Wikipedia:Teahouse

Finnusertop, a Teahouse host

Welcome to the Teahouse!
Your go-to place for friendly help with using and editing Wikipedia.

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

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.

Help Wikipedia

(Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.)

Naaz joshi

I want community help to publish my articleQueenuniverse (talk) 20:05, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@Queenuniverse: what is your article? DannyS712 (talk) 20:26, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Queenuniverse, and welcome to the Teahouse. If you refer to the draft about Naaz joshi now at User:Queenuniverse/sandbox , that looks rather promotional I can't easily judge if it demonstrates Notability or complies with our guideline about the notability of biographies. In general, too many rferences is almost as bad as too few, and if some of them are not treliable they had better be omitted. Please read Referencing for Beginners and try to formmat some of those sources as inline references. Taht will make it much easieer to asses if the statements in the sandbox draft are well supported by sources. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:34, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

What all references are allowed to be given in article and its not a promotional article. The struggle in life of naaz joshi is rising from the ashes please read the article and let me know— Preceding unsigned comment added by Queenuniverse (talk • contribs)

Queenuniverse Please ask follow up questions in this section, to avoid creating additional sections. Please also only put ~~~~ at the end of your posts and do not use it in section headers, putting that coding places a timestamp. 331dot (talk) 20:53, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

When you say "The struggle in life of naaz joshi is rising from the ashes" that strongly suggests you are here to promote this individual. 331dot (talk) 20:55, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

331dot I have to AGF here and assume that comment was promoting transgender rights, rather than expressing any conflict of interest with one individual. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:47, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

~Can someone help me edit the article and publish it as the question about this trans woman has been asked in many government jobs examination in india — Preceding unsigned comment added by Queenuniverse (talk • contribs) 20:57, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

~film stars biography or anyone who is living biography are they not promotional? If you say that the inspirational journey of this trans lady is promotional then its wrong. I find it inspiring.the entire India call it inspiring . Is it easy for abandoned trans woman at the age of 7 to be a title holder ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Queenuniverse (talk • contribs) 21:01, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

If you just want to tell people about an inspiring story, you should use social media or your own website to do that. Wikipedia isn't here to tell inspiring stories; this is an encyclopedia to collect human knowledge. This person must meet the notability criteria, as DESiegel states above. 331dot (talk) 21:05, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

~ when we see biographies of reigning miss world and miss universe who are women and who by family and society support reach at certain destination, we create pages for them and you app approve that too. The entire India is proud of her, all major indian daily newspapers have covered her journey of being who she is? If this was for the promotion, they would have not covered her. First read her story and then accuse me for doing a promotional activities on wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Queenuniverse (talk • contribs) 21:08, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

~I have a question why do we have a wikipedia page for manushi chillar miss world 2017 then. Look at her page that looks to me more promotional — Preceding unsigned comment added by Queenuniverse (talk • contribs) 21:15, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

~ this person meets the notability criteria as much as any Indian celebrity or even much more than that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Queenuniverse (talk • contribs) 21:16, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

If catriona gray has right to be on wikipedia why cant she be on wikipedia. Or you compare the small and big pageants. I request all the editors to kindly read the article and go through all the references and then take the unbiased decision — Preceding unsigned comment added by Queenuniverse (talk • contribs) 21:20, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Wikipedia is a big place and not every article meets the notability standards. shoy (reactions) 12:41, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Queenuniverse, I'm having a look at the draft (which is now at Draft:Naaz Joshi) to see what can be done about it. I can see in-depth pieces in The India Times which is directly about them, but I'm afraid I don't know much about that source (other than it's not The Times of India). There are a number of other news sources that are directly about Naaz Joshi; again I don't really know much about the reputation of these sources. The reason this is important is that we need to base the content of our articles on high-quality source material, and not tabloids. I'll ask my colleague Vanamonde93, who might be able to give further advice here. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:45, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks @ritchie333 for the kind help and @oldperson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Queenuniverse (talk • contribs) 19:40, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

oldperson @oldperson your help is commendable, thank you but how to make senior editors convince that till now she is world's first transgender who has won international pageant with women and even miss world diversity she won with women. I think it's an important piece of information that should be published on wikipedia as this is exceptional article so far

Dear @Ritchie333: @Ritchie333 all the citations used in article belong to major newspapers and publishers in India, so we can trust it. The times of India and India times is same , and also I have cited from femina, deccan chronicle, new Indian express, the tribune, the deccan herald and almost all big newspapers from india and even bbc hindi, kindly help me getting this article approve as this is very important not for her but for entire lgbt community in india.

Responding to Ritchie's ping; this person does seem to be notable. The following sources are from newspapers that are adequately reliable: [1], [2], [3], and a couple more. However, the draft is very promotional in tone as currently written. It needs a severe copyedit, or even a rewrite, and I don't have the time to supply that. Queenuniverse, I would suggest that you read some well-written biographies on Wikipedia, and then try to match the tone and style of those. The draft you have written doesn't comply with our policies, no matter how important the person. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:53, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: @Vanamonde: @Oldperson: I wish to express gratitude from bottom of my heart, I have made changes in draft, pls have a look and suggest me that if article looks still promotional.

@Theroadislong: why are you after my life, why are you nominating the page naaz joshi for speedy deletion. If this page you wish to delete why don't you delete the page of Angela ponce a Spanish transgender. If you call my article promotional then pls delete the article of her as well. This looks mere case of racism. Only transgenders from Europe and usa are allowed to be on wwikipedia.Your this act is really shameful

Queenuniverse No one knows what race you are, and your race is completely irrelevant. Please don't accuse other people of racism. Please also read Other Stuff Exists. The existence of other articles about this subject does not automatically mean that yours can exist too. Your draft has not been deleted, it is at Draft:Naaz Joshi, and is awaiting review. Theroadislong did ask a question, which is how the draft addresses the concerns given in the deletion discussion. 331dot (talk) 08:18, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

331dot I am not talking about my race, I am talking about race of miss naaz joshi. Who is an Indian. There are many users who believe that the article is not promotional. @theroadislong asked me what all changes has been done since 2017, my answer , her achievements, her work for the trans community in India and most importantly the citations from reliable sources. I agree initially it sounded promotional but now I have changed the language which according me is pretty neutral. All I can ask is for help, I believe we all belong to one world, our color may be different but we all are one children of one God almighty. Let's not take this on our ego and let's be fair in this world to every one.

I want to express my gratitude to every one who has helped me @Ritchie333: @Vanamonde93: @Oldperson: Apologies to @Theroadislong: @331dot: Queenuniverse (talk)

Queenuniverse there were other editors who helped such as Gråbergs Gråa Sång, [[u|Marchjuly}} It is nice that you apologized. Helpful wikipedia editors, article reviewers, admins are not racist. I can understand how you might see things that way. One would be editor who was Indian Muslim accused others of being Hindu racists, simply because they wrote an article about a Hindu movie star. I myself constantly work at resisting the temptation to attribute motives to others, however the editors named above, especially Theroadislong are agenda driven, and the agenda is to preserve the integrity and quality of wikipedia regardless or race, religion or whatever, time to time they (we) overstep and make mistakes but we are human but not unapproachable. Fortunately editors like Theroadislong have big shoulders. Meanwhile your article is a stub, and needs a lot of work. I suggest that you not rest on your laurels b ut continue to research and improve the article. It looks pretty naked.Oldperson (talk) 16:52, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks other users as well, I shall add more content to it, @Oldperson: but finding the right language to write it so that it doesn't look partial. I will try to make it as informative for others as possible.

Help on moving an article from draft

I have created an English language version of an article in German Wikipedia about Richard J. Eden physicist. It is at Draft:Richard_J._Eden. What is the process by which the article can be moved to mainspace? When moved, I can then update a couple of links to him from existing articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bernardboase (talk • contribs) 23:29, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Bernardboase and welcome to the Teahouse. There are at lest three different ways to proceed.

1. you can put the draft under the Articles for creatiuon process by adding {{subst:AFC draft| Bernardboase}} to the page. You can then improve the draft until you think it is ready, and then click the "Submit" button or add {{subst;submit}} to the page. It will then go into the pool for AfC review, which may take a while (up to 2 months), but eventually an experienced editor should review it and either approve it and move it to mainspace, or esle give you feedback on the problems.
2. You can seek informal review from any experienced editor willing to provide it, and move it to mainspace (or have that editor do so) when you nagree that it is ready
3. You can work on it as it is, and simply move it to main space yourself when you think it is ready. Of course this will risk someone nominating it for deletion if that editor thinks it unsuitable. By the time it is readyt you should have move access even if you don't yet have it.

I can tell you one thing right now -- the text as it stands does not cite any reliable sources. Multiple independent professionally published reliable sources should be cited to establish notability It looks to me as if Dr. Eden is in fact notable, but we need the sources to verify it. You might want to read our guideline on the notability of academic people. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:47, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

As a translation from the German article, it needs attribution, see WP:TFOLWP. --David Biddulph (talk) 07:45, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks, David, for very useful reply. I will research sources, add attribution and then follow one of the three routes you list. BernardUK 07:58, 25 October 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bernardboase (talk • contribs)

Uploading media: screenshot copyright

There is a screenshot in Wipeout 3 If I would like to publish a screenshot of a video game, should I make the copyright option an original work (own work) as I took the screenshot myself, or should I make it not an original work? If it should NOT be an original work, how should I publish it so it wouldn't violate copyrights? -- Bank: Bank Robbery started a robbery (notify) 03:40, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

@Bank Robbery: if you designed the video game, you can claim that it is original work. Otherwise, I would check the game's license, to see if it is compatible with wikipedia. It probably won't be though, so I suggest reviewing Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria to see if using the screenshot would qualify as "fair use" --DannyS712 (talk) 03:56, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Bank Robbery. A screenshot is a derivitive work, and the original copyright is almost certainly held by the company that developed or owns the marketing rights to the game. You should never claim a common screenshot as your own "original work" because your creative input was negligible. The "work" was created by the videogame company. DannyS712 is correct. Any such upload must comply with WP:NFCI in all details. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:12, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

@DannyS712:@Cullen328: Thank you for your help. The image I wanted to upload is a screenshot from Hungry Shark World. Is there an official page for Hungry Shark World, or do I need to upload it on to the page Hungry Shark directly instead? -- Bank: Bank Robbery started a robbery (notify) 09:56, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

@Cullen328: I also have a problem. How can I find the copyright information about the game? -- Bank: Bank Robbery started a robbery (notify) 11:04, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Bank Robbery. The home page for the game says "© 2016 Ubisoft Entertainment". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:54, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

@Cullen338: Don’t really understand what you mean. Actually, I am asking which license should I use (like CC Public Domain 3.0 (I don’t really know the name of the license)). -- Bank: Bank Robbery started a robbery (notify) 00:59, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

And Cullen328 is telling you, Bank Robbery, that there is no licence that you can use, because you are not permitted to upload such a picture to which you do not own the copyright, unless the copyright owner has explicitly released it under a free licence, or unless your use complies with all the terms in the non-free content criteria; in the latter case you upload it as non-free, and don't specify a licence. --ColinFine (talk) 23:23, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Biography: Adil Adi - Need help how to proceed further with it.

Hi,

This is Medhavi Saxena working for WorldLink US under the founder and executive chairman Adil Adi. I have working on this wikipedia for 3 years to get it approved and move on with the wikipedia pages. Still, it is been rejected. I don't know if you have the record of the message in the past with the usernames like WorldLink US, AkshayBhende, AdilAdi and then now AdilAdi1998.

I have been trying to understand with complex sentences and the complex words in this website. However I am not able to make it right and have not been able to understand which direction should I go first. I tried to follow many rules and regulations and follow the steps strongly. Unfortunately, it is still been rejected.

Could you kindly share the screenshot or the userpage or what kind of articles/biography should be post?

Thanks, Medhavi (267.393.3597) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdilAdi1998 (talk • contribs) 15:37, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

@AdilAdi1998:. You say that you have been working on this for three years, so can I assume you are the person who edited under the user accounts you mention above (WorldLink US, AkshayBhende, AdilAdi)? Hug^syrup 15:41, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes HUG,

That's me! It was me trying to edit so I need your help to help me go in the right direction. Is it because of the user name matching to the contents or is it because of the biography is too much of the advertising of the person or promoting Adil Adi?

Kindly, please share the reason. So that it is clear to me as I will be in the right direction.

Thanks, Medhavi — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdilAdi1998 (talk • contribs) 15:49, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

@AdilAdi1998: - ok, so my first question is why do you have so many accounts? This is against Wikipedia's terms of use.

I can't see the article as it has been deleted, so I can't say exactly what was wrong with it, but it was deleted for being 'promotional', and since you are attempting to create a page about someone you work for, that is clearly a promotional purpose. Most likely the issue is a combination of a) the fact that you clearly have a conflict of interest and are a paid editor, b) the fact that it has been written in a promotional tone and c) that there aren't enough reliable, independent secondary sources about Adil Adi for him to have an article.

Given that you have been trying, and failing, to get this page created for three years, under a string of different names, could I please give you some advice: just stop. If you want a page about Adil Adi, create it on LinkedIn, or your company website. Hug^syrup 16:01, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

(Also, pinging @331dot: as an admin that I know is active here. I feel like this might need some admin attention to deal with this multiple account situation? Hug^syrup 16:07, 24 October 2019 (UTC))

(edit conflict) Hello, AdilAdi1998. If you are working for WorldLink US under the founder and executive chairman Adil Adi then you would appear to be a paid contributor, and must disclose this in accordance with WP:PAID. Since it appears that you have used multiple accounts, you should also disclose this on your user page, User:AdilAdi1998. Those must be done before you undertake any further efforts to write a biography of Adil Adi or anyone else conmnected with your company. You should also meake it clear that you aree not yourself Adil Adi. Note that no Wikipedia account should ever be used by mor than one person. Shared accounts are not allowed.

The page User:AdilAdi1998/sandbox was deleted because it was found to be overly promotional. All wikipedia articles, and drafts intended to become articles should be written from a neutral and objective point of view and may not be designed or used to promote anyone or anything (nor to attack anyone or anything either). All significant facts should be supported by citations to reliable sources. All articles should establish that the topic or subject is notable. See our guideline for the notability of people, please. Sources should generally be independent of the subject. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:09, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, Hug and DESiegel. I appreciate your help on this matter. The reason for posting this page is valid, and not promotional. Many colleagues have requested personal and career information on Adil Adi in recent years, and we thought that Wikipedia was the perfect neutral platform for maintaining and updating the profile. We have multiple accounts because our first attempt by my colleague Akshay was written with a positive bias. We adjusted the text to make it journalistic and informative for the reader community, using other Wikipedia pages of similar personas. We included a number of external references to ensure validation of the content. We are happy to delete these previous profiles and maintain just one, for the purpose of supporting this page and other pages within our areas of technology/investing expertise.

I ask that you please advise on how we can ensure that the final product is of value to the reader community. It will receive many visitors and is linked so that it directs to many other Wikipedia pages. Thank you again for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdilAdi1998 (talk • contribs) 16:30, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

@AdilAdi1998: we thought that Wikipedia was the perfect neutral platform for maintaining and updating the profile - I’m afraid this is where you are mistaken. Wikipedia is not a social media platform or webhost. If people want to find information about your CEO, I suggest you place this on your company website. Wikipedia has articles about notable topics and, as I explained above, the only way to show that a topic is notable enough for an article is if it has been widely covered in reliable, independent, secondary sources. I suggest that if you want help from editors, you post here the best three sources you have to establish Adil Adi’s notability, and then we will be better able to give you advice. Hug^syrup 19:52, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Hug, Thank you for the collaboration, HUG. We can definitely provide reputable external sources. Please find a collection of external sources that provide background on the Adil Adi topic. These have been embedded in the article as well. Open to hear your thoughts on how we can improve this for the community.

Here are the links:

1.) https://ncfp2018.sched.com/speaker/adil_adi.1yhp8w9l 2.) https://wealth-texas.com/mr-adil-adi/ 3.) https://dfw.cbslocal.com/2011/11/07/frisco-companys-goal-hire-100-people-in-100-days/ 4.) https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20141124006129/en/WorldLink-Named-Dallas-Business-Journal%E2%80%99s-Top-100 -- Dallas Business Journal 5.) https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/ey-announces-finalists-for-ey-entrepreneur-of-the-year-2016-in-the-southwest-region-300262946.html -- Ernst & Young

Look forward to hearing from you. Kind regards, Medhavi — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdilAdi1998 (talk • contribs) 12:35, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

AdilAdi1998 Neither press releases, nor speaker's bios (usually provided by the speaker), nor interviews with the subject are independent of the subject. None of the above are suitable sources to establish notability or help in the creation of a Wikipedia article. Independent sources are essential. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:53, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

And, AdilAdi1998 you do not seem to have made any declaration of paid editing in accordance with WP:PAID. This is not optional -- failure to do this promptly will lead to you being blocked from editing. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:56, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

promo editor, 3RR

User:Tehrafi keeps replacing the article Revolve NTNU with unreferenced spam. I have reverted and warned him to no avail. I have also reported him to The COI noticeboard. I am at 3 reverts in the last 2 hours alone. If I keep reverting will I be breaching WP:3RR or is this considered an exception to the 3RR rule? Tknifton (talk) 16:42, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello Tknifton, and welcome to the Teahouse. I looked over the recent edits at Revolve NTNU. I note that part of what you are reverting as "spam" seems to be an infobox about the organizatrion, which on a very quick inspection seems to correctly reflect the information in the article. I note that you did not attempt to change the contents of the infobox , but rather reverted it in toto. I also note that you made no attempt to engage on Talk:Revolve NTNU with Tehrafi or other editors. This looks to me as if it is a content dispute. There is no exemption from 3RR in such cases. Nor is it OK to edit war even if you stay clear of 3RR. Violating 3RR is a celar line, but slower edit wards are still disruptive and potentially blockable. None of which means that repeated reinsertions by Tehrafi are acceptable. Those also constitute edit warring, regardless of the merits of the content. Pleased do attempt to engage with and pother editors on the article talk page. Please be prepared to provide reasons why content does or does not belong, an to listen to any reaosn other editors may advance. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:48, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

It wasn't the infobox I was calling spam it was the uncited paragraphs after the infobox that I considered spam that Tehrafi added while removing the cited information. I considered it spam as it was unreferenced and seemed to be written non-neutrally with phrases such as "as a result of the hard work that is being done" and read like an about the team page. It is also worth pointing out that it wasn't just me who did the initial revert of Tehrafi's and I was also not the first person to call it spam (User:Viewmont Viking was). Another reason that I thought it was spam was the fact that one of the editors who inserted the same spiel was violating the username policy by using the name of the team. Tknifton (talk) 18:19, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I have just posted to the article talk page, Tknifton, and I hope that Tehrafi will post there, explaining the edits. I see you have restored the infobox. Thank you. The other user has been warned about the username issue, and invited to change names, by another editor. Did you consider the image gallery to be spam as well? In any case the 3RR has few exceptons, as seen at WP:3RR One is reverting edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language. but that is only for fairly obvious and blatant vandalism, not for overly promotional but possibly useful content. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:58, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I've requested temporary semi-protection which, if granted, will stop the edits from new or IP users for a bit. Hopefully that should stop the edit warring and encourage talk page discussion. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:07, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

@Tknifton: The article has been granted semi-protection for a period of two weeks. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:51, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

@Drm310: Thanks, its just annoying when there are IP editor/s (it may be more than one IP editor-probably isn't but there is a chance) that don't respond and given that it was more than one account and IP semi-protection was a good idea. Tknifton (talk) 17:55, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

A census of Wikipedia or The Origin of Wikipedia Editors or A general conception of individual who will answer the survey, etc.

Guten Tag, I wish to know if any polling data exists on wikipedia and its editors. This would include data such as race, nationality, religion, political affiliations, and so on and so forth. If no data exists then I propose we send a survey to all active editors on wikipedia. I am not yet sure what being an active wikipedia editor entails. I also request any data on the prevalence of Paid Editors/Shills on the website, particularly in regards to political/controversial historical content. I also know that any numbers originating from this survey will not be entirely accurate. However, I still wish for a kind of census of wikipedia. Kindest Regards, Telum et Phalangae (talk) 17:27, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Guten Tag, Telum et Phalangae and welcome to the Teahouse. Many Wikipedia editors would not want to fill in this survey, so it is unlikely that you would ever get accurate results. You are welcome to put your own race, nationality, religious and political affiliations on your own talk page. Dbfirs 17:41, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

• Hey Telum et Phalangae. You may be interested in reviewing the results of the 2018 Community Insights Survey, which is probably the most comprehensive examination regularly published on the subject. (As far as I am aware, the results of the 2019 survey should be out sometime in the near future.) You might be interested in this article I recently contributed to our internal newsletter, regarding the state of demographic information gathering with regard to the community.

As to "Paid Editors/Shills" on Wikipedia, we are probably unlikely to ever get accurate data, as much of this is against the terms of use, and those who violate such norms are likely to be blocked for doing so. GMG^talk 17:47, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

You may find something that interests you at Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia and/or Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archives list. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:58, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for all your responses Telum et Phalangae (talk) 18:03, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

OP blocked as a sock of Stormcloak EthnoNationalist. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 19:09, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Uploading an image

I have uploaded a photo image using the Wizard, but what I thought was the title is the the file name. Can I put the title in so that it is shown with the image?

The file is

And the URL is https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Grapes, Convolvuli and Plums. Oil on Canvas, signed Charles Stuart.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by BFP1 (talk • contribs) 18:09, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

This was omitted

BFP1 (talk) 18:12, 24 October 2019 (UTC)BFP1

Sorry the file details are deleted on sending but the URL should provide sufficient information. BFP1 (talk) 18:20, 24 October 2019 (UTC)BFP1

@BFP1: I will leave others to answer your question. But just be aware of the typo in the caption. The genus is Convolvulus, not Convulvulus. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:33, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Nick. This typo should also be corrected. BFP1 (talk) 21:43, 24 October 2019 (UTC)BFP1

The caption displayed with the image is given by the last parameter (after the last pipe character "|"), see Help:Pictures. If you use an image in an infobox the syntax may well be different with the filename being one parameter and the caption another, see the definition of the relevant infobox template. --David Biddulph (talk) 22:04, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you David. I will not be putting the image in an info box. As well as adding the caption I wish to correct the spelling of convolvuli not only in the caption but also in the other information provided.

I will do as you suggest regarding the caption as follows.

File:Grapes, Convolvuli and Plums. Oil on canvas, signed Charles Stuart.png

Convolvuli and Plums. Oil on canvas, signed Charles Stuart

The corrected caption has appeared but the image has gone. Where is my error? BFP1 (talk) 07:53, 25 October 2019 (UTC)BFP1

I think I know David. I altered the file name. I've put it back to the original but just put in a corrected caption. And that seems to work! See below.

Grapes, Convolvuli and Plums. Oil on canvas, signed Charles Stuart

I now need to find out how to edit the other information given (mainly correcting the spelling of convolvuli). BFP1 (talk) 08:54, 25 October 2019 (UTC)BFP1

I have now corrected the typos in the additional information David. The only misspelling now is in the file name which does not show in the main text. BFP1 (talk) 09:26, 25 October 2019 (UTC)BFP1

If you want to request a change to the file name, go to the commons page for the image, & you should find "Move" under the "More" tab at the top right-hand corner of the page. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:03, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks again David. I have put in the request that one letter be changed to give the correct spelling of convolvulus. How long does such a change usually Take? Thanks for all your previous help.BFP1 (talk) 10:52, 25 October 2019 (UTC)BFP1

It's been moved, and the admin who moved it has tweaked the links above. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:51, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you and any other volunteers involved.BFP1 (talk) 13:02, 25 October 2019 (UTC)BFP1

Follow-up to Creating a page for John Grossman biography

I am ready to create a page for JOHN GROSSMAN. He was a very notable person and here is my introduction to him: John Wesley Grossman, Jr. was born in Des Moines, Iowa, July 20, 1932. He had a profound interest in art beginning as a young boy. A graphic designer, for over fifteen years and was proud of his five years a a teacher in the design department of the San Francisco Art Institute. He received international attention in the commercial world of advertising with numerous Certificates of Distinction and Awards of Excellence. Then his new career as an oil artist specializing in California landscapes lasted over 23 years. His work is owned by many collectors in the United States, England and Japan, including museums and corporations as well as private collections. He then focused on his passion for printed ephemera amassing one of the greatest printed ephemera collections in the world, www.johngrossmancollection.com comprising of over 250,000 original and many rare artifacts are now located at the Winterthur Estate, Gardens and Library.

I have established 39 subject categories in his biography; completed a chart of all 202 oil painting with details: year, title, media, size, remarks of exhibitions ;completed his Publications list; completed major career highlights and completed a 'sources' list for all articles published about John.

I have only three links for this articles: Johngrossmancollection, winterthur.org, ephemerasociety.org Do you want to see all these items in order to be approved to create this page for John?

I will wait to hear from you. With much Appreciation for your help, Carolyn Grossman — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrsJohnGrossman (talk • contribs) 20:21, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello MrsJohnGrossman, first off all, you seem to be too fond of him to write an encyclopedia entry on him, which is to say that the sample text you have presented above is in need of a complete rewrite with a neutral point of view. Having said that, further assistance on the matter would be easier to provide if you actually started a DRAFT on it. Do take a look at articles on other artists for guidance. You might want to read why WP:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing first, to get a general idea of the pros and cons of what you may be able to achieve on/with Wikipedia. After that, you can simply review WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST, evaluate the sources (possibly what you meant by "articles published about John") you have and make a determination as to exactly how to proceed. If you provide a list of three or four (but no more) of the best sources here, someone might be able to look at those and give you an opinion as to whether the article would be accepted or not. Good luck! Usedtobecool  ^TALK ✨ 21:20, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

If you wish to persist, you should declare a COI on your User page. You will need refs such as https://www.ephemerasociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Ephemera-Journal-Vol-18-Issue-1.pdf pages 18-20. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a CV. Yes to major exhibitions, no to any lists of his paintings or publications. You want to cite content ABOUT John, not BY John. David notMD (talk) 01:49, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for this information. My first question is here a dictionary for all the initials used as C01 and CV? I will reqite the bigraphy of John to make it more neutral, but would like to submit four sourcesof 36 published sources about John Grossman, now to see if this page would be

• Goodman, Florence Jeanne (April 1980). ”An Epiphany of Perfection”. Southwest Art. p. 88.
• Hart, Cynthia (February 1989). “A Gifted Collector”. Victoria Magazine. p 82.
• Shouler, Ken (October 1997). “Selling the Smokes”. Cigar Aficionado. p.134.
• McKinstry, Richard (March 8, 2013). “Winterthur announces Landmark Purchase of Renowned Grossman Collection”, Antique & Auction News. Front page cover story.
• Steven Hill, of the NY Times wrote a very favorable review of the John Grossman Book 'Labeling America"'Dec 2011.

Just waiting to hear, in the meantime, I will continue to study all your tutorials. MrsJohnGrossman (talk)

MrsJohnGrossman a "COI" is a Conflict of Interest (please read the linked page). A "CV" is a Curriculum Vitae or résumé. The point of the COI issue is that a person is strongly discouraged from writing about him- or herself, or about her or his family, friends or close associates. This is because it is very hard for anyone to remain neutral about one's own work of the work of those one is closely affiliated with. And even if an editor can write neutrally in such cases, there will always be a suspicion of unconscious bias, which will undermine the credibility of the article. The point about not being a CV or résumé is that a Wikipedia article should summarize what has been reliably published about a topic, not be a detailed list of everything tht a person has done. Significant creative works of a subject should be listed, but not every paper for an academic, nor every painting for an artist, but only a few of the most significant, and only if there have been independent discussion of those works, critical reviews or the like. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:59, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Adminship

I wanna become a admin but are not endowin' with this opportunity. How will it be possible?????SHISHIR DUA (talk) 05:16, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

You received some advice on your user talk page a couple of days ago, here – did you have the chance to look at that information yet? --bonadea contributions talk 05:22, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

I should also add that administrators need to have a long and extensive experience of editing Wikipedia, and be very familiar with policies and guidelines. It is a better idea for you to keep editing and improving the encyclopedia - and be careful to read and learn from the information posted to your user talknpage – than to make a request to become an administrator. (I notice that more than one experienced editor has given you the same advice recently.) --bonadea contributions talk 05:30, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

SHISHIR DUA I would add that you do not need to be an administrator to do probably 95% of tasks here. Having administrator powers does not grant you any special standing; admins are just editors like you with extra buttons that would be irresponsible to give to all users. 331dot (talk) 07:57, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

@SHISHIR DUA: May I also add one additional suggestion for you? By hanging out here at the Teahouse, and either watching those questions that you don't know the answer to, or helping editors with things that you do know the answer to, you will find it an extremely useful way to gain knowledge and understanding of how things are done. I see you've just tried to add your name as a Teahouse host, so remember to welcome everyone here, and to keep answers as simple as possible. These are the expectations all Teahouse hosts should meet. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:43, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

@SHISHIR DUA: Something that is not emphasized enough in the advice to applicants is that you must have a history of work at WP:AFD. Also, if you are again the subject of an RfA (that is not summarily removed, like the last one was), you will eventually be asked the questions "why do you want to be an administrator" and/or "what work do you intend to do as an administrator". You should consider the answers to those questions, not just for the purpose of answering them, but for yourself. I.e., you need to have solid reasons that are consistent with improving Wikipedia. My RfA, declined with a vote of 47-33-14, was a disappointing waste of time and good will. If you enjoy editing, continue doing that and improving your skills – you'll get far more out of that than being poked and prodded at RfA. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 06:48, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

A small question about Twinkle

I can't seem to find {{Uw-copyright}} in Twinkle menu. How to fix?— Vaibhavafro ^💬 06:49, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

A couple of different copyvio warnings are in the "Single-issue warnings" section. Best, --bonadea contributions talk 06:52, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Are direct sources allowed?

Hiya! What if I want to write about a website. Can I use that website as my reliable source? Thanks! BrightSunMan (talk) 07:42, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

BrightSunMan Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state about an article subject, not what the subject says about itself; for this reason, primary sources, anything from the subject itself, can only be used in certain situations, and generally can't be used to establish notability.(in this case, the definition of a notable website) If no independent sources have given in depth coverage to a subject, it would not yet merit a Wikipedia article. 331dot (talk) 07:54, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, but what about if I use the source to indicate that the website simply 'exists'? Can I do that? BrightSunMan (talk) 12:27, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

@BrightSunMan: If the website is notable, you can add that website to the External links section (See WP:EL), but the fact that something simply exists doesn't mean it'll make it to Wikipedia. Feel free to give us the link if you want more specific feedback. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:49, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Existing is not enough to have a WP-article, see WP:GNG. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:27, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

@BrightSunMan: Another good read is Wikipedia:Existence ≠ Notability. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:33, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia must not become ridiculous

Wikipedia must be a place where everyone will be able to correct the fake or wrong news ! I may not be able to correct that because i am new on it , but the editors of wikipedia will have no excuse... I just tried to correct the news about origin of Mannequin Challenge , with prove of dates and locations to not look ridiculous, but every time i tried someone take of my article... You must understand that Google will prove the origin of Mannequin Challenge with videos ! Those videos have the dates encrypted on it , so in the end Wikipedia will lose trust ...( I don't think you like that ) . If you really care about Wikipedia, don't let those bad people to throw the dirt on it , because they may do that on porpoise... In my sandbox you will find one article about Mannequin Challenge Origin ( with date and biography of the true originator ) So don't act like blind .... Google will prove that wikipedia published false news in the end .... That will make you happy ?????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by STUDIO3339 (talk • contribs) 12:59, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi STUDIO3339 and welcome to The Teahouse, where we answer questions about how to edit Wikipedia. What exactly is your question? Hug^syrup 13:12, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi STUDIO3339. You need to remember that Google is not a WP:Reliable source. Anyone can put any rubbish on a website that Google will pick up. If you have a reliable source that needs to be considered, please discuss the change you wish to make on the talk page of the article. Wikipedia does not report news (fake or otherwise). It just reports what is written in reliable sources. Dbfirs 13:30, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

@STUDIO3339: The place to raise your concerns is on the talkpage of Mannequin Challenge. If you post there (here's the link to it), you can point to your evidence and, if it is persuasive, other editors will take your feeback onboard and modify the article. It does look as though this particular modern novelty has had few discussions about its origins already. So be prepared to supply details and for a robust conversation. I should say that we don't accept YouTube as a reliable source. Anyone can create and post anything there. I don't know whether you're associated with that particular video that you added, but it's hardly compelling evidence in Wikipedia's eyes. However, once mainstream media has reported something as valid (be it right or wrong) then Wikipedia is free to report it. Wikipedia reflects what the world at large says about something, not what one individual tries to demonstrate in order to right some great injustice, sorry. Why you think that particular matter makes Wikipedia look ridiculous, I cannot fathom. I do note that the video was only posted this month and has so far garnered less than 90 views. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) Best wishes Nick Moyes (talk) 14:07, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Nick Moyes, At the risk of nitpicking, YouTube is often not a reliable source, but it can be. There's a good summary upthread Wikipedia:Teahouse#A_good,_citable_source. S Philbrick(Talk) 17:14, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: Thats very true - thanks for making that excellent point. In this case, though, I don't think such an upload would count as 'reliable'. Nick Moyes (talk) 17:21, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Nick Moyes, I agree, but many new editors read this place to learn information, and I didn't want them to walk away thinking that YouTube is NEVER acceptable. S Philbrick(Talk) 17:24, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

I need a kind help

Hello,

I am French and in advance, forgive me if I make mistakes in English. For several years now, I have made various small contributions to existing pages.

And a few months ago, I started the page of a French photographer I like very much: Gregory Herpe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Gregory_Herpe

I don't understand why my submission is still not validated. However, I have worked a lot on it and added a lot of external links.

How can I do and can you help me finish and publish this page, please? In advance, thank you all!

Fabien — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vsgh66 (talk • contribs) 16:00, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Vsgh66, it seems you haven't actually submitted it for review yet. I have just added a template that allows you to do that. Please add inline citations to all extraordinary claims made in the draft (I can see a total of one inline citation in the draft as of now). A draft about a living person can not be accepted without adequate inline citations. After you have actually used inline citations and references instead of just listing external links, all you need to do is simply click the big blue button at the bottom of that template that I just added. I doubt it will be accepted on first attempt but that would be a start. Good luck! Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 16:14, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Vsgh66 A general rule of thumb is one reliable in line citation per each section of text. Taewangkorea (talk) 17:46, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Content

Hello all. Just wondering if the edits I made are ok content wise without putting up a complete song lyric. Thanks for you support. Bob Corsini NJ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcorsini54 (talk • contribs) 12:07, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Rcorsini54, What article are you referring to? Interstellarity (talk) 17:14, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

User page

PS - it looks like my user page has been deleted! What happened, and can I get it restored? Thank you, Rcorsini54 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcorsini54 (talk • contribs) 12:10, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Rcorsini54, I think it would best to let an administrator answer this question since they can see deleted pages: Pinging 331dot, Cullen328, and DESiegel for any help. Interstellarity (talk) 17:11, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello... I think this is due to a multiple device look. It was 2... my 2 sons. I asked them not to login as me anymore. Thanks for the heads up! Rcorsini54 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcorsini54 (talk • contribs) 17:15, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Rcorsini54, It sounds like you have an answer, but User_talk:Bbb23 is the place to ask if you have more questions, as that is the admin who removed it S Philbrick(Talk) 17:17, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Rcorsini54, and welcome to the Teahouse. Your user page was deleted with the reason given being "U5: Misuse of Wikipedia as a web host)" In general a user page should be used to introduce and describe the user as a wikipedia editor. It is not a social media page, nor a resume, nor a substitute for a personal web site. More leeway is given to users who have made significant contributions to the encyclopedia proper -- you have currently made very few. But even experienced users should limit their user pages to things related in some way to their Wikipedia work.See Wikipedia:User pages and particularly Wikipedia:User pages#What may I have in my user pages? and Wikipedia:User pages# What may I not have in my user pages? for more information. Note that the "not" section mentions Extensive writings and material on topics having virtually no chance whatsoever of being directly useful to the project, its community, or an encyclopedia article.

All of that said, I think this particular deletion was a bit ill-judged -- I would not have made it. You could ask the deleting admin, Bbb23 to reconsider. It would help if you can honestly declare an intention to become an active editor here. Or you could post at WP:REFUND. But it might be better to jsut get on with workign on the encydlopedia and the gradually build up a user page that describes you as an editor, indicating your skills and interests, and projects or articles that you have worked on or plan to work on. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:19, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

@Rcorsini54: Accounts may not be shared. Please change your password and do not give it to anyone. No one else should be logged into your account. RudolfRed (talk) 17:30, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Do look at my edit

Hello, do look at my edits on the draft which I have moved into the article space Mahira Sharma. Thanks, I hope to get a reply soon. Imwet (talk) 17:54, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello Imwet, and welcome to the Teahouse. The net effect of your edits is this. I don't see anything particularly wrong with them, but they don't add a lot of content either. As for whether this should have been moved from draft, it seems a little marginal to me. But I don't propose to nominate it for deletion at this time either.

Please improve the citations to include at least the name of the work cited, the author where known, and the access date. Taht makes it much easier to asses the probable contribution to notability of each cited source, and generally is helpful for readers, particularly if links later change or go offline. See Referencing for Beginners for details on how to do this. Thank you. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:25, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Vocal on Go Get 'Em Tigers Don Rondo/ Kris Peterson

Vocals on Detroit Tigers vTheme, "Go Get Em Tigers....Don Rondo / Kris Peterson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ladyinabag1 (talk • contribs) 18:18, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

@Ladyinabag1: Sorry, I'm not sure what your question is. This help desk is the place to ask questions about how to edit Wikipedia, so we probably can't help you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:26, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Is Right Wing Watch Considered Reliable Sources

I mean if you want accurate information on political issues, obviously not, but Wikipedia has a reputation of accepting Leftist drivel as "reliable", hence the question. Telum et Phalangae (talk) 18:23, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, doesn't sound like you actually have a question that we can help you with. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:26, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Blocked as a sockpuppet of Stormcloak EthnoNationalist. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 19:08, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Inadequate Citing

How can we cite a website if there is missing information? (E.g publisher and publication date)

Thanks! BrightSunMan (talk) 19:35, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

@BrightSunMan: hi and welcome to the teahouse. If you don't have all of the information, just include what is available. --DannyS712 (talk) 19:40, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

BrightSunMan Many web pages have no clear;ly ndefiend publication dates. That is one reason to always proved the "retrieved" date when citing a web page. That is the date when you 9most recently) accessed the page and saw that it was what you intended to cite. If you use {{cite web}} it can be specified as |accessdate= or |access-date=. If buiding cites manually, just include "Retrieved: {date}" at the ende of the citation. This makes finding an archived version easier if the link goes dead or the content at the link is changed. Do include whatever information is available, such as Author, name of web site, and title of page. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:04, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

@BrightSunMan: I have occasionally seen a news site where the publication date of an article is not immediately visible, though you would expect there to be one on a news article. I've found that this was (surprisingly) caused by my script-blocker. If you're technically comfortable with security issues, you might choose to allow some scripts in order to see the date. Another choice, again if you expect a date to be meaningful, is to look at the page info (Tools>Page Info in Firefox), where you might find, e.g., "modified_date". —[AlanM1(talk)]— 23:45, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Sending feedback

I want to send feedback while using Wikipedia Beta but can't find the option for it. Can anyone teach me how? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kore's Cosmaupia (talk • contribs) 19:49, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

If you are seeing problems, you can post about it at WP:VPT, specifying the beta feature you are using. RudolfRed (talk) 21:46, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Bay area Three Peaks Challenge - wikipage

I have made edits to the page - Bay area Three Peaks Challenge and it should now comply with the guidelines of Wikipedia. How do I resubmit the page for publishing ?

This is truly something valuable to the community of hikers and having such information published on a platform like Wikipedia will help our community get more engaged with the outdoors and explore the surrounding nature reserves and state parks. 

By creating something exciting like a challenge, it gets everyone interested and enthusiastic about hiking and experiencing all the wonderful trails that Bay area has to offer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samirkonnur (talk • contribs) 21:03, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Samirkonnur Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I understand that Wikipedia can seem like a great way to spread the word about a good cause or event, but that's not what Wikipedia is for. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that has articles about subjects shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources to meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability. It is not for a promotional purpose like spreading the word about an event, regardless of how good an event it is. If the news or other sources take note of your event on their own and choose to give it significant coverage, it might merit an article at that time, but I don't believe that it does now. I would suggest that you use social media, a website that you own or control, or an alternative forum where what you want to do is permitted. If you were to resubmit the article(not just "page", a subtle but important distinction) it would almost certainly be rejected, especially because it contains no independent sources(or any sources at all). I'm sorry this is probably not good to hear, but I must be honest. 331dot (talk) 21:13, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

How best to create a citation referencing a page that is in a language other than English?

Can someone please help me understand what is the best practice when creating a citation that references a web page that is not in English? I have used google translator to be able to read the site's page but am not sure if all the information in the citation should be in the originating language. I ended up putting both languages in the title but that doesn't seem right as it makes the title very, very long... Help please & thank you! : -) LorriBrown (talk) 21:55, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, LorriBrown and welcoem to the Teahouse. If you use {{cite web}} or other citation templates, you can use |language=, |trans-title= for the title translated into English, |trans-work= for a translation of the name of the publication. You could use |quote= for a translated quotation. I recall a trans-quote parameter, but it doesn't appear in the template documentation, so perhaps my memory is incorrect. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:15, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you DESiegel, Do I put the original language link? LorriBrown (talk) 23:33, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

I am getting error messages. Need help with what I am doing incorrectly with the citation... Thank you!

Also... not sure how to restrict the reference to this conversation. It is showing up at the bottom of the page. LorriBrown (talk) 00:04, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)LorriBrown, |trans-title= does not work unless you also provide the un-translated (non-English) title in using |title=. Similarly, |trans-work= requires |work= or one of its synonyms. In any case the original title and publication name should be provided, because that is wat would be needed to search for the source offline, or in an archivne if the link goes dead. The url dshould go to mthe original, untranslated article. |trans-url= can be used if a tanslated version is available online, but only if the base URL is specified. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:11, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

LorriBrown To restrict refrences to a section, in cases like this, place {{reflist-talk}} at the bototm of the sectipon, or where it is desired that the refs be shown -- one can have several sets of refs shown separately, for example in a documatation page about how to do refs. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:13, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

References

What should I do about this page?

I found Turk van buren which appears to be written by the subject of the article and it seems to be promotional, and the subject isn't notable. Does the article qualify for speedy deletion or should I start a deletion discussion? Merlin04 (talk) 22:07, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

I've deleted the article as promotional(a speedy deletion criteria). 331dot (talk) 22:09, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

insert photo into sandbox draft

I'm having trouble inserting photos from my computer into the Sandbox. I am using SAFARI. Should I not be? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve Michelman (talk • contribs) 22:24, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

If by inserting you mean copy and paste. Well you can't do that period. You have to upload your pictures via wikimedia here is the link Oldperson (talk) 22:39, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Also, please do be aware that once you upload an image there you permanently and irrevocably release the copyright of the image per the license you choose. Be sure that what you're uploading aligns with the project's scope as well. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:39, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Some help in article draft

I had drafted an article in my user-sandbox and had submitted it by clicking "submit for review" button. But after that, my entire sandbox was moved to Draft:Sandeep Unnithan, leaving a redirect. Is this supposed to happen? How do I get my sandbox back?— Vaibhavafro ^💬 23:32, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Vaibhavafro that is the usual procedure. By submitting your draft for reveiw, you are inviting others to collaborate on it, so it is moved from a sandbox page (which suggests something not yet ready for others to help with, or just testing) to a draft page, which invites others to assist in getting the article ready for the main article space. Note that you re free to continue to improve the draft while you wait for a review. I note that a number of your cited sources were written by the subject of the drat. Those source are not independent and do not help to establish Notability there need to be sources showing that others have written about the subject in some detail -- others who are not employers, associates, friends, or family members. See our guideline for notability in biographical articles, please. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Thankyou DESiegel. I will incorporate new sources and remove the self written one. If I may, this person is arguably among the most notable Indian defence journalists. If you want a explanation why, please contact me on my talk page. However, please also tell me what will happen to my sandbox... Will the history of my sandbox be associated with the article, like it is presently viewable in the Draft? Regards, — Vaibhavafro ^💬 01:43, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Vaibhavafro I didn't say that I thought Unnithan was not notable, merely that the draft did not yet clearly demonstrate that notability. Self-written sources can be used for some purposes -- for example, to document what the subject actually said or wrote on some topic. But they don't contribute to notability, and should not be the main basis of an article. Note that a few good sources are much better than many poor ones. There is often a problem with Wikipedia articles about journalists and other creative people -- there is a tendency for others to point to their works, but not writ much about the people behid those works. This makes it harder to clearly demonstrate notability, but significant critical reviews of a person's work can also contribute to establishing notability. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:53, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks DESiegel for you suggestions. I will incorporate new sources. Please just tell me what will happen to my sandbox etc I asked above.— Vaibhavafro ^💬 01:57, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Vaibhavafro When the page User:Vaibhavafro/sandbox was moved to Draft:Sandeep Unnithan a redirect was left behind. This is like a forwarding address -- it makes sure that any links to the content tht as moved still work, and that anyone going to the old page name gets to the moved content. But like almost everything on Wikipedia, it can be changed easily. If you want to have a new sandbox for working on another topic, you can simply edit the page User:Vaibhavafro/sandbox, delete the redirect, and rep;lace it with whatever you like. You can also create named userspace drafts, with page names such as User:Vaibhavafro/Draft Abc and User:Vaibhavafro/Draft Def. You can have as many pof these as you want, provided that you seriously intend to work on them and try to eventually develop them into articles here. There are advantages to both styles, and neither is required. If you wan tthe redirect in the sandbox page removed now, I can do that for you, although you can do it for yourself. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 02:03, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

DESiegel Thanks for that explaination. Draft:Sandeep Unnithan currently reflects the editing history of my sandbox. I was just asking whether this history will also be reflected when the article will be published...— Vaibhavafro ^💬 02:08, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Vaibhavafro Now i think i understand your concern. Yes, when a page is moved, all its history is normally moved with it. That is one reason why i prefer to start drafts in tjheor own pages and use a sandbox only for test edits never intended to become articles. But many work otherwise, and that is OK. If this prospect really bothers you, I could do a history split from the draft and merge those pre-draft edits back into the history of your sandbox. Many editors wouldn't care about such a thing, but if you do, I have the rights to deal with the situation. Note that there will be no apparent difference unless someone looks at the history. Please indicate if you want such a split and merge done. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 02:18, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

DESiegel, thanks for understanding me. I think I will not be able to demonstrate Unnithan's notability, since most of the discussion about his extraordinary work is on forums. Next time onwards, I will directly create a draft instead of moving my sandbox into draftspace, as you do. — Vaibhavafro ^💬 02:26, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

@DESiegel: However, if you can bring back the history of my sandbox to my sandbox, that would be great! That is my article creation legacy.— Vaibhavafro ^💬 02:30, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Vaibhavafro that is unfortunate, but Wikipedia has to follow reliable sources. Do note that printed sources which are not online, or sources that are not in English, or both, are perfectly acceptabel if they can be cites to that a user could, with effort find and verify them. Sources do not need to be free of charge, either. But if Unnithan and his work has been written about largely on forums, an article will have to wait until published independent sources are available, if they ever are. Good luck on your next topic. If I can be of help, feel free to ask. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 02:36, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Vaibhavafro I will do the split and merge then. Please do not edit the draft or the sandbox until I ping you and tell you it s done, it will take a few minutes. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 02:37, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done Vaibhavafro The history move is done. The revisions that have noting to do with Sandeep Unnithan are back in User:Vaibhavafro/sandbox and the ones that are about Unnithan are in Draft:Sandeep Unnithan. I hope that is satisfactory to you. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:03, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

@DESiegel:Thankyou very much!!— Vaibhavafro ^💬 03:15, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Help

Hi all. As I have joined Wikipedia very recently, I am yet to know much about the technical aspects of adding content.Kindly help me regarding a few areas I am getting stuck.

How to create a new sub heading in an already available page

How to give number to reference and hyperlink data and reference.

Hope to get an answer soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angunnu (talk • contribs) 05:55, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

User welcomed. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 06:53, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Do read the welcome and links on your talk page, but the answer to your specific questions is that both the headings index and the reference numbers are generated automatically by the software. See WP:Referencing for beginners for how to insert references, and just copy the heading style, using two or three = signs for new headings. Dbfirs 09:16, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Cant see a save button on my preferences pages

Hi, I am trying to save the changes I wanted to make to my preferences - but I cant see a 'save' button' anywhere on any of the pages. Can you help? Thank you ClarityRandom (talk) 07:42, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

@ClarityRandom: It seems to try to "float" at the bottom of the currently visible part of the page, though sometimes it seems to get stuck and disappear (Win10/Firefox/Vector skin). Try scrolling all the way to the top and then the bottom. Also, try searching the page for Save (usually Ctrl-F if you're on a desktop browser). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 08:02, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

@ClarityRandom: You can also try Wikipedia:Keyboard shortcuts#Using access keys for your browser. Save is s, e.g. Alt+s or Alt+⇧ Shift+s. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:21, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

BLP Submission declined

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

This draft was declined previously because the references were not in the required format for a BLP.

Please suggest Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations for BLP — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firosekhanv (talk • contribs) 08:27, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

In the feedback messages, both on the draft on on your user talk page, the words in blue are wikilinks to the guidance you need. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:46, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

You have far too many external links. If any of those are intended to be references, include them as citations in accordance with Help:Referencing for beginners, otherwise most of them should be removed. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:52, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Separate from the criticism about reference format, my opinion is that Kumar has done nothing that would make him notable in the Wikipedia sense. My understanding of the draft is that he is an avid tourist who paid to go up in an airplane ride. David notMD (talk) 10:33, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

A question about a bot’s behaviour

A bot removed my move proposal notification in the article Defense Intelligence Agency minutes after I put the notice up. Was this supposed to happen? Or is it because of some syntax-error on my part?— Vaibhavafro ^💬 15:14, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

That bot did the same again. PLEASE HELP URGENTLY.— Vaibhavafro ^💬 15:32, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

It looks as if you confused the bot. Were you trying to follow the process described at WP:RM#Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves? It looks as if you didn't go through the right process on the article talk page but then tried to make an edit to the article page itself. If you do it right, the bot will make the necessary edit to add the notice to the article page. Because there wasn't a properly registered request, the bot removed the notice. I suggest that you clean it up and start again. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:37, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

@David Biddulph:It seems that I am a total NOOB. See Talk:Defense Intelligence Agency. The move template isn't working.— Vaibhavafro ^💬 15:51, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I figured it out. Thanks,— Vaibhavafro ^💬 15:53, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Deleted edits

Hello. I was just wondering if there's a way to find out what my deleted edits specifically are--partly out of curiosity, but mostly to make sure I don't repeat a mistake or error. Thank you! Caro7200 (talk) 16:02, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

If by "deleted edits" you mean those shown as such at https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/Caro7200, they don't necessarily mean that you have made a mistake or error, but merely that the page(s) which you edited have subsequently been deleted. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:10, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for your response, good to know. Thank you. Caro7200 (talk) 17:30, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

@David Biddulph: So, is there perhaps a tool available to admins that shows at least the names of the deletions? I'm also a little surprised and curious about my delete count for the same reason. It would be good to know how many of those were pages I created vs. how many were just pages I happened to edit at some point. Thanks. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 00:02, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Suite and Sour (The Loud House)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Suite_and_Sour_(The_Loud_House)

I've created this article about an episode. Why it was declined ?

If you can improve this draft, do it.

I want just to write an article about an episode of The Loud House.

An example :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Change_Your_Mind_(Steven_Universe) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.253.230.158 (talk) 16:17, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You were given the reason for the decline in the draft and some additional comments. The episode would only merit a standalone article if the episode itself gets extensive coverage in independent reliable sources. A source for its (relatively low) viewership is not sufficient. The episode itself or its production must have extensive coverage. It would be a rare thing for every episode of a TV show to merit its own article here. 331dot (talk) 16:46, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Bot archived an unanswered question on a reviewer's talk page

Hello there! I'd appreciate some help with the revision of a draft I'm working in. After the draft was declined on the 11th of October by a reviewer (StraussInTheHouse), I improved the draft and then left a message in the reviewer's talk page on the 16th of October. But some days later, a bot (lowercase sigmabot III) archived my message here without a reply from the reviewer. And I'm now afraid that the reviewer will not answer there, as he/she states at the top of his/her talk page that "Replies will be made here". Thanks for your help! --Jorcaiba (talk) 17:19, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Jorcaiba, Hello. If you think you've addressed the issues, you can resubmit the draft and someone else will review it. The user that last reviewed it hasn't edited wikipedia since Oct 13, so I wouldn't take it personally. The bot is obviously programmed to automatically archive posts, so it's no one's fault. Personally, I feel it's all for the best as I think it's better to have different reviewers look at the draft each time. Regards! Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 17:45, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the info! :) --Jorcaiba (talk) 18:21, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

RE: Contradiction of poetics 13 and 14

For that article, still awaiting acceptance or declining after 3 months, how about the simpler title "Change of fortune paradox." Or "change of fortune contradiction"? Or as Takeda names the problem, "Metabasis paradox"? As I recall some of you here had an issue with the title I originally put on, as being too long. I find it to be acceptable as is. Is this article going to await a response forever?Cdg1072 (talk) 17:30, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

There is a long backlog at AFC. More than 1000 drafts are in Category:AfC pending submissions by age/Very old, so you'll just have to be patient. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:53, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Courtesy link Draft:The contradiction of Poetics chapters 13 and 14

As to the title Cdg1072, if there is an agreed term among scholars or other reliable sources for this issue, that would be the ideal title. If there is not, then the best neutral descriptive title that can be managed will have to do. The title should ideally be clear to a reader not familiar with the topic, and a plausible search term for someone who knows a little and wants to know more. But the titel can be changed at any point, and should not be a major issue. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:47, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Nazi-Censorship in German wikipedia

I wanted to post something in the "Diskussion" of keyword "AfD" which was erased over and over again. The AfD is a Nazi-Party.

Lutz Fehling — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.15.238.24 (talk) 22:08, October 26, 2019 (UTC)

Please specify which page you are trying to edit. There is no AfD in the editing history of your IP. RudolfRed (talk) 22:13, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

It's apparently about de:Special:Contributions/89.15.238.24. Each Wikipedia language has its own policies and processes. I don't know how the German Wikipedia operates and we have no power over it. You indicated on a talk page that a living person is a Nazi. That could also be reverted at the English Wikipedia per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Our talk pages are for discussing improvements to the associated article. Alternative for Germany (AfD) does not identify as Nazi. I think most people just consider them right-wing or far-right but not Nazi. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:39, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

PrimeHunter, you beat me to it. Lutz is talking about the German political party, which they altered in this edit at de:Alternative für Deutschland, which was reverted here by German (well, Austrian ) user Oesterreicher12 (talk · contribs) (de:talk · de:contribs). A follow up edit by IP was again reverted. It was an OR comment/question which would be collapsed or deleted at en-wiki per NOTFORUM, but as you say, de-wiki has their own rules (maybe, kein Chat-Raum). Anyway, this is really an issue for de-wiki, not us. Mfg, Mathglot (talk) 22:54, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

I want everybody who answered me here to thank a lot!

I don't understand everything but it seems that what I wrote in the "Diskussion" to keyword "AfD" in the German wikipedia is still somewhere hidden in the storage.

Lutz Fehling — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.15.239.110 (talk) 13:21, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Re-arranging sections

I found an article that went through a merge recently and looks like it could use some rearranging to be easier to follow.

This type of edit seems to be major enough to need talking through first, but I can't recall ever seeing any discussions about re-arrangements. What's the proper procedure here? Edit and see if it sticks or ask first? 75.172.161.217 (talk) 22:33, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Which article is it? PrimeHunter (talk) 22:40, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Liquefied_natural_gas 75.172.161.217 (talk) 22:48, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

I'd suggest discussing the changes on the talk page first. Do you know how to do that? Clovermoss (talk) 22:53, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

You can start a discussion on the article's talk page. If you decide to go ahead and do the work, I suggest making the edits incrementally, instead of one large rewrite at once. RudolfRed (talk) 22:54, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

"Ask first" sounds like the way to go. A draft might help too, how do you start one of those? 75.172.161.217 (talk) 23:00, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

If you want to discuss the changes at the article's talk page, you can do so here. Draftspace is usually used to create new articles, not to draft improvements. I'd reccomend making incremental changes like RudolfRed suggested, if you plan on editing the article directly. If you have not already done so, I'd also reccomend reading the five pillars of editing. Clovermoss (talk) 23:11, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

ok I think I got it now, thanks :) 75.172.161.217 (talk) 23:15, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome, I'm glad I could help. Clovermoss (talk) 23:18, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Mydadcoke's thread

Hi tea house, my name is Sabrina Escovedo and I am Coke Escovedo daughter. I noticed that there where a lot of things taken off his documentations on wiki. From other sources. Now we know there are very evil haters out in this world, would or can it be possible to have certain people blocked off from editing. I plan to put the real facts where acknowledgment should stand. My father did not have a lot of enemies but he did have a few backstabbers. My email is (Redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mydadcoke (talk • contribs) 23:06, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Link: Coke Escovedo. I'm sorry, but I don't see any significant removals from the article in it's history. The right place to discuss the article is on its talk page, Talk:Coke Escovedo, where you might be more specific about any missing information and provide reliable sources that can be cited for verification. Since you are his daughter, this is the correct procedure according to WP:COISELF (please see that link and the links within it). Thanks. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 00:27, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Mydadcoke. I've added a welcome template to your user talk page that contains some information specifically designed to help people such as yourself. As AlanM1 has pointed out, Wikipedia considers you to have a conflict of interest with respect to anything written about your dad on Wikipedia. So, if you have any concerns about the content of the article written about him, you should follow WP:COIADVICE and discuss them on the article's talk page. Moreover, your comment Now we know there are very evil haters out in this world, would or can it be possible to have certain people blocked off from editing. I plan to put the real facts where acknowledgment should stand. shows that you might not really understand what Wikipedia is about. Wikipedia is not really a place to try and continue or resolve real world disputes between you and others regarding your dad. It's also not really a place to post "real facts" unless they are things that can be verified through citations to reliable sources as explained in Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. So, if you feel that there is certain content in the article which shouldn't be there, the best thing for you to do is to explain why on the article's talk page and see what other editors unconnected to you dad think. Perhaps there are things which should be removed, but negative content isn't going to be removed just because it's negative; it will only be removed if it's not in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. In the same vein, positive content isn't going to remain just because it's positive; it will remain only if it's in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. This might not be hard to understand at first, but neither you nor anyone else connected to your dad has any final editorial control of the article as explained in Wikipedia:Ownership of content; in other words, it's not really his article, but rather an article written about him on Wikipedia which means that everything good or bad needs to be in accordance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines even if they might be things that you don't personally like. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:59, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Why are my edits constantly changed?

Hello,

Why is it that every time I add an edit, and they are always relatable and necessary to the topic, does somebody edit it out? For example I added the fandom name of a Kpop band to their Wikipedia page, and then somebody moved it. Is this not suitable for those Wikipedia pages? What are the rules or regulations for editing a Wikipedia page? I just don’t see why this is constantly being changed.

Thankyou — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Ajohn711 (talk • contribs) 23:57, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Ajohn711, In the case of [this edit the info was already in the article, in the "2016: Debut with Spring Up, Summer Vibes and Autumn Story" section. Normally informtiuon should not be included twice. It would have been helpful if the editor who reverted, Abdotorg had provided a more detailed reason. You could always ask on the article talk page Talk:Astro (South Korean band), possibly using a ping to alert the editor who undid or changed your edit. Note that all Wikipedia article are normally open to editing by anyone, and all changes that are intended to be helpful are welcome, but none are guaranteed to stay unrevised. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:14, 27 October 2019 (UTC) @Ajohn711: DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:15, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps Abdotorg will comment on the reason for the reverts. Meanwhile, I've added a welcome message with some useful links and some info about correct use of the minor checkbox to your talk page. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 00:42, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, so the origin of a fandom name is really not relevant to a wikipedia article about a band, you could say it is WP:FANCRUFT - also the source used is against WP:KO/RS. Abdotorg (talk) 13:45, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Can DAB notices be sent retroactively?

I have only just learned about the DAB notice that is produced when an ed links to certain (all?) DAB pages directly. Suppose some page has a ton of incoming links and is converted to a DAB page. Do these notices go out retroactively?

If this is in some howto page, just point me the way and I'll read all about it there. Thanks NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:47, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

@NewsAndEventsGuy: Can you explain more about the DAB notice you are referring to? Is this a watchlist notification or something else? RudolfRed (talk) 01:58, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

The OP is presumably referring to User:DPL bot, in which case the question would best be placed on the bot's talk page, if not already answered in its FAQ. --David Biddulph (talk) 02:04, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you both! Yes David, that's perfect, much obliged.  Done NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:11, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Is quoting text a copyvio?

If I quote text from a book using {{cite book}}, will that be a copyright violation? I am speaking in context of my recent additions to this article, in which I think that quoting the text will be easier for future reference since I have accessed the book from my University Library.— Vaibhavafro ^💬 05:33, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Vaibhavafro Greetings. When you use a book as the source for the content claimed, (cite book), that means you need to write the content in your own words and the meaning of the original source is faithfully preserved. Direct quote is verbatim text, exact reproduction of the original source with a quotation marks the beginning and end of the quotation. Source need to be included at the end of the quote and you can use Cquote or block quote template. Do note, do use direct quote sparingly. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:20, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

In general, Vaibhavafro, no it is not considered a copyvio. Wikipedia:Quotations says: Quotations are a fundamental part of Wikipedia articles. Quotations—often informally called quotes—provide information directly; quoting a brief excerpt from an original source can sometimes explain things better and less controversially than trying to explain them in one's own words. and goes on to say bQuotations must be verifiably attributed to a reliable source (see Wikipedia:Verifiability § Burden of evidence). Wikipedia guidelines for proper attribution of quotes are found in WP:MOSQUOTE and WP:CITE. Attribution should be provided in the text of the article, not exclusively in a footnote or citation. A reader should not have to follow a footnote to learn who authored the quote.

I have omitted links in the quotes above, please do read the whole page an perhaps follow its links. That page also expresses cautions, particularly saying: While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Long quotations crowd the actual article and remove attention from other information..

In copyright law, reasonably sized quotations used for critical or referential purpose are almost always fair use under US law, fair dealing under UK and commonwealth law, and fit other exceptions to copyright under the laws of other countries. One will hit the limits of Wikipedia policy before hitting the limits of copyright law in pretty much any plausible case in an article.

In short, ther is no need to worry about copyright issues when using a quote from a source or a historical document, as long as the edit is within Wikipedia policy as described in Wikipedia:Quotations. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 06:43, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Vaibhavafro Greetings. When you use a book as the source for the content claimed, (cite book), that means you need to write the content in your own words and the meaning of the original source is faithfully preserved. Direct quote is verbatim text, exact reproduction of the original source with a quotation marks the beginning and end of the quotation. Source need to be included at the end of the quote and you can use Cquote or block quote template. Do note, do use direct quote sparingly. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:20, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

@DESiegel:Thanks for that explaination.— Vaibhavafro ^💬 07:18, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

@CASSIOPEIA: Thanks. I just wanted to ask whether or not filling the "quote" parameter in {{cite book}} with the actual text in the cited book is correct or not.— Vaibhavafro ^💬 07:35, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Vaibhavafro You need to write the content in your own words and the content should be supported by the said source. Not all the content in the book need to be reflected in the article but just the important and relevant ones. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:45, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Vaibhavafro, the quote parameter in {{cite book}}, {{cite news}} or any citation template should be filled, if it is used at all, with an exact quotation from the source, and should not (unlike article text) be paraphrased or in your own words. It need not always be used. It is helpful to identify the extat phrase or passage in the source which directly supports the article content. It is not needed if the article content is itself a direct marked quotation. It is most useful when the source is dense, has long pages, or is unpaginated, and it may be hard for a reader to identify just what passage in the source supports the article test. It should not be an overly long quotation, but should be long enough to make the nature of the support clear. Parts of a passage not relevant to the purpose can be replaced with an ellipsis (...), but never in such a way as to change or distort the meaning of the source. It can also be used for a translated passage from a non-English source, but the translation must be careful, and must be clearly identified. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 07:54, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

@DESiegel: now that's exactly the answer I was looking for. Thanks— Vaibhavafro ^💬 08:09, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

@DESiegel:, Thanks for informing. I just replied to the editor and after I save the edit, I saw the editor thanked your for the explanation. I was a little perplexed and then I saw you message on my talk page. I did not aware I removed your message and I have not idea how this happened. However, since it has happened, I apologies for it and would take it as I must have click something when I was making the edit. Sorry for the inconvenience caused. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:55, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA I have mis-clicked and mis-typed many times editign WP. No problems. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 07:58, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA I think it's appropriate to thank someone who writes a long answer for you. That's why I thanked DES, despite his answer not exactly fitting my question. No need to be perplexed. Regards,— Vaibhavafro ^💬 08:06, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Vaibhavafro What I meant was, I didnt see any reply from DES in the message (because it was removed on my edit) and yet you wrote to thank him - that was why I was perplexed. Not long later, I received the message from DES of asking me if my removal of his reply was a mistake that answered my perplexion. The whole thing is not why I was perplexed of your gracious appreciate of DES' explanation but on my part that I did see any communication since the message was removed by me. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:13, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

@CASSIOPEIA: Okay. I misunderstood you. Regards, — Vaibhavafro ^💬 08:18, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I’d love to learn

More about how I can host a page for my own name/personal brand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allisontristan (talk • contribs) 05:58, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Allisontristan, tl;dr don't. Wikipedia is not a place for you to use as your soapbox.. However, if your brand fulfills the notability requirements, it can have a Neutral Point Of View article on it. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 06:01, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

... written by someone completely independent of you, based on coverage of you in reliable sources, like The New York Times, Variety, and Rolling Stone. This is an encyclopedia, like Brittanica (but bigger/better). Please read all those blue links. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 06:54, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

help with WP:ORG

I am trying to get a better understanding of the notability guidelines for organizations. In WP:ORG, it says:

Sources that describe only a specific topic related to an organization should not be regarded as providing significant coverage of that organization. Therefore, for example, an article on a product recall or a biography of a CEO is a significant coverage for the Wikipedia article on the product or the CEO, but not a significant coverage on the company (unless the article or biography devotes significant attention to the company itself).

Here is where I am confused: An organization is a collection of people, which typically produce products, services, ideas, or other artifacts. So, when talking about an organization, all there is to talk about is the people, products, services, and ideas. There is no more "there" there, so far as I can tell. So, I don't know what to make of the above paragraph. How does can a source really talk about "the company itself," when the company or organization really is just a collection of smaller things? 104gli (talk) 06:01, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

@104gli: Welcome to the Teahouse, and thanks for asking! It means that the source must be talking about the corporation as a whole, and not a specific part of it - that is, "XYZ Corporation did a thing" would be okay, but "Peter Peterson, CEO of XYZ Company, did a thing" is not. It refers to the corporation as one entity. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 06:17, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

@A lad insane: Thanks!

However, 104gli do please note if a source talks about several parts of a company or organization, that can be coverage of the company as a whole. If a source says "The Motors division of XYZ did this, the Wire division of XYZ did that, the Retail division of XYZ did this other thing, while the Medical devices division of XYZ deployed product Z", particularly if there are multiple sentences devoted to each section, that source should probably be considered to be about the company as a whole, and to count towards notability. And of course, once notability has been established, additional sources may talk about particular activities of part of a firm or organization, and those details can be included. Indiviual facts or events mentioned in an article do not need to be notable as long nas the topic as a whole is, bearing in mind due weight. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 06:54, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Oh and do note by the way that a ping does not work unless it is part of a comment that is signed in the same edit. Signing later does not count. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 06:56, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

minor edit

I made a minor change regarding to a person's origin and then it was deleted. Why was it deleted if it is verifiable? URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bianca_Andreescu some proof: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/05/sports/tennis/us-open-bianca-andreescu-belinda-bencic.html https://nationalpost.com/sports/scott-stinson-bianca-andreescu-makes-canadian-history-advances-to-u-s-open-final-in-thrilling-win https://tennistonic.com/tennis-news/99012/why-andreescu-loves-canada-so-much-even-if-she-is-of-romanian-origins/ https://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/khan-leave-immigration-out-of-bianca-andreescus-victory

How do i proceed to change? Dindin911 (talk) 07:00, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

(ec) Link: Bianca Andreescu. The infobox does not support a parameter named "origin". She was born in Canada, so I don't think that would be correct anyway. Her ties to Romania are already discussed in detail in the article. As far as adding it to the lead, please see the talk page at Talk:Bianca Andreescu and discuss it with other editors there. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 07:09, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Dindin911 and welcome to the Teahouse. First of all that was not a minor edit. Minor edits are things like fixing spelling errors, typos, and broken formatting. Declaring a person's nationality is never minor. Secondly |origin= is apparently not valid for that infobox template. Thirdly, if you read Talk:Bianca Andreescu you will find that the matter is already under dispute there. You can join the discussion there but please remember to be WP:CIVIL; it seems that tempers are already rising on the subject. In any case, the article talk page is normally the place to discuss why an edit was reverted or what should or should not go minto an article. Remember bold, revert, discuss and do not on any account edit war. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 07:16, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Dindin and welcome to Wikipedia. We have stricter rules about articles on living people than our default, so one reason why you would have been reverted is that whether or not that date was verifiable, it wasn't verified in that you didn't include any of those links as a reference in your edits. If you need help doing that, may I suggest you read Help:Referencing for beginners? There is also the issue of origin and ancestry. According to the article and your first nonpaywalled link she is of Romanian ancestry, but not origin as she was born in Canada to Romanian parents. Origin would imply she was born in Romania and then moved to Canada. ϢereSpielChequers 07:21, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Maps and geneologies by Ian Mladjov

I found some beautiful maps and geneologies by Ian Mladjov: https://sites.google.com/a/umich.edu/imladjov/maps https://sites.google.com/a/umich.edu/imladjov/genealogies Ian said about the maps that "Given proper attribution, these maps may be used freely for non-commercial educational purposes."

Presumably (might need to ask) the geneologies would be usable for the same permissions. Would these maps and geneologies be a good addition? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cosmia Nebula (talk • contribs) 03:08, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Cosmia Nebula, in short, no. To be usable on Wikipedia (or WM Commons) content must be fully freely licensed. A restriction to non-commercial educational purposes is as bad for us as all rights reserved. Our reusers may be commercial, or non-educational and we must be able to grant them full rights. In theory it is possible that these could be used under nfiatn use, but I doubt very much if they would fit the criteria. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 07:25, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Need help stopping a spammer going wild

Pls see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/115.78.230.128.

Is this where such requests should be made? Humanengr (talk) 07:56, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Actually, Humanengr the theoretically proper place would be WP:AIV. But there are often several admins hanging out here and it worked (or something did) I went to the IP's page, only to find that another admin had already blocked. Seems a weird kind of disruption, but I don't try to understand true vandals, I just block them. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 08:05, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Category list headings

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Gas_explosions_in_the_United_States How is the ordering processed? Some of them are starting with the year are listed in "0-9" heading, but the 1998 St. Cloud explosion is listed under "S". How does this work out and how do you change where they go? Graywalls (talk) 10:48, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Graywalls. I believe pages are sorted alphabetically unless their WP:DEFAULTSORT has been set to categorize the page in another way. For example, the default sort for 1998 St. Cloud explosion is set as "Saint Cloud Explosion" which explains why it's listed under "S". -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:10, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

The sort key can also be set individually for one category of a page. See Wikipedia:Categorization#Sort keys. Some of them sort oddly because they have old sort keys from a former article name and need updating. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:21, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

All kind of empty space are filled with new energy sources SU(6), SU(12), SU(24)...... etc. as explained details in my articles.

Our Physical Universe actually unfolded with the symmetry breaking of the Super Unified Gaussian Energy Group SU(11), we found new energy sources of SU(6) called latent energy and SU(5) the GUT energy. In the theory of SU(11), it is possible to change 30-number of bosons of SU(6) into 30-number of bosons of SU(5) or vice versa by exchanging the J-bosons of SU(11). There may be possible large number of new unknown strange particles (in wave form) formed by Quark-Like particles are tightly binding by the bosons of SU(6). For details, cordially requested to read my all articles. Several Electromagnetic frequencies of the new energy sources created a Blue- Prints....... etc. Like as SU(6) Created an Electromagnetic Force in the framework of SU(6) × U(1), similarly others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Narayan Kumar Bhadra (talk • contribs) 11:20, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Dr Narayan Kumar Bhadra. The Wikipedia Teahouse is really a place for asking questions about Wikipedia editing or Wikipedia in general; so, if you have such a question, feel free to ask. However, neither the Teahouse nor Wikipedia are really places to discuss or promote your own personal research or theories as explained in Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:15, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Protected page

Misplaced question moved to bottom. GermanJoe (talk) 11:53, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Why some pages are blocked for editing, like this one, Ante Starčević.

There is second sentence in the text " His works are considered to have laid the foundations for Croatian nationalism and he is referred to as "Father of the Homeland" by some Croats."

Iam a Croat, so he is referred as a Father of the Homeland, for all Croats, not "by some Croats." His face is on 1000 kunas bill. ?

l wish to say, that l love wikipedia,and truth will win.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pax ominam (talk • contribs) 11:43, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello @Pax ominam:, and welcome to the Teahouse. Sometimes - in rare cases - pages have to be protected due to vandalism or other disruptive editing. But new editors are still welcome to suggest changes on the article's associated talkpage, in this case Talk:Ante Starčević. Please note that all suggestions for substantial changes should be based on independent reliable sources for verification. GermanJoe (talk) 12:02, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Hi Pax ominam. What you're referring to is called Wikipedia:Page protection. A page, such as an article, may be protected by an administrator for a variety of different reasons and there are different levels of protection which can be applied, but generally a page is protected to prevent it from being the subject of serious disruptive editing or because even a slight change to the page could affect many other pages indirectly in some significant way. In the case of the article Ante Starčević, the page was protected by an administrator named Future Perfect at Sunrise because of persistent long-term disruption by an editor inappropriately using multiple accounts to try and change the article in some way. The level of protection applied requires that editors been autoconfirmed to edit the page. This is usually done to prevent new accounts created only to cause disruption from editing the article, but you should be able to edit the article once your account has been autoconfirmed. If you would like to know more specific reasons as to why the page was protected, you can ask at User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:06, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Follow-up to First Submission Questions

My question is about citation. How do I source the fact that I viewed the blueprints for the Elizabeth Dunbar Murray house at the Historic Natchez Preservation Society? I took pictures of them, but I'm not sure posting a picture is the right way to go. The blueprints are signed by Robert Edgar Bost, a prolific architect in Natchez at the time the house was built. I would like to include the fact that he was the architect of the home, but I am unable to find a separate written source other than the blue prints. I deleted the fact, and hope that the article is now properly sourced for publication...but I want to keep improving on the information provided. Any productive suggestions from more experienced contributors. This is my first submission, so I apologize for my lack of expertise. AMGMUNSON (talk) 12:40, 27 October 2019 (UTC)amgmunson

Courtesy link: Draft:Elizabeth Dunbar Murray

Hello, AMGMUNSON, and welcome to the Teahouse. If the blueprints are available to the general public at Historic Natchez Preservation Society then they have been "published" as Wikipedia defines that term, and may be cited as a primnary source. Or if they have been reproduced in a book, magazine, or any other publication, or made available online they are also published. In that case they may be cited as a source. The publisher might be the "Historic Natchez Preservation Society" or perhaps some other organization. The title would probably be "Blueprints for the Elizabeth Dunbar Murray house" (or perhaps "Designs for ...") and the author would, I suppose, be Robert Edgar Bost. Then you can refer to facts shown by the blueprints just as you might to facts included in a book. (Is there enough information about Bost in reliable sources to have an article about him as well, do you think?) In any case, do not post the prints online and try to use that as a source. That would not be considered a reliable source, I think. There might or might not be a copyright issue. There is no requirement that cited sources be available online, as long as a reader could in theory access them, perhapos by traveling to the place where they are held.

Oh in future please include a wiki-link to any article or draft you are asking about here, as I have done above. Thank you. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:06, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you DES. I will double check with the Historic Natchez Preservation Society. In the meantime, I will omit the information about the architect for the article I am working on ::Courtesy link: Draft:Elizabeth Dunbar Murray. I am a leader for a children's organization that focuses on preservation of historical sites and artifacts. I'm hoping to improve my wikipedia skills so that as a group we can research historic sites and homes for articles on Wikipedia. As a group, we pass by private homes that have historic significance and have signs posted in front of them. We would like to research them one by one, and publish a wikipedia article about them so that when others "google" the name on the various signs, accurate historical information is readily available via wikipedia. It is a lofty goal, but I think it will appeal to the group on many different levels. I really appreciate your input...this is outside my comfort zone. The kids are more comfortable with such an online/computer project. However, I feel like I need to be well steeped in the process in order to guide them not just substantively, but ethically as well. Once I have an article actually published on wikipedia, I will have the appropriate credibility to approve it as a project for them. Thank you again for your input. AMGMUNSON (talk) 17:47, 27 October 2019 (UTC)amgmunson

AMGMUNSON In principle, that sounds like a very good idea. Do remember that if any topic, such as a historic house is to have a separate article, that topi must be notable which normally means that there must be multiple independent professionally published, reliable sources which discuss the topic in some detail. Books, magazine and news paper articles and their online equivalents are lal generally acceptable. But fan sites, fora, wikis, self-published web sites (or books) are usually not considered reliable.

Also remember that each person who is to edit Wikipedia must have a separate account -- in no event may accounts be shared. Collaborative work between multiple accounts is, however, not only acceptable but encouraged. I would be happy to be of help to you and your group if zi can. You can ask here or on my talk page. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:14, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Also, AMGMUNSON, if any children or minors are going to be editing Wikipedia, you might want to read, and have them read, Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors. Care in posting personal information is not a bad idea for anyone, but is more urgent for children. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:18, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Problem with seach in Book sources?

No problem...Figured it out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roywirral (talk • contribs) 09:45, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Roywirral, Glad that you got it all worked out! Let us know if another issue arises and we're always glad to help. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:03, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Authority control on Wikipedia articles

In the Women in Red Wikiproject they said * Authority control should be included at the foot of every biography: {{Authority control}}. It will remain hidden until relevant identifiers have been added to Wikidata. It is not clear what happens after relevent ...etc have been added to Wikidata. Does the hidden authority control the become unhidden? visible? or does it go away completely.Toandanel49 (talk) 13:34, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

@Toandanel49: hello and welcome to the teahouse. Once the data is there, the authority control becomes unhidden DannyS712 (talk) 20:07, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Translation of English articles into German

What does one need to translate English Wikipedia articles into German?

- which hardware and software - which knowledge (besides translation capabilities)

Thank You so much Lodidol — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lodidol (talk • contribs) 15:26, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Lodidol and welcome to the Teahouse. No special hardware or software is needed, just a reasonably high level of competence in both languages. See WP:Translate us for details. There are some monor differences in the rules of the two separate Wikipedias, but they are broadly similar. Dbfirs 15:31, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

what do I do if an IP is trying to reach out to an user but the user is not replying?

This is extending from a help desk post. Off-wiki I'm having more messages from an IP and they think this issue seem to be slow? Unblue box (talk) 17:49, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Unblue box, Howdy hello! I've been following this issue, and I'll admit I've been unsure exactly what was going on. There seems to be some sort of language barrier, which isn't helping conversation. If I may ask, what is your native language? We may be able to find an editor/admin who can speak your native language better and can translate. In terms of the issue, it seems that an IP user you're working with is having trouble with User:Rahmadiabsyah. I would say that you've taken the right action, and reported them to ANI. I will try to help out with the ANI discussion and get to the bottom of the issue. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:47, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Mine is English. But I've been quite busy. To not help around with the IP. Unblue box (talk) 21:21, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Ur-Nammu

I have removed a piece of the Ur-Nammu article, the stele piece, several times because it has nothing to do with the article, but it continualy gets re-added. Any ideas? Shrekxy64 (talk) 17:50, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Shrekxy64, seems like your edits are reasonable to me. A lot of vandals go around deleting paragraphs for no reason, so it's easy for us to be a little overzealous in putting them back. Materialscientist, keep an eye on edit summaries! :) Gaelan 💬✏️ 18:08, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! I am realatavely new to editing on Wikipedia, and that is great to know! Shrekxy64 (talk) 18:28, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Posting on Wikipedia

I would like to know if it is possible to simply post an article and for the world to see. Firstly, I can't figure out how to post or how to send an article to be reviewed. And secondly, my articles keep getting deleted for some reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 0zwood (talk • contribs) 19:58, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

0zwood, Howdy hello! You should use the WP:Article Wizard to create draft versions of articles. They will then be reviewed by experienced editors. However, if you're looking to create an Autobiography, Wikipedia just isn't the place for that. If you want to write an autobiography, you should probably use a blogging service like tumblr or blogger. But if you have a subject that is notable, i.e. been written about in the media, feel free to use the article wizard to start writing a draft. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:22, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, 0zwood, and welcome to the Teahouse. You haven't actually had an articles deleted yet. What has been deleted, three times, is your user page User:0zwood, because you were using it as a place to draft a potential future article. Thais can be done in your sandbox, or in a user page such as User:0zwood/Lac de Saint-Sernin. Your user page should, if you want one, be used to describe yourself as a Wikipedia editor -- what are your interests, fields of knowledge, etc. You can also include some limited biographical information, but it should not be an autobiography nor read like an article. Look at the user pages of Some of those answering questions here to get an idea of the sort of things experienced editors put on their user pages. But don't worry about that much -- many good editors never create a user page.

I see that you have now started a potential article at User:0zwood/sandbox. The tone seems good, but you will need to add citations to reliable sources before this is even ready ti be submitted for review. Please read Referencing for Beginners, [WP:YFA|Your First Article]], and Notability for more information on this process.

One deleted version of your user page seemed to be autobiographical, and to imply that you were uinderage. If that is true, please read Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors, and I urge youn to seriously nconsioder its advice.

Again, welcome and happy editing. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:58, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

How to create a second new page

I created my first page and it was approved. I would like to create another one. I went back to Sandbox > Talk and started writing but I am unable to save my work as before, it only allows direct publishing. I am in the wrong place? How and where do I work on my second page?

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DocNerd3000 (talk • contribs) 22:22, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, DocNerd3000, and welcome back to the Teahouse. Normally "talk" pages are for discussing what should go on or be changed on the corresponding main page. For example Talk:ExampleArt would be for discussing what should be done in the article ExampleArt. (these are red by default because no such article exits.) A user's main user talk page is special, that is for sending messages to the user, and getting replies, and it should not be moved. An editor's main user page is for describing that editor as a Wikipedia editor, not for general autobiography, nor for acting as a free personal web page.

You could start a new draft for an article at User:DocNerd3000/Sandbox or at User:DocNerd3000/Topic (where "topic" would be replaced by the topic of the proposed article). Or you could use Draft:Topic. Personally, I prefer to keep my sandbox for editing tests, and develop new articles in userspace or draft space. You would not normally use a page such as User talk:DocNerd3000/Topic as a place to write about the topic, rather such a page is a meta-page to discuss what should or should not go into the matching user page.

I think you may have been confused by the button which has the caption "Publish changes" that does not automatically place changes in the main article space, it simply saves them to whatever page is being edited. It used to be called "save changes" and I for one think it still should be. It was renamed to emphasize that anything saved to the Wikipedia site is visible to anyone, and thus is in a sense "published". There are no private hidden pages.

So you can start working on your next article by creating a user page like User:DocNerd3000/Topic, or a draft page like Draft:Topic or a sandbox page like User:DocNerd3000/Sandbox or User:DocNerd3000/Sandbox2. The only difference is that a draft more or less invites others to join in, and a user page does not, or not as much. Oh and drafts are subject to deletion if left untoucehd for 6 months.

I hope this is helpful DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:34, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

~@DocNerd3000: If you want to edit User:DocNerd3000/sandbox without following the current redirect then first click "Redirected from User:DocNerd3000/sandbox" at the top. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:40, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

WStore of knowledge

Hello again, host bot. I just want to be clear, I only use this space to store my ideas and good thoughts. I will never let a multiple login happen again, and hopefully you folks will find my stuff positive and helpful, even in the smallest way - amusement? Whatever...

Thank you, Rcorsini65 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcorsini65 (talk • contribs) 23:04, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Is there someone who can edit an article for us please ?

Is there someone who can edit an article for us please ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timhallen101 (talk • contribs) 01:27, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Question about article

Hi, thank you so much for the invite!

The only question I can think of at the top of my head is: How long does it take for an article you wrote to be added on?

The article I wrote currently says “Draft” on it.

Hi! You need to submit the article through Articles For Creation You can do this by moving the draft to your sandbox, then clicking the submit button, this can take 2 months or more to get your article reviewed as there are over 2000 other articles awaiting review. Thanks. Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 01:43, 28 October 2019 (UTC)