may be given some weight, but overall we are supposed to follow WP:COMMONNAME. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:28, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe what my family tells me. I believe this to be true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.119.108.232 (talk) 07:33, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It may be, but personal knowledge is not a source accept here. See Wikipedia:But it's true!. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:23, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Concerned Intern: Wikipedia Photos and Citations

Hello, internet! I am interning at a non-profit this summer and one of my tasks is to work on their Wikipedia presence. I need to upload a picture of a witness to her corresponding Wikipedia page. How do I do that?

I have another question about the page about their archive (The Memory of Nations archive). The article keeps getting rejected because I don't have "enough" reputable sources, but the issue is, most of the sources I can find are in Czech, therefore, I cannot read them. I need to get this Wikipedia page published. What are some tips? Why is it that my sources aren't enough? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brinley.knowles (talk • contribs) 12:01, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Brinley.knowles: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. First, if you haven't already please review and formally comply with the conflict of interest policy. If you are a paid intern, you will also need to review the paid editing policy(that is mandatory per Wikipedia's Terms of Use if you are paid).

Also, please understand that Wikipedia is not concerned with any organization's "online presence". If you (and your organization) are only interested in spreading the word about what you do, that should be done on a website owned by your organization, or on social media. Wikipedia is not social media to merely tell the world about things. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is only interested in what independent reliable sources state about an article subject, that indicate how it is notable. Primary sources like any materials put out by your organization can only be used in certain, limited circumstances(mostly for things like location, number of employees, etc.).

From what I see, your draft was rejected not because the sources are in Czech(which would not be an issue by itself), but because they are not independent reliable sources and did not indicate how the subject is notable as Wikipedia defines it. You may be able to use Google Translate to help you read the sources. 331dot (talk) 12:09, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: Maybe the word presence wasn't the right word. There are Wikipedia pages about them in existence but as by no means fully accurate, especially in English. I am also unpaid so that shouldn't be an issue. Would you mind maybe explaining how images can be uploaded? I'm not sure I understand all the copyright requirements and the steps to uploading said images. Thanks so much for the help! Brinley.knowles (talk)

@Brinley.knowles: You will still need to formally comply with WP:COI; a good place to do so is on your user page(click your username) and it's a good idea to do so on the article talk pages of articles you are interested in changing. You have acted properly in creating and submitting a draft; if you wish to edit existing articles, you should submit edit requests.

Information on uploading images can be found at this page. Others likely know more about it than I do, but you will have to make sure that you have the authority to grant use of any images from your organization here(I'm not certain, but I suspect as an intern that you probably don't have such authority). Uploading an image here means that you grant certain rights to Wikipedia for use of the image, depending on the license of the image. 331dot (talk) 12:23, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: Okay! Thanks so much! Let's say the organization wants to upload the image themselves how would they go about doing that? Brinley.knowles (talk)

@Brinley.knowles: Someone in your organization with the authority to grant permission to use images needs to register an account here, comply with WP:COI and WP:PAID(if paid) and review WP:DCP to learn what donating an image for use here actually means, and then following the procedure described at WP:UPIMAGE. 331dot (talk) 12:34, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brinley.knowles Interns, even if not actually paid, are all considered to be paid editors because their internship evaluations and thus their future job prospects may be at stake. You must comply wiht WP:PAID and make the required disclosures, preferably using the template {{paid}}, before you do any further editing on this topic. Otherwise you will be blocked from editing. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:09, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Review Draft

Hello, I'm a student Wikipedia editor and I would appreciate if anyone could review my draft before I post it to the main space. Here is a link to my sandbox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Joannaberg4/sandbox My article begins at Section 9. Thank you! Joannaberg4 (talk) 12:43, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A little thing - punctuation goes before the start of the reference.

A big thing - for medical and health topics, Wikipedia STRONGLY prefers meta-analyses, systematic reviews and reviews over primary research, the latter including individual clinical trials and animal research. All that has to be deleted. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles WP:MEDRS for referencing guidance.

Another big thing - some of your sections have no citations.

Rather than create content on probiotics, I recommend providing a hyperlink to the probiotics article. That way, you can have a short summary in the article you are creating.

Any mention of prebiotis orsynbiotics is a reach. Delete all.

Although this all sounds harsh, I feel that in general you have the core of a good new article. David notMD (talk) 14:27, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

online addictive

How can we help our up coming generation from additive of using internet.For now there are millions of people who visit different website and only for joy,seriously this is weakening our mind and making us lazy even if its useful to us....??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mccanotha (talk • contribs) 12:48, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mccanotha: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. This forum is for asking questions about using Wikipedia only, and is not meant for general discussion. Your question would be more appropriate for a website designed and intended to discuss societal issues; this is a website that hosts an encyclopedia. 331dot (talk) 12:52, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please review my article

Hi! I've just published my first article, please review it and provide feedback if possible. The article is ROHHAD Clairemchugh (talk) 14:47, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Clairemchugh, and welcoeme to the Teahouse. Here are some quick observations in no particular order:

Wikipedia articles should not be titled with acronyms unless that is the most commonly used term, as shown in English-language reliable sources.
As this is a medical topic, sourcing should comply with WP:MEDRS. It looks to me as if some of these sources are PRIMARY, individual studies. Those are not favored for such purposes here.
Dates in citation tempaltes can use an all-numeric form only if a complete date in yyyy--mm-dd format is used. If only year and month is present, use words for the month.
|website= in citation templates should always give the name of the site, never the domain or URL, unless there is no name other than the domain.
Do not use the first= and last= parameters for roles such as "Super User" or "Staff Writer", only for the actual names of actual people. "User, Super" is not a helpful designation.

I hope these comments are helpful. Thank you for contributing. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:33, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article ROHHAD is ten years old, and the first editor is Dirty29er, I think Clairemchugh meant to say that she'd like her edits reviewed. Coryphantha Talk 19:42, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, Clairemchugh, I didn't look at the history of ther articel when i should have.

I see that in this edit you greatly expanded the list of symptoms and added sources, which is good. The cite to Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism had an invalid date, but that is easily fixed.
In this edit you removd the paragraph containing the text Paired-like homeobox 2B (PHOX2B) was confirmed in 2009 as the disease-causing gene in patients with congenital central hypoventilation syndrome (CCHS and the source citatiosn which supported it. it may be that these sources were not good enough, and the text should ahve been removed, but you did not indicate why you removed this, or even indicate the removal, your summary was added rest of content. That is not good enough. You included the text It is believed that ROHHAD originates from a combination of genetic and environmental or immunological factors without saying who believes this. Some of the sources added appear to me to be PRIMARY and probably not WP:MEDRS compliant.
In this edit you removed sme synonyms from the infobox without explaining why.

Various other changes look good to me. This is still a rather superficial review. I hope it is more helpful than before. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:25, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New musician

Hey hi there I’ve come across a U.K. musician I think deserves a wiki page he’s also verified on Instagram I searched his name on goodlgle and realised a lot of people have been looking for his wiki page but he currently does not have one. I’m new to wiki could any one help me out in publishing a page for him — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandie20182018 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandie20182018: Verified on Instagram doesn't matter. People looking for a Wikipedia article about him doesn't matter. What matters is notability, which is whether or not there are multiple professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources that are specifically about the subject (not just mentioning in passing or primarily about something else) but still not affiliated with nor dependent upon the subject (so the musician's website does not work, nor would a page on their record label).

If you're going to write an article about anyone or anything, here's the steps you should follow:

1) Gather as many professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources you can find.

2) Focus on just the ones that are not dependent upon or affiliated with the subject, but still specifically about the subject and providing in-depth coverage (not passing mentions). If you do not have at least three such sources, the subject is not yet notable and trying to write an article at this point will only fail.

3) Summarize those sources from step 2, adding citations at the end of them. You'll want to do this in a program with little/no formatting, like Microsoft Notepad or Notepad++, and not in something like Microsoft Word or LibreOffice Writer.

4) Combine overlapping summaries (without arriving at new statements that no individual source supports) where possible, repeating citations as needed.

5) Paraphrase the whole thing just to be extra sure you've avoided any copyright violations or plagiarism.

6) Use the Article wizard to post this draft and wait for approval.

7) Expand the article using sources you put aside in step 2 (but make sure they don't make up more than half the sources for the article, and make sure that affiliated sources don't make up more than half of that).

Doing something besides those steps typically results in the article not being approved, or even in its deletion. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:35, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, :Sandie20182018, I would agree with the above, except that due to recent rule changes I now advise new editors not to use the Articles for creation process, but rather to simply post in draft space and ask one or more experienced editors for an informal review. Due to recent revisions of WP:NMFD the rule now is that A draft that has been repeatedly resubmitted and declined at AfC without any substantial improvement may be deleted at MfD if consensus determines that it is unlikely to ever meet the requirements for mainspace and it otherwise meets one of the reasons for deletion outlined in the deletion policy. There is no standard for how many submit/decline cycles is too many, or what constitutes "substantial improvement". One editor who participated in drafting this change has stated that two re-submissions (three total submissions) is enough. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:43, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Need help in my first article

My hello to all valuable contributor,

After a long research and hard work. I have created an article Spandana Palli. but as a beginner I made a mistake in uploading photo of the subject. some issue has been raised by volunteers and I am unable to resolve it due to little knowledge. I request you all to kindly help me. I am ready to follow all the steps to remove that issue. Please help me. I have great expectation from you.

Bdatech (talk) 15:57, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can start by reading WP:PAID. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:02, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User denies paid, has changed name (bdatech is a website) and the attempt at a Spandana Palli article deleted. She was contestant in 2018 Miss India contest, but not the winner. David notMD (talk) 18:14, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article Spandana Palli has been converted to a redirect, but has not been deleted. Should additional sources or reasons for notability come to light, it can be changed back to an article and improved by any editor. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:43, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

my username was consisting of first letter of my name and Tech represent my love for technologies. but I got notice on my name as bdatech is a website. I don't have any connection with that website. I am an individual. I have changed username in order to resolve issue raised by @331dot. Coming to being paid I have already clarified that I am not being paid for this article. (No one will pay to my type of content writer). I read many articles on beauty pageant in wikipedia and took reference of Sana Dua for my article (as this is my first article). I tried my best to follow all the guidelines. After that I am being targeted from different source on my article, Even on my username also. I was expecting that I will get help from the volunteers but here it difficult to keep leg straight.: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Am2623 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Am2623 and welcome to the Teahouse. I am sorry that there was confusion and misunderstanding. Wikipedia now gets quite a lot of paid promotional editors, often wanting to promote marginal "celebrities" or businesses. This has made many volunteers wary.

When you uploaded the picture, you marked it "Own work" which should mean that you held the camera and clicked the shutter button. But the same image apparently appeared on Palli's instagram, which led people to conclude that either your statement of "own work" was incorrect, or that you must be closely associated with Palli if your pic appeared on her site. If the image is to be used in future, that would need to be clarified.

We do want to help new editors who intend to contribute to the Encyclopedia. But many people try to edit in ways that are not acceptable by Wikipedia's standards, and a good many of them get rather stubborn about it. There are good reason fro the various rules and practices that you ran into, but they aren't obvious at first, and in my view we don't do as good a job of explaining them as we might. It is not easy. Are there further issues that I or we can help you with at this time? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:22, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How to create a Wikidata link when one isn't created automatically?

By devious routes, 2018 Tour of California calls Wikidata:Q51854018 which calls Michael Rice which is a DAB page. Michael Rice is blacklinked in the target page, but Wikidata is creating a spurious link to the DAB page which User:DPL bot is correctly reporting as a WP:INTDABLINK error and which is making no useful link. I created Michael Rice (cyclist) as the stubbiest of stub articles in an attempt to solve the problem, but it has no Q-number and therefore the error in Q51854018 and its knock-on error cannot be corrected. Ideas, anyone? 22:46, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Narky Blert. I was going to remove the link from d:Q22710618 (the Wikidata entry for Michael Rice the cyclist) to Michael Rice, because that is not a correct link. But that lemma is not connected to a page on enwiki, and as far as I can tell, never has been. If you get Michael Rice (cyclist) to the point where it is not liable to get deleted, you could link the Wikidata lemma to it. --ColinFine (talk) 23:03, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ColinFine: (1) The Tour of California is a UCI World Tour event. Michael Rice (cyclist) therefore passes WP:NCYCLING and is not liable to be deleted. (2) I have added Michael Rice (cyclist) to d:Q22710618. That seems to have both attached the Wikidata link to Michael Rice (cyclist) and (after a WP:NULLEDIT) to have bluelinked him in 2018 Tour of California and to have solved the WP:INTDABLINK problem.

So, that is yet another problem caused by a call to Wikidata solved. I know of three highly-experienced editors including myself, with well over a million edits between us, who have wasted literally hours of our time trying to solve this sort of unnecessary puzzle (how many editors know about WP:NULLEDIT? or how to make Interwiki links?)

I personally rate Wikidata somewhere below the notoriously non-WP:RS site IMDb for the quality of the information which it contains. Narky Blert (talk) 00:55, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My-custom-userbox.exe has crashed

Not literally.

My latest userbox, which I created myself, is not looking like it should, and some of the code used doesn’t seem to work. Can someone help me with this?

The userbox in its current state is found on my user page, and I have put a similar discussion on my talk page.

Thanks in advance, DragonSlayr ^{(me) (talk) (contribs)} 22:48, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DragonSlayr15001. You have been an editor for a month. You have made thirty five edits to User, User Talk, and Wikipedia space, and given yourself an obtrusive signature with illegible links. I would like to suggest that you stop playing about with your user page and actually do some of what we are here for - help create an encyclopaedia. --ColinFine (talk) 23:09, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I made some fixes [7] but suggest you use {{Userbox}}, and make some encyclopedia-related editing. So far you are just using the time of others without contributing anything. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:22, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know what this site is about, but I honestly do not know what to edit. At all.

DragonSlayr^{(me) (talk) (contribs)} 00:45, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DragonSlayr15001: Since you appear to enjoy various games, both video games and other, you could see if there's any article in Category:game stubs or its subcategories that you believe you could improve. Or if you'd prefer, you could look through said category to figure out what game stubs are video game stubs and update the template at the bottom so they get sorted to the video game specific stub category. (Which is quite easy: all you need to do is change the {{game-stub}} at the bottom of those articles to {{videogame-stub}}) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 00:59, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article is a copy of another article's section

Baikalia is almost entirely the same as Lake_Baikal#History. Does policy state that it should be put forth for deletion? The Verified Cactus 100% 23:39, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@VerifiedCactus: No, it does not need to be deleted. The required attribution is in the edit summary (per WP:CWW). The section in the Lake Baikal article perhaps could be trimmed down some now that there is a separate article. RudolfRed (talk) 01:32, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Should I Nominate for FA Review?

Hello, I am relatively new to Wikipedia and I would like to improve the quality of the antioxidant article (promoted to FA-status in 2007). I feel that there are numerous issues with the article, which I have started to enumerate on talk:antioxidant. In my opinion, it is of B-class, but I would like input from more experienced Wikipedians. My theory is that it would be easier to edit and get more attention if it went through an FA review. Would it be worth putting up for FA-Review? How would this be done? Would this make improving it any easier? Or should I leave the rating be and improve it where possible? Thanks in advance! --Dag330 (talk) 00:59, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dag330: If you feel it no longer meets the FA criteria, then start a discussion on the article's talk page. If the issues are not resolved, then you can nominate it for review. See WP:FAR for the process.

Proposing a FA article be de-listed is a huge step. Your approach - raising issues at Talk before or at same time as editing/improving the article - will work. Be aware that as a person "...relatively new to Wikipedia..." you are choosing an article that has scores of experienced editors keeping it on their watch list. What you think are improvements may well be reverted by others (as happened to your first attempt). I suggest you be modest in your changes, and do not pick fights if reversed. David notMD (talk) 02:07, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @David notMD: Yes, I suspected it would be a big ordeal. I will leave it to a more experienced editor to bring up FA-review in the future. See you on the talk page! --Dag330 (talk) 14:00, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

picture

how do we add a picture to our article?

also in that area notable mentions too

thank you all — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peelsan (talk • contribs) 02:32, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peelsan. I'm not sure what you mean by "notable mentions" but for Wikipedia's definition of notability, please have a look at this page. For adding pictures, this essay may be helpful. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:55, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If by "our article" you mean Kensei Taba, the article has been deleted twice (as have mentions of Kensei Taba inserted into other articles). Please do not attempt to create it again until you understand the reasons given for deletion. A better route might be to work on a draft in your sandbox, then submit it as an article for creation. But first, the lack of references to independent published content about Kensei Taba has to be remedied. David notMD (talk) 12:13, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Renominating an Afd

Recently a Afd (specifically this one) nominated by me closed as No consensus (mainly due to lack of participation). Would it be appropriate for me to open a new Afd for the same page provided I give a stronger rationale? — F R ⁺ 10:32, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FR30799386, if an AfD closed 12 days ago with only you an one other editor participating, it's highly unlikely this would change in the immediate future, and generally speaking, it's a good idea to wait at least a month before renominating an article. I read the AfD discussion, and frankly, I would have voted "keep". If you do re-nominate, you should consider notifying the discussion to the talk pages of relevant projects, e.g WikiProject Indian television and WikiProject India to maybe get greater participation. Voceditenore (talk) 11:55, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speed deleted wiki page

How much time tag takes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fizza alam (talk • contribs) 11:46, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fizza alam. If you are referring to the article Nadia Umber Lodhi, it was deleted several weeks ago. Is there a different page which you feel needs to be deleted? Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:53, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A question on notability

Hello everyone, I am TMcSquared, the Lead Developer for the Qub3d Engine project. I had submitted a draft for a wiki page on our project, thinking we had enough information to suffice a relatively good page; however, it lacked notability and was thus declined. How would I add citations from reliable sources when there really aren't that many available that pertain to our project? TMcSquared (talk) 13:42, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TMcSquared: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I regret to disappoint you, but if your project is not sufficiently written about in independent reliable sources, it will not be possible to have an article about it here at this time. As an encyclopedia, we are only interested in what independent reliable sources state. Wikipedia is not a forum to merely disseminate information. That often means Wikipedia is a touch behind the curve on some subjects, but it is necessary to ensure independent verifiability and that notability guidelines are met. 331dot (talk) 13:45, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TMcSquared: I would gently add that you should also review WP:COI and WP:PAID, as both seem to pertain to your situation. 331dot (talk) 13:47, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: Thanks for the information! I did forget to mention it's an opensource project and noone gets paid, so WP:PAID doesn't apply. As for WP:COI I kind of understand where that would apply, but I'm not totally sure it completely applies as this isn't a personal page for me. TMcSquared (talk) 13:54, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: Also, should we maintain a draft of the project page until it gets reliable sources?TMcSquared (talk) 13:57, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TMcSquared, unless you are serving in the management position you've ascribed yourself to as a volunteer, PAID most likely does apply to you, and there is no question whatsoever COI does. John from Idegon (talk) 14:23, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TMcSquared John from Idegon is absolutely correct regarding COI/PAID. It would be no different than the CEO of Ford Motor Company wanting to write an article about a new car. Regarding keeping the draft, drafts are typically only deleted after six months of inactivity(barring some other issue with them). If you expect independent sources to take notice of what you are doing in that amount of time, then you have no issue. If none do, however, the draft would be deleted if it was not edited in that time. Please note that sources are no longer independent if you commission them to write about your project, or the sources are just press releases or any other primary source. 331dot (talk) 14:39, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TMcSquared, in case by you're not catching the drift here, Wikipedia is the last stop on the PR train, not the first. We do not have articles about given subjects, we have articles about what has been written about given subjects. And experience tells me that someone who is as closely connected to a project as yourself will never be able to completely separate what you already know from what has been written. Every single thing in an encyclopedia article must come from a published source. Everything. We are here at Teahouse to help new editors. Sometimes that help means telling a new editor they have a mistaken impression of what Wikipedia is. I'm afraid that is the case here. John from Idegon (talk) 15:38, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@John from Idegon: Ah, thanks for clearing all of this up, I kind of had my understanding of how Wikipedia worked and what is was a little mixed up. About the PAID thing, yes I am a volunteer since it's an open-source project, but that's of no matter due to the COI problem.

Abusive behavior, account blocked

I was writing about a band from my city, which information about the band has not been published at the Wikipedia yet. I want to know if I can post this new article about that band, writing with secure references. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leoocornelio (talk • contribs) 16:08, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Leoocornelio: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm not sure what the header you wrote refers to, but if you were blocked under another username, you need to return to that username and request to be unblocked. By creating another username, you are evading your block.

Regarding your draft itself, the band you want to write about will need to meet at least one of the criteria listed at WP:BAND, which are the notability guidelines for bands. The article will also need to be nonpromotional and have independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 16:13, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: Hello, thank you for answering me. Despite the article has been eliminated for the reason A4, can I try again to publicate the page?

@Leoocornelio: Without knowing what page specifically you are talking about, I think you mean G4- an article deleted due to a deletion discussion. If the article was deleted due to a deletion discussion, it cannot be recreated unless the reasons for the deletion were addressed.

Before you do anything else, you need to return to your original account and request to be unblocked. Continuing to evade your block puts you at risk of being blocked under this username, making it harder to get unblocked under any name. 331dot (talk) 17:03, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Treehouse

What is the treehouse? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawrenson77 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Lawrenson77: You can use our site's search feature to look for articles like Treehouse.

This is the teahouse, where one can find help on how to use the site. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:57, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Add a page

There is a page for Elm Place. How can I copy this page and rename it to THE DREVER? - which is the new name for the building. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CulverPR (talk • contribs) 18:13, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@CulverPR: You should discuss this on the article's talk page, after you address the concerns posted on your talk page. RudolfRed (talk) 19:20, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Recovery of user page:Kaahon/sandbox

Hi Randykitty, The user page:Kaahon/sandbox, URL:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Kaahon/sandbox&action=edit&redlink=1&preload=Template%3AUser+sandbox%2Fpreload has been deleted citing the ground of "Unambiguous advertising or promotion in userspace". But we hereby would want to explain that there has been no intention of advertising or promotion of the website from our end. Kaahon is a web portal that has been working on research work for long and intended to have a Wikipedia page for sharing its information and knowledge to the greater audience throughout the world. We therefore, would wish to have the page retrieved. In addition to it, we request the Wikipedia guidelines to be explained to us in order to prevent such instances from occurring in future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaahon (talk • contribs) 18:53, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Kaahon, but like many people you seem to misunderstand what Wikipedia is. "sharing its information and knowledge to the greater audience throught the world" is precisely what we mean by promotion. Wikipedia summarised information which has already been published by independent commentators on a subject, not what people connected with the subject want to say about it. --ColinFine (talk) 20:38, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where do I report vandalism?

2 articles Samsung Galaxy Note II and Samsung Galaxy Note (original) were vandalized by this IP user: 115.54.40.85. And his edits are in this website. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/115.54.40.85 But how do I report vandalism? 2602:306:8BB9:4E20:DD7D:7DF2:D5EB:F587 (talk) 19:04, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Easiest is just to undo the bad edits. If the editor is making many bad edits you can file a report at WP:AIV RudolfRed (talk) 19:19, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How do I delete an account?

Hello. I have an account called Hi im Gosu which I cannot remember the password to. I did not link my email address which was a mistake, I have realised. So I want to delete the account as having two accounts on Wikipedia is not allowed (also because I think the name Hi im gosu in itself is violating the Terms of Use, as there's a popular League of Legends Twitch.tv streamer called Gosu, but I am not this person), but I don't know how to. Can anyone help me with this? Thanks. - Biscuit-in-Chief (talk) 21:47, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Biscuit-in-Chief. It's not possible to delete user accounts and I don't think you need to. There's nothing wrong with having more than one account as long as you don't use them disruptively or deceptively. I have two. If you stop using your old account (easy if you don't remember the password!) and make a note on your new talk page that you used to edit under that name, you're fine.

I also wouldn't worry about WP:IMPERSONATE because gosu is a generic nickname and the person you mentioned isn't very well known. – Joe (talk) 20:05, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the answer. I'll write a small note on my User Page about me having two accounts. This "not very well known" gosu has 1.2 million subscribers on YouTube and 1.4 million followers on Twitch. Isn't that quite well known?
Anyway, it doesn't matter. Thanks for the answer. - Biscuit-in-Chief (talk) 21:11, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, it does not matter, Biscuit-in-Chief. You have abandoned that old account, so forget about it. If your two accounts were to express opinions on the same thing going forward, that would be a big problem. But if you have forgotten the password, that is not possible. Forget about it and move on. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:51, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I was mainly just curious about all this notability and stuff. - Biscuit-in-Chief (talk) 11:32, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I have been craving to write on Wikipedia!

I have a huge hobby! It is connected to a game I play religiously just as others do. I am not bi-ased I genuinely love video games, it's sorta how I grew up. ChibiFighters is the name and many Steemit And Medium blogs are the game! I am amongst one of the writers but I must admit I am not the most special. I definitely want a wikipedia page to help newcomers without publishing anything that would dishearten others. I would be following all the rules as well as writing about all the details, First and foremost who developed the game and how they were brought upon to! Interviewing is the best and Wikipedia fits all the criteria of a great encyclopedia for a Ethereum Based Web Browser Game. Would you agree? If so I will get started on my publication request as soon as possible! Chibigame.io is where they are based! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.124.42.209 (talk) 20:02, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Credinity (talk) 20:10, 22 June 2018 (UTC) Credinity[reply]

@Credinity: Not sure what you're wanting to write, but Wikipedia is an an encyclopedia and not a place for blog writing or Original Research. You can read WP:YFA for what is needed to write a new article. RudolfRed (talk) 20:31, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A question about three revert rule and stuff

So I am relatively new to Wikipedia and still haven't grasped the rules completely.

I've added a line on the Felix Brych article about a tax evasion investigation launched against him by the German police. But User:S.A. Julio reverted it on the grounds that it was WP:UNDUE.. When I saw that, I started a discussion on that article's talk page about adding that line and outlined my arguments there, pinged User:S.A. Julio to that talk page and reverted his reversion, while also copying my arguments from the talk page into the edit summary of my reversion as well as asking him in the summary to join the discussion on the talk page.

However, Julio did not join me on the talk page, and again reverted my edit, this time citing WP:WELLKNOWN. Since he was nowhere to be found on the talk page, I again reverted his reversion, and, again, in the edit summary, cited arguments against [WP:WELLKNOWN] and. again, asked him to go to the talk page . At this point I also went to his talk page, outlined my arguments, again, and, again, asked him to join the discussion that I've started on that referees' talk page.

He didn't join the discussion and reverted again, this time citing WP:BRD. I then reverted him, and in the edit summary outlined my arguments why BRD doesn't fit this situation and asked him to go the talk page. But then I realised that that reversion would be my third, and since there's a three-revert rule I reverted that reversion of mine.

My question is: who is in the wrong? Did he break the three-revert rule with his reversions? In the last reversion of his he, in the edit summary, said, and I quote: WP:BRD, a possible BLP violation which is contested should be discussed first)(undo | thank) which is ironic since I was asking him from the start to join the discussion that Ive started on the talk page after his first reversion of my original edit/ It's been an hour since I started that discussion on the talk page, and he still hasn't joined. I can't revert his reversion since that would mean breaking the 3-reverts rule. What am I supposed to do in this specific case, according to Wikipedia's rules?

P.S. There has been more reversions on both my and his part than three, but those were against IP users, because the page has been brigaded by vandals and I don't count those reversions since we were reverting obvious vandalisms.

P.P.S. sorry for the broken English.
Openlydialectic (talk) 21:18, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Openlydialectic. You did the right thing by opening a discussion on the talk page, but undermined that by immediately reverting again, and then continuing to revert. Edit warring like that is never productive, regardless of whether or not it breaches the three-revert rule. When somebody reverts your change, the best practice, outlined in WP:BRD, is to start a discussion and leave the page as it was until a consensus is reached. You should also give other editors at least a few hours to a day to respond, but I see that S.A. Julio has already done so. The thing to do at this point is to discuss the matter on the talk page and try to reach a consensus. – Joe (talk) 21:51, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. I just kinda assumed things happen faster on Wikipedia, but if waiting a few hours to a day is the way to go - so be it. Thanks again for helping me with this one. Issue resolved. Openlydialectic (talk) 21:58, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where to discuss changes to a category?

In the category for ficitonal spaceplanes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Fictional_spaceplanes) contains a subcategory that I don't believe should be nested in it. I think it would be much better under Spacecraft by type as not all starfighters are spaceplanes. I remember reading somewhere (can't find it now) that talk pages on categories aren't the best place to discuss changes as not many people visit that space. I don't want to kick the hornet's nest in any way, so where would be the best place to discuss this before I make any changes? Basmith0 (talk) 23:12, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested page

Can an admin make a page called William Byron (Stock Car Driver)? Cowboysfan3214 (talk) 23:51, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cowboysfan3214, and welcome to the Teahouse. Any autoconfirmed user can make a new article, but none should unless there is good reason to think that the subject is notable. Can you supply sources that will pass WP:NBIO or in some othe way demonsatrate notability? Or better yet, why not just create Draft:William Byron (Stock Car Driver) yourself? Any editor can create a new draft. Then see if you can add enough sources to establish notability. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:58, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just joined so I don’t know how to make pages. Cowboysfan3214 (talk) 23:59, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, Cowboysfan3214. Click on the red link I added to this thread, and start typing; it is that easy. However, I advise that you first read Your first article, Wikipedia's golden rule, and Referencing for beginners. Reliable sources are the life blood of Wikipedia articles, and they are what is needed to demonstrate that a topic is notable. Without notability, no article will be created, or if created anyway, it will not last long. Citations (also known as references) are how reliable sources are ti4ed to statements in an article, so you need to learn how to do them. I hope that this helps. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:06, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Cowboysfan3214 (talk) 00:24, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like William Byron (racing driver) has existed for the last three years anyway. Rojomoke (talk) 05:53, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How do I get a page for my friend?

Hello,

I am super new to this. I have a producer friend of mine who recently passed away, he is an Emmy award winner and co-writer and producer for many hit shows in the 90tys and in 2017. At his funeral, someone made a good point. All of his accomplishments are on Wikipedia, but he is not on Wikipedia. Therefore, I would like to know how do I get him a page on Wikipedia?

Thank you for your help Shimira — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nearmira305 (talk • contribs) 04:36, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Nearmira305. If your friend won a national Emmy award in his own name, then he is probably notable and eligible for a Wikipedia biography. If the Emmy was local or given to something he worked on without mentioning him by name, then he may not be notable. It all depends on the quality and depth of coverage in the published independent, reliable sources that describe him and his life and career. Please read Your first article, and come back to the Teahouse if you have other questions. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:45, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page notability - help needed!

Since March 2017 a page I have been working on Draft:European_Beat_Studies_Network has been rejected multiple times. I do not agree with the most recent notability rejections, which seem borderline and based on semantic distinctions. My argument is that the EBSN effectively is its conferences and publications, and that the sources are independent of the subject, even if they contain testimony from members of the EBSN. Since the conferences have been discussed in national newspapers and elsewhere the EBSN does constitute a notable subject for inclusion in Wikipedia. If you apply the rule that all members of the EBSN constitute the subject, then effectively anything written in the media about any of the members can constitute notability material for the network - which is absurd! I hope Teahouse members can see my problem/frustration. The last review rejected the page without mentioning notability (it questioned sources, which turned out to be fine) - so does that mean the issue is now resolved? Can anyone help or suggest ways to improve the article? I expect to be told to give up on this article, which seems a shame... many thanks in advance. Cowmanonemanband (talk) 06:48, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Cowmanonemanband and welcome to the Teahouse.

One of the hardest concepts that new Wikipedia editors have to come to grips with is the particular way WP thinks of notability. They have to get past their preconceived ideas that fame, importance, or other forms of worthiness are good indications of notability.

In order for EBSN to be notable, it has to have some visible impact on the greater world of scholarship outside its particular bailiwick. If we were to see this, it would appear in publications that are wholly independent of EBSN members. If a national newspaper covers a conference but does not go into depth about the organization sponsoring the conference, we don't have a good notability reference for the organization. And press reports based primarily on interviews with the organizers and speakers at the conference fail to be notability references because they are insufficiently independent.

I see that there is an MfD discussion on this draft, but it's unclear how that will turn out. Notability will be discussed, but, ordinarily, lack of demonstrated notability is not a valid reason for deletion of a draft. Minor errors in the referencing syntax and the presence of a few peacock words in the draft should be easy to fix.

When a reviewer declines a draft with more than one problem, they still have to choose a main reason for the decline. I'm afraid that it's not possible to conclude that other potential areas for a decline are resolved unless the reviewer explicitly says so. Reviewers are supposed to consider submissions according to a hierarchy of considerations, but I don't find that this happens consistently.

The fact that this article has been declined so many times (at least 8 times that I can count) is troubling. It means that there hasn't been good communication between you, the contributor, and the reviewers about what the actual deficiencies of the draft are.

So what should you do at this point? At a minimum, you should post your view in the MfD discussion. You should find, at the AfC Help Desk that there are editors willing to go over the draft in a detailed fashion, consider each section and each reference. You should be able to explain there exactly how your draft meets the standards of NORG and that discussion can be a permanent record you can point to when it comes time to submit the draft again. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:38, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As jmcgnh notes, there is a deletion discussion at Miscellany for Deletion, because the draft has been submitted 8 times and declined. At that deletion discussion, I observed that the submitter appears to be trying to bring the draft up to standard, but may be "stuck" and needs outside advice. (Often MFD has an obviously non-notable topic whose submitter is just tendentious, but this is a case where the topic organization may be notable, and where the submitter is clearly trying to bring the draft up to guidelines.) I advised the submitter to come here for that advice. Is someone here willing to try to help Cowmanonemanband? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:27, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Want to expand the article Jarnail Singh (footballer)

Hi,

I am new editor in Wikipedia. While going through the article on Jarnail Singh (footballer), I felt that a new subsection should be added to highlight the fact that apart from being considered as one of the best defenders of Indian Football, his goals in the 1962 Asian Games Football semi-final and final matches helped India secure the gold medal. If a viewer or a reader wants to get an information on Jarnail Singh, the footballer, he/she would inevitably reach this page and would know that he played in the defence but wouldn't know that he also scored goals in the crucial matches which I have mentioned above. I would like to add that subsection mentioning the goals he scored in the Asian Games and their significance. Please suggest how to goa about it and also a suitable heading for the proposed section

Regards, Dipanjan Datta — Preceding unsigned comment added by DipanjanDatta1974 (talk • contribs) 10:28, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DipanjanDatta1974 and welcome to the Teahouse.

The first thing you need to do is identify reliable sources, such as accounts in major newspapers, that describe the matches and Singh's actions in them.
Next you need to describe those actions. You must be careful to be neutral and not go beyond the sources. If , for example the sources do not say that Sign's actions helped his team win the gold medal, then yiou cannot say that either. You must be particularly careful that the text you write is factual, and doe\s not seem intended to promote Singh.
Add your text to Jarnail Singh (footballer). A new section entitled "1962 Asian Games" might be a good place to include such text.
Cite your sources in the text. I urge you to read Referencing for Beginners first. The citations should allow any reader to verify that the added text is factual.
Optionally, add other info to the article. For example, the ye3ar of Singh's birth, the name(s) of the team or teams for which he played, and the years during which he was active. However, be sure to cite sources for any content that you add.

I hope that is helpful. Oh, in future please sign comments here and on talk and discussion pages with four tildes. (~~~~). The site's software will convert this to a link to your user page (or your custom signature if you set one up) and a timestamp. This is very helpful to other readers of the page, and to some scripts. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 14:04, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Redfearn. How do i create my first page about actress, Linda redfearn and make it stick ?

I was told by member Xx236 that I could not create my first page because it was not up to your standards. Is it because she is not popular enough to be acknowledged on Wikipedia ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stvn1 (talk • contribs) 12:46, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Stvn1, and welcome to the Teahouse. It's because not enough has been written about her in reliable sources. Naturally, "popular" subject tend to be written about in the press, academia, etc. more than "unpopular" ones, so you could say she's not popular enough. But strictly speaking, it's about how much has been written about her, not how many fans she has etc. You can read more here: Wikipedia:Notability. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:14, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That might still be the case, but actually Linda Redfearn was deleted because it had no text at all, just an empty page. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:18, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Your first article David notMD (talk) 14:02, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources

Hi guys,

I had an article rejected as the sources were said to be unreliable? However the majority of the sources were Irish newspapers websites, Official University links to their website, and personal websites of people mentioned in the article? I'm not sure how i can make my sources more reliable?

Is it possible for someone to review my submission through here and offer advice? I'd like to begin adding a lot more articles, but this is a bit of a step back.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corkmusichistory (talk • contribs) 13:11, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let's ask the reviewer. Can you be more specific, Chrissymad? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:16, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Corkmusichistory. I don't know what Chrissymad will have to say, but I have a few comments:

None of the cited sources provides full bibliographic information, such as the date of publication, the name of the publication in which the article appeared, or the publisher. This is helpful in evaluating sources, and in fixing linkrot, although it does not of itself make sources more or less reliable, and is not a reason to decline a draft.
https://tomcreed.org/festivals/ This seems to be a personal site, and so not a reliable source. In any case, it barely mentions Eat My Noise, and does not so much as mention Duffy by name.
http://www.alexpetcu.com/biography.html is the personal website of someone who worked with Duffy, and so is not independent. In any case it does not mention Duffy by name, and does not seem to mention any project on which Petcu worked with Duffy.
The link http://www.alexpetcu.com/biography.html is not working for me.
https://www.irishexaminer.com/lifestyle/artsfilmtv/review-theatre--gentrification-365498.html mentions Eat My noise in passing, with no detail, and does not mention Duffy by name at all.
https://www.irishexaminer.com/lifestyle/artsfilmtv/a-question-of-taste-peter-power-429812.html is an interview with Peter Power, an associate of Duffy's, and so is not independent. The intro by the reporter mentions Duffy and Eat My Noise in a single passing sentence, with no detail. Even if the interview were independent, it never gives any detail about Duffy or Eat My Noise.
https://www.ucc.ie/en/news/archive/2014andbeyond/2005pressreleases/headline-1810-en.html is a press release announcing various performances, not usually considered a high-quality source. But it doesn't matter, since neither Duffy nor 'Eat My Noise are so much as mentioned.
https://www.facebook.com/rteradio1/posts/408031465921229 has only two sentences about the album Broken Conversations. It does confirm that this station made it "album of the week", but has only a single sentence of rather generic praise for it, and never mentions Duffy by name. No cited source confirms that Duffy was a member of The Hard Ground. (This is a Facebook page, which is not a favored site for citations here, but seems to be the official page of a broadcast outlet, so it is considered reliable.)
http://www.rte.ie/radio1/playlist/programmes/2014/0328/605144-playlist/ confirms that The Niall McCabe Band's album Part of the Light, was album of the week, but has no review or evaluation of it at all, nor does it mention Duffy by name. Indeed again, there is no cited source to so much as show that Duffy was a member of the Niall McCabe Band.

In short, some of these sources do not look reliable, and none of them do much to establish Duffy's notability. Sources that more directly and extensively discuss Duffy or his work would be needed.

Oh Please refer to Duffy by last name in the body of the article, not by fist name, and please sign posts her and on talk pages (not in articles) with four tildes (~~~~). I hoipe these comments are helpful. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:57, 23 June 2018 (UTC) @Corkmusichistory and Finnusertop: DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:00, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit account

how can I edit my account — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iyere Ezekiel (talk • contribs) 13:29, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Iyere Ezekiel, and welcome to the Teahouse. I am not clear what you mean by edit my account. You can change many things about how Wikipedia appears and behaves for you at Special:Preferences. Your user page User:Iyere Ezekiel, reads as if it is the start of a Wikipedia article. Please do not do that. It should describe you as a Wikipedia editor. It can say a little bit about who you are, but it should not read like a resume or an advertisement or an article. It may describe your interests or work done or planned here. See our guideline on user pages for more detail.

Oh, in future please sign comments here and on talk and discussion pages with four tildes. (~~~~). The site's software will convert this to a link to your user page (or your custom signature if you set one up) and a timestamp. This is very helpful to other readers of the page, and to some scripts. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 14:29, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata

Hello everybody! If I am right, I guess the Alpine pika does have its record on Wikidata. This is because its class is not mentioned GA but has a question mark similar to the DYK symbol instead. If you could suggest how to amend that I would be much grateful. Thank you! :) Adityavagarwal (talk) 15:30, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, {{|Adityavagarwal}}. The Wikidata item for Alpine pika is here: d:Q4524. It has the English Wikipedia article marked as a Good Article; scroll down and look for the "badge" symbol next to the link to English Wikipedia. Why Wikidata uses these badges rather than the Good Article icon is beyond me as well. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:52, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hi Adityavagarwal. I'm not sure what you refer to. Is it about the icon at "en" at wikidata:Q4524#sitelinks-wikipedia? I see a silver badge https://www.wikidata.org/w/extensions/Wikidata.org/resources/images/wb-badges-silver.png?01870 with hover text "good article". It appears to be the normal Wikidata icon for good article. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:56, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please review my draft?

I wrote a draft expanding the Wikipedia stub "Functional Endoscopic Sinus Surgery" for a college writing class I am taking. Can someone please review my draft and provide feedback/improvement suggestions? This is my first time writing anything for Wikipedia. Here is the link to my sandbox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Saramichha/sandbox

Thanks so much! Saramichha (talk) 16:24, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Salutations to a fellow NU Husky, Saramichha! Truth be told, with the caveat that my medical knowledge is scanty, it looks good. You're using straightforward prose, you've sourced things well, this is a good job. Ravenswing 20:52, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Creating an article

how to create an article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iyere Ezekiel (talk • contribs) 16:26, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Iyere Ezekiel: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The process of creating an article is discussed at Your First Article. I would caution you that successfully creating a new article is probably the hardest thing to do on Wikipedia. You may find the tutorial at WP:ADVENTURE helpful to learn about how Wikipedia works. Most successful new users also started small by editing existing articles, to get a feel for the process. 331dot (talk) 16:57, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Masaji Ishikawa

hello i had received a message on my talk page about my article which was not published.I want to know why it was not being published despite being an essential an important article.I am new at wikipedia, lacking knowledge about how things work around here.I really appreciate the helping hand lend by teahouse thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sd masum reza (talk • contribs) 16:52, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sd masum reza: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The message you speak of included a reason- that the sources offered do not indicate how the person is notable. To merit an article here, a subject must be written about with in depth coverage in independent reliable sources. You may find reading Your First Article helpful, as it describes the process and what is being looked for. You may also find using the tutorial at this page helpful. 331dot (talk) 16:55, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notability Question

Hi all. I created an article, a few days ago somebody checked it and added the following: I have since edited it and I believe it should now be fixed. My question is, what is the process now? As I am unsure what I must do. Many thanks for any help, I really appreciate it.

Article created: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypercharge:_Unboxed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Falconik123 (talk • contribs)

@Falconik123: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The sources added to the article still seem to be primary sources; primary sources do not establish notability. What is needed are independent reliable sources that have chosen to write about the game with in depth coverage. The sources in the article currently seem to be press release type articles or blog postings. There is no hard deadline to resolve the tags, though the longer they are there, the more likely deletion will be proposed for the article. I would suggest that you continue to look for appropriate sources. If you cannot find any, it could mean that the game does not merit an article at this time. I noticed that you are part of the video games WikiProject, perhaps users there would have suggestions for you. 331dot (talk) 17:56, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the reply and for explaining the matter to me. I think I understand now. I actually never knew how addicting creating Wikipedia Articles can be, especially given the fact that I am contributing to something great, it's a topic I enjoy and helps to improve my writing! Anyways, I realise you'll be very busy, but I took your advice and did some more digging. If I have understood correctly, I have now found and added more "in-depth" coverage references. Would it be okay for you to check and see if this has now improved? Thanks once again and take care. If not, I'll jump on over to the video games WikiProject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Falconik123 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone review/edit "Robert Malenka" article?

I just added quite a bit of information on Robert Malenka's page for one of my college classes. If anybody could edit it that would be much appreciated!! Here is the link to my article: [[8]]

And to my sandbox User:Madelinehartman/sandbox

Madelinehartman (talk) 18:41, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article improvements look good to me, Madelinehartman. Another editor added some links and touchups, but that's pretty clean prose and well-sourced. Ravenswing 20:35, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But we already have an article with this name here Robert Malenka. Theroadislong (talk) 21:04, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's the article that Madelinehartman has edited, Theroadislong. This isn't a question about a draft for review, but about additions to an existing article. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:07, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

main articles vs not main articles

The article on Child [[9]] has a section “Child mortality” and that section has a kind of sub-heading in italics that contains blue-letter links that lead to other Wikipedia articles, it says: “Main articles: Child mortality and Infant mortality”. My question is whether there is a manual-of-style regarding determining what gets labeled a main article? What is the opposite of “main”? (is it “sub-article”?) What criteria decides whether an article is “main” or “sub”? Thank you. Wenceslauscloud (talk) 19:21, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Wenceslauscloud. I don't think there's really an opposite of a main article. Rather, each article is the main article for a more or less specific aspect of an overall topic. So, in this case, Child is the main article about children, whereas Child mortality and Infant mortality are the main articles for those more specific aspects of the topic, which Child can only summarise. See Wikipedia:Summary style for more on this. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:33, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 1,268: / Line 1,268: @@
 The article on [[Child]] [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child]] has a section “Child mortality”  and that section has a kind of sub-heading in italics that contains blue-letter links that lead to other Wikipedia articles, it says: “Main articles: Child mortality and Infant mortality”.  My question is whether there is a manual-of-style regarding determining what gets labeled a main article?  What is the opposite of “main”?  (is it “sub-article”?)  What criteria decides whether an article is “main” or “sub”? Thank you. [[User:Wenceslauscloud|Wenceslauscloud]] ([[User talk:Wenceslauscloud|talk]]) 19:21, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 :Welcome to the Teahouse, {{u|Wenceslauscloud}}. I don't think there's really an opposite of a main article. Rather, each article is the main article for a more or less specific aspect of an overall topic. So, in this case, [[Child]] is the main article about children, whereas [[Child mortality]] and [[Infant mortality]] are the main articles for those more specific aspects of the topic, which [[Child]] can only summarise. See [[Wikipedia:Summary style]] for more on this. [[User:Cordless Larry|Cordless Larry]] ([[User talk:Cordless Larry|talk]]) 19:33, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
-== Notability Question 2  ==
-Apologies for creating a separate thread. I initially replied on the same post, but I was not sure if that even counts as a public reply, and if anybody can view it. I have created another one which includes my response to the original message. Please feel free edit this if I have got mixed up.
-'''ORIGINAL POST'''
-''Hi all. I created an article, a few days ago somebody checked it and added the following: I have since edited it and I believe it should now be fixed. My question is, what is the process now? As I am unsure what I must do. Many thanks for any help, I really appreciate it.''
-notability|date=June 2018 primary sources|date=June 2018
-Article created: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypercharge:_Unboxed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Falconik123 (talk • contribs)
-'''RESPONSE'''
-@Falconik123: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The sources added to the article still seem to be primary sources; primary sources do not establish notability. What is needed are independent reliable sources that have chosen to write about the game with in depth coverage. The sources in the article currently seem to be press release type articles or blog postings. There is no hard deadline to resolve the tags, though the longer they are there, the more likely deletion will be proposed for the article. I would suggest that you continue to look for appropriate sources. If you cannot find any, it could mean that the game does not merit an article at this time. I noticed that you are part of the video games WikiProject, perhaps users there would have suggestions for you. 331dot (talk) 17:56, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
-'''MY SECOND RESPONSE'''  (This is the post I believe did not get submitted)
-''If anyone could check the below for me I would be very grateful:''
-Thank you so much for the reply and for explaining the matter to me. I think I understand now. I actually never knew how addicting creating Wikipedia Articles can be, especially given the fact that I am contributing to something great, it's a topic I enjoy and helps to improve my writing! Anyways, I realise you'll be very busy, but I took your advice and did some more digging. If I have understood correctly, '''I have now found and added more "in-depth" coverage references. Would it be okay for you to check and see if this has now improved?''' Thanks once again and take care. If not, I'll jump on over to the video games WikiProject