Wikipedia:Teahouse

CiaPan, 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

Franzi help

Hi, I have written Franzi page, but i see some issues. I want to understand what can i do :) For example i say that Franzi is one of the oldest italian brand in the luxury leather goods, because it was founded in 1864 and I know that Prada is from 1913, Gucci is fom 1921, Fontana milano is from 1915, Fendi is from 1925, Ferragamo is from 1927, Bottega Veneta is from 1966.. I know there are no sources that say the cronological order of the foundation of all the italian company to mention as a source, but it is an obvious deduction from the facts. Even more if we think that Guccio Gucci itself was an employee of Franzi. But since I'm new at wikipedia i want to understand if I went wrong using this deduction system and if yes, what can i do to do the things in the right way. A true thanks :) --Carlo ch (talk) 14:12, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello Carlo ch and welcome to the Teahouse.

As strange as it may sound, you can write that Franzi is the oldest brand only if you have a reliable source that states it. The act of making "an obvious deduction from the facts" is not allowed under the policy of WP:SYNTHESIS. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:08, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Red or green numbers

I Whenever a user edits a article, red or green numbers appear with a negative or positive sign. What does that mean? Are those how many keystrokes a user increased or decreased the length of the article, up and down votes, or something else? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barrythevet (talk • contribs) 18:59, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

That refers to the number of bytes added or removed. I think it roughly corresponds with keystrokes but some characters take up more bytes than others. 331dot (talk) 19:01, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello Barrythevet and welcome to the Teahouse.

Let me add the clarification that the red or green number corresponds to a net change in the size of the page. If an editor makes a change that removes a paragraph containing 200 characters and adds a different paragraph containing 300 characters, what will be shown is an increase of just 100.

When looking at an article's history or at your watchlist, large changes in an article may be a reason to give that edit extra scrutiny. It's just a hint, though. Vandals will sometimes take extra pains to make the change number small and the edit summary innocuous. It's a jungle! — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:16, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

What can be done about vandals making nonsensical but "pseudo-justified" harmful changes to an article? I welcome rational peer-reviewing, corrections and even supported refutation of material. But what is the point of trying to make Wikipedia a good source of information if things just get broken? Vogel Era (talk) 08:49, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Tagging along on someone else's question, Vogel Era? That's certainly allowed, but your question changes the subject quite a bit. A lot of work goes into making sure that vandalism is kept at bay, so that - most of the time - what you read on Wikipedia is pretty good information. The judgment is that the damage vandals do is of smaller weight than the good we get from Wikipedia being open to editing by anyone. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:10, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

The answers so far are correct- it corresponds to whether the article was made 'bigger' or 'smaller' based on bytes. But anecdotally, for the longest time I believed that it was upvotes and downvotes as well! And every time I took something out of an article I thought people were mad at me. El cid, el campeador (talk) 13:32, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

editor bias

There has been a stub about me (David C. Bradley) for around 15 years. For most of these years there has been a message saying "Please help us update this stub." A colleague of mine, not a friend, was asked to update the page--not by me, but by our employer, Daniel Goldin.

His initial post was not dispassionate. An editor, MMarkowski I believe, made substantial and truly constructive changes. Around this time another editor, Theroadislong, began a rapid-fire series of edits, cutting material and citing reasons that often did not apply and have been, on the whole, aggressive.

The main issue seems to be the in the fact that someone I work with wrote the initial update a week or so ago. It's not hard to understand why Wikipedia must be cautious of this sort of thing. But this editor does not appear to have constructive intensions. The writer, Dh8, has responded to every request, but there is no feedback, no reply; just more cuts and summary judgments. Most of the article is now gone, but Theroadislong is still chipping away.

"No references so removed” is the justification this editor uses, over and over, to whittle this article down to nothing. How does one reference his brothers and sisters? The London Science Museum raised an exhibit illustrating my work around the year 2000. Theroadislong wanted references. Dh8 suggested uploading a scan of the invitation to the opening ceremony. No response. And of course that section, describing one of the most important honors received by any neuroscientist, was removed. Recently, my influences were removed--from the "Influences" section. The reason posted by Theroadislong: "NONE of these sources mention bradley so removing."

Where, specifically, did these people fail to mention me? And why were they required to mention me in the first place?

Any just-on-the-scene music act will usually be here on Wikipedia. Any young actress with one film under her belt. Any killer or professional athlete. Most billionaires. Almost none of the great scientists or mathematicians are here. Unless they’re dead; unless you can see a reference to some other publication saying “this person is famous.”

Theroadislong doesn’t think I should have a Wikipedia page. I don’t see how else one can explain this campaign against it. But scientists don’t go on TV; they don’t usually have awards and medals and a fan base. They only have what they’ve accomplished. The editors have removed most of the description of my scientific work, calling it “puffery.” They may not recognize the rarity of having several Nature and Science papers, an Annual Review, or 30 patent submissions. [Note: appcoll.com and justia.com are the references. You have to pay for this so I have them on my web site. Naturally, Theroadislong removed it.]

Dh8 was relieved when told to stop editing. He did everything he was told to do, but it wasn’t making a difference.

Before killing the page altogether, why not contact the few neuroscientists that are listed here. In terms of computational neuroscientists, I could only find Richard A. Andersen and Stephen Grossberg but there may be more. Ask them if I should have a page.

LanceDiamond78 (talk) 03:13, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

LanceDiamond78, this is a forum for new users to ask questions about how to edit Wikipedia. It isn't the place to complain because the article about you isn't to your liking. Wikipedia articles are built entirely on what is available in already published reliable sources that are completely independent of the subject of the article. You have a definite conflict of interest on the subject of yourself (more accurately, that you claim is yourself. We have no way of knowing who you are). Follow proper procedure for editors with WP:COI and propose changes on the article's talk page. Other editors will review your proposed changes and the references you provide and decide if and how to make the changes. No one is going to contact anyone to verify anything. That is not how this works. John from Idegon (talk) 03:46, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

John from Idegon I think that is a bit harsh. The Teahouse is a perfectly fine place to ask about how to get an article edited, as well as the technical mechanics of editing. True, LanceDiamond78 has a conflict of interest, and he hasn't understood all of Wikipedia's policies and customs. But he appears to be attempting in good faith to share legitimate information.

LanceDiamond78, Wikipedia does run on the principle of verifiable content. Thus we (potentially) need a source for almost everything, with a few exceptions. However, sources need not be online, and often can be found with a bit of looking. For example, when an award is given, there is usually at least a brief mention in a local newspaper, or in some publication of the awarding body. It is true that we need more of what is written about you than by you, and this makes a problem when the subject is a creative professional, such as a scientist, a writer, a reporter, or an artist, who is well known in a field but does not get written about much. But papers that site your work can help demonstrate that it is significant, rather than the papers of people who influence you. I haven't yet looked at the actual article, or its past versions, so i am speaking in general here. You should know that Theroadislong is an experienced editor here, and has a generally good reputation. I doubt that these edits are in any way malicious. Have you engaged on User talk:Theroadislong or the talk page of the article? DES ^(talk) 05:27, 25 May 2017 (UTC) @John from Idegon: DES ^(talk) 05:28, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

@LanceDiamond78. Just a quick add to what DESiegel said. While it is true that offline sources are perfectly valid, I believe that they have to have been seen by the person that adds the information. Despite DES pulling me up on the difference between " strongly discouraged" and "prevented" on a different COI issue, this would be a crystal-clear case of prevented. There's also a WP:PAY issue now, as "A colleague of mine . . . was asked to update the page . . . by our employer". "Very strongly discouraged" is also not "prevented", but we're getting there :) . Bromley86 (talk) 10:43, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Bromley86 is correct that any offline sources that an editor uses should be ones that the editor has personally seen and verified. In my view, a collegial request, that is not a job requirement, and which carries no specific stipend, is not a paid editing issue. However, it is a fairly clear conflict ofintest, where any editing must be done very carefully, and where the conflict should be very clearly disclosed. Making requests on the talk page would probably be the better procedure in such a case. If no one responds to such requests after several days, attention should be drawn to them via the {{help me}} template.

LanceDiamond78, I am sorry for the conflicting and possibly confusing advice. Wikipedia has its own policies and customs, and these can be quite complex. DES ^(talk) 18:12, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

If cites are needed and without conflict of interest, how does a page get created for a movie that will not enter the theaters for another week? There is no fan yet to be motivated to create a page for the movie he or she has not seen yet. There can not be that much online or offline information til the movie premieres. A plot description could not be created by someone who is not involved with the movie, for it has not entered the theater as of yet. Nor when a movie is well established, the author of the page who is summarizing the plot is not citing some other source, but giving a description of what he had seen. Sometimes things seem ambiguous here, not trying to be conflagrative but educated. When can you write without cite and when do you have to ? When you mention books an author has written, do you need to cite each book? For such citing can use Amazon.com for example to cite all the books; or should you mix it with Bowker, Library of Congress,Publishers web site, Google Books, etc...

06:01, 30 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salem North Man (talk • contribs)

@Salem North Man: The answer is simple. If the movie has no independent reliable sources it has no Wikipedia article. --David Biddulph (talk) 06:13, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Cross-wiki notification?

Last night I was surprised to see an email telling me "Loveless‬ a laissé un message sur votre page de discussion sur Wikipédia." I didn't trust such an unanticipated email so I didn't click the message but I browsed on over to Wikipedia (English as always: I rarely even visit other languages of Wikipedia and have never contributed to them). Sure enough there actually was a new alert at the top of the page next to my name. It led me to my Notifications and thence to [1] where I have seemingly been welcomed to the French Wikipedia as a new user by Frakir (not Loveless!?). (After I'd read and navigated away I had the devil of a time guessing how to find it again: it had disappeared from my All Notifications.) Why was I greeted thus? Could I somehow have caused it by dozing off with fingers resting on my tablet? How could this have come about? --Egmonster (talk) 10:03, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Hey Egmonster. I actually had this same thing happen to me, also on fr.wiki. I was given a welcome notice a full two years before I make my first edit there. So, first off, accounts nowadays are generally global accounts. Before this, you had to register a different account for each project (see also Help:Unified login). And it looks like a bot operator on fr.wiki has their gadget set to probably welcome all new users after some period, and do so without regard to whether they've actually edited in the French language. It looks like the bot operator is here, but they don't have anything like Wikipedia:Babel user boxes on their user page, and they've only made about 500 contributions to en.wiki, so it's anyone's guess whether they speak English well or can contribute to the discussion here. Maybe if we can get a French speaker to reach out to them. TimothyJosephWood 10:24, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Pinging User:Tamfang, as basically the only French speaker listed at Wikipedia:Local Embassy that seems to have been active in the past few days. TimothyJosephWood 10:27, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I can only agree with PrimeHunter below. I've had such greetings in Lithuanian, Piemontese and Malayalam; probably I clicked to those sites to see the local spelling of a place-name or something. —Tamfang (talk) 18:35, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

@Egmonster: Your account is automatically created at a Wikimedia wiki if you view any page while logged in at another wiki. Special:CentralAuth/Egmonster shows your accounts. fr:Special:Logs/Egmonster shows your French Wikipedia account was created 1 minute before the welcome post.[2] Some wikis automatically post a welcome message to new accounts. Loveless is a bot doing this in the French Wikipedia but it signs as a random volunteer from a project to help and welcome users. There is a setting at [3] saying whether to get email notifications of posts to your talk page. The notification may still be visible at the French Wikipedia [4]. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:37, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you TimothyJosephWood, Tamfang, and PrimeHunter for clearing up the mystery. I hate the thought of the system creating multiple accounts so promiscuously. Do you think Wiki-spam rather lowers the tone of the whole project? Even if I silence my automatic notifications, the multiple accounts will still stealthily be created unless I keep logging out and in whenever I want to do research. Where could I put in a word for deprecation of this practice? --Egmonster (talk) 12:17, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Egmonster, eh, for most people it's entirely useless but unnoticeable. I mean, you've had 60 or so "accounts" for the entire time you've had this one, and since you don't use them, you didn't even realize until you ran up on a less then ideal bot setting on a comparatively smallish project. Nearly all of the time they just sit there dormant. On the other hand, for people like me who use en.wiki, do occasional editing in other languages, and frequent Commons and wikiquote fairly regularly, having a unified login is immensely useful. The most that should probably be done is have fr.wiki adjust the settings on the loveless bot, since I'd wager the majority of the people it notifies can't even read the message. TimothyJosephWood 13:06, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Help with Mehgan James draft

Experiment (See talk page )

Editor: @Lmhp10:

Article: User:Lmhp10/Mehgan James

This editor could use some help from experienced editors. However, no need to even look at the material until the editor responds here that they are willing to join in the discussion.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:49, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I would like some advice on how to improve this draft Lmhp10 (talk) 21:36, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Texas City native, Mehgan James, is a seasoned reality star who made her debut in 2008 on 50 Cent's "For the Money and the Power." Mehgan was the last female standing in the competition and was later cast in season 9 of Oxygen Network's "Bad Girls Club. " The former high school triathlete and oldest of seven appeared on the first two seasons of "Bad Girls Club: All Stars Battle" before joining the cast of Basketball Wives LA. Mehgan is currently in production for a reality series produced by Tyra Banks as well as a docu-series for MTV called "The Millennial Mogul." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lmhp10 (talk • contribs) 21:11, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Lmhp10: instead of placing an alternative version of the draft here, it would have been better to give a link to the version in your userspace: User:Lmhp10/Mehgan James. Trying to discuss multiple versions of the draft at the same time is likely to lead to confusion. Maproom (talk) 22:02, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry. Very new to this and it is all a bit confusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lmhp10 (talk • contribs) 22:17, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Lmhp10. Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, only properly has articles on topics that have been written about in substantive detail (not just mere mentions) in reliable, secondary and independent sources. Your only job if you want this article to "stick" is to look for and cite those types of sources, in a transparent manner, if they exist.

Because this topic has already been the subject of a community deletion discussion here, you need to find those type of sources and cite them in a manner that significantly improves on the version of the article that was in place when that deletion discussion took place; that is, this version. If it's not already clear, by "significantly improve" I am chiefly talking about the sourcing and not the text.

If those sources don't exist, do not waste your own valuable time; no article will be possible. In relation to the sources issue, I think you might benefit from reading Wikipedia:Common sourcing mistakes. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:23, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow. Mehgan James is mentioned on several Wikipedia Pages like Bad Girls Club and Basketball Wives.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_Girls_All-Star_Battle_(season_2)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_Girls_Club_(season_9)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basketball_Wives_LA_(season_4)

Hi Again Lmhp10. Her mention in other Wikipedia articles is irrelevant. Topics need to be notable to warrant encyclopedia articles. The general notability standard is met by demonstrating that the world has taken note of a topic by substantive treating it in the types of sources I talked about, outside of Wikipedia. Please read the pages I've linked here and above. Not only must these standards be met for a topic to warrant an article as a baseline, but because the deletion discussion I linked already determined she did not meet these standards, the draft will only be accepted if it addresses the basis for the deletion which was notability so there's a very high bar here to be met, before any move from draft to the mainspace. You must strive to understand by reading these guidelines and policies. They are the compasses we go by.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:05, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Google Mehgan James LOL — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lmhp10 (talk • contribs) 15:21, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry Lmhp10, but that response indicates you have not understood what is needed. You have to find:

1. Reliable sources, as that is defined at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources – treatment in mainstream newspaper articles, non-vanity books, magazines, scholarly journals, television and radio documentaries, etc. – sources with editorial oversight and a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means generally not random personal websites, blogs, forum posts, Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, self-published sources like open wikis (including other Wikipedia articles), etc.
2. They must be entirely independent of her;
3. They must be secondary sources, written by third parties to a topic;
4. Such sources must have substantive discussion of her, not just mere mentions;
5. And they must actually be used in the draft, by proper citation to verify the information content and demonstrate notability (without copying; write in your own words).

This is your burden of you want this article to stick. If you don't your draft will not become an acceptable article and will be deleted as a repost of an article already discussed at a deletion discussion, with consensus to delete as not meeting Wikipedia's notability guidelines..--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:44, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

www.famousbirthdays.com/people/mehgan-james.html

www.imdb.com/name/nm7417110/

http://www.oxygen.com/very-real/mehgan-james-and-keke-palmer-just-got-into-a-serious-twitter-fight

http://www.vh1.com/news/239015/mehgan-james-kayvon-webster-denver-broncos-new-boo/

http://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-celebrities/models/mehgan-james-net-worth/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lmhp10 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Lmhp10, none of those sources would be suitable to show notability. Famousbirthdays.com lacks detail and isn't reliable. IMDB is User generated and therefore not reliable. Celebritynetworth.com is not reliable. Oxygen and VH1 are slightly more reliable and could be used to source some minor facts, but since they are her employers, they are not independent and cannot be used to show notability. John from Idegon (talk) 20:32, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

http://www.tvguide.com/celebrities/mehgan-james/credits/769228/

http://www.lonny.com/Mehgan+James

http://www.gettyimages.com/photos/mehgan-james?excludenudity=true&sort=mostpopular&mediatype=photography&phrase=mehgan%20james&family=editorial

http://www.thefamouspeople.com/profiles/mehgan-james-32699.php

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/hottest-wags-super-bowl-50-gallery-1.2518160?pmSlide=1.2518141

https://tvdeets.com/mehgan-james/

http://www.msn.com/en-ca/video/animals/mehgan-james-ok-magazine-summer-kick-off-party/vp-BBBho4z

https://theboxhouston.com/tag/mehgan-james/

https://www.mayhementertainmentpr.com/?lightbox=image_1sgq

http://urbanbellemag.com/tag/mehgan-james/

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5ia7pi_mehgan-james-star-magazine-s-hollywood-rocks-2016-red-carpet-fashion-broll_people

http://www.xxlmag.com/eye-candy/2015/10/eye-candy-mehgan-james/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lmhp10 (talk • contribs) 21:01, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

http://maximotv.blogspot.com/2016/04/mehgan-james-star-magazines-hollywood_15.html

http://www.ibtimes.com/was-mehgan-james-fired-basketball-wives-la-reality-star-reveals-she-wont-return-2368600 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lmhp10 (talk • contribs) 21:05, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

http://www.enstarz.com/articles/106165/20150903/basketball-wives-la-season-4-cast-things-get-heated-between-tami-roman-mehgan-james-on-twitter-but-why-video.htm

http://www.realmrhousewife.com/2016/08/10/mehgan-james-joining-next-season-wags/

http://www.fashionnstyle.com/articles/79405/20160126/basketball-wives-la-star-mehgan-james-dating-nfl-player-headed-to-superbowl-50-pics.htm

http://www.wendyshow.com/2016/12/29/keke-palmer-twitter-feud-with-mehgan-james/#.WSiaiRPytcw

http://www.wetpaint.com/draya-michele-mehgan-james-twitter-feud-1432655/

https://www.yahoo.com/news/keke-palmer-fights-mehgan-james-162240043.html

http://www.houstontrendmag.com/home/2016/06/07/love-hip-hop-comes-to-houston-featuring-kirko-bangz-mehgan-james-jhonni-blaze-more/

http://en.paperblog.com/mehgan-james-interview-bad-girls-club-all-stars-2-846054/

http://christiandaily.com/article/basketball-wives-la-updates-mehgan-james-will-not-appear-in-season-5-jennifer-williams-of-miami-teases-she-might-join-la/52281.htm

https://www.houstoniamag.com/articles/2016/7/18/perfect-party-august-2016

http://www.harborer.com/mehgan-james-net-worth/

http://uhmagonline.com/mehgan-james/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3432852/WAGs-Carolina-Panthers-Denver-Broncos-revealed.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lmhp10 (talk • contribs) 21:24, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry Lmhp10, none of those links are helpful. That is to say, posting a mixture of raw links to blogs, videos, photographs, random websites, mere mentions, etc., without apparently any culling of them to meet the standards I've attempted to convey, and as unmoored from the article and their use in it, does not move the needle forward. We are not checking some box here on number of links that exist. The draft needs to use the sources, in a proper manner, with the right kind of winnowed sources located (if they exist), in a manner showing that notability has increased since the AfD discussion was held. As the person who wants this draft to be accepted, you would have to do so, while writing the content that those carefully chosen, substantive sources, verify. At this point I don't know if an acceptable article is possible, but my advice is to not spend any more of your time because I don't see that as a possibility.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:04, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Those are the sources I used to acquire the content to write her bio. The last several links have great bios in them as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lmhp10 (talk • contribs) 01:51, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Then you have a task ahead of you, Lmhp10. You should read the most reliable of the sources that you used, paraphrase the text in your own words to avoid copyright issues, and give a reference to the reliable source for each statement that you make. Ask again here if you need more help with the task. Dbfirs 11:36, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Alert thingy at the top of the page isn't working right

I'm not sure this is entirely the right place to say this, but the bell icon on the login bar that appears on the top of the screen seems to be malfuctioning. I asked a question here yesterday, and today I logged on and saw two alert messages- one of which did not concern me. Someone else had commented on it and pinged another editor, but the software seemed to think they pinged me, showing my username in the sample text instead of the actual user's. The person who answered was the same person who answered mine. Does anyone know what happened? -A lad insane (Channel 2) 22:56, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

@A lad insane: Please click the "View changes" link in the alert and post the url here so we can see which edit it was. This is called a diff. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:18, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: [5] -A lad insane (Channel 2) 15:22, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

A lad insane: That post starts with a ping of you made with {{U|A lad insane}}. DESiegel intended to ping John from Idegon but pings are written manually and there is no sign of an alert malfunction. I can guess exactly how it happened. DESiegel still had your username in the clipboard (computing) from copying it in the previous section to ping you there. Later he marked "John from Idegon" and tried to press Ctrl+C to copy it to the clipboard, but only C registered. This overwrote the marked text with a "C" instead of copying it to the clipboard. He didn't notice this but inserted the clipboard content in an attempted ping of John from Idegon, accidentally pinging you instead. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:23, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

PrimeHunter Okay, that makes sense. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 16:27, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

My apologies for the inadvertent notification, A lad insane. PrimeHunter is quite correct about my mistaken edit. DES ^(talk) 18:22, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

DESiegel, it's totally fine, just caused me to be utterly confused there for a while... -A lad insane (Channel 2) 17:00, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

How to become a administrator?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

How to become a administrator?Moby von Robot the III (talk) 01:44, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Moby von Robot the III, welcome to the Teahouse! Administrators are editors who are given some additional tools that help them to do all kinds of maintenance work that is necessary to keep Wikipedia running smoothly. To become an administrator, you need a significant amount of experience of how things work here, and have shown understanding of all kinds of policies, and have shown good judgment and temperament. You need to pass a review process by fellow editors, but it's best not to request to become administrator until you have the necessary experience. There are no hard rules for when someone is ready, but in practice you have to think about one or several years of active, good, contributions. See Wikipedia:Administrators for more information. Gap9551 (talk) 02:00, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse, Moby von Robot the III. Here are my suggestions: Begin by contributing productively to the encyclopedia for at least a year or two. Create several new articles, improve and expand other articles, and work to bring at least one or two articles to Good Article status. Familiarize yourself with our policies and procedures, and get involved in administrative areas of the project. This may include fighting vandalism or evaluating articles which have been nominated for deletion. There are many other behind-the-scenes administrative areas of the encyclopedia that need useful input from editors who are not administrators. Always conduct yourself in a thoughtful, reasonable way, and seek to resolve rather than inflame disputes. A year or two of consistently positive contributions will go a long way toward preparing yourself to be an administrator. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:09, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Moby von Robot the III. You might also want to read Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates. In any case, with less than 40 edits over the course of less than a month, you are some distance from being ready to be an admin or to pass an RfA. I would suggest that you follow the advice above, always use edit summaries, always try to be helpful and not aggressive, and check back after several thousand edits made over a year or more of steady editing. DES ^(talk) 18:34, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I've fixed a disambiguation problem, but the box hasn't gone away

This alert appeared on my first ever newly-created page, Shine a Light (Billy Bragg and Joe Henry album) -

This article currently links to a large number of disambiguation pages (or back to itself) (check | fix). Please help direct these ambiguous links to articles dealing with the specific meaning intended. Read the FAQ. (May 2017)

I clicked on "check | fix" and carefully fixed all of the examples listed. If I go to that link now, it states, "No disambiguation links on Shine a Light (Billy Bragg and Joe Henry album)."

And yet the scary box remains. Does someone else need to confirm that I have done as asked? It's spoiling the look of my page! Acol37 (talk) 10:31, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Acol37 If you've fixed the problem you should remove the relevant maintenance template. Most of these tags are not automatic, they are added and removed by editors such as yourself. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:37, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for the guidance. This may seem like a dim follow-up question, but how do I remove the template?

Acol37 (talk) 06:09, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Someone has done it for you, but all you would have to do is remove the {{dablinks|date=May 2017}} tag. RM2KX (talk) 21:45, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Sources/references on article talk page making it difficult to follow the bottom-most section's conversation

Is it possible to generate a section heading for the sources that are appearing at the bottom of a Talk page in order to differentiate it from the bottom-most discussion on the page? The references make it difficult to follow that bottom section of discussion. --Mrtea (talk) 12:36, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Mrtea. Where you want the citations to display, place {{reflist-talk}}. Rather than placing a section header at the bottom to separate them, it allows those displaced citations to appear in the thread where they were intended. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:38, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Fuhghettaboutit. This seems to be what I'm after. I notice on this particular talk page, which is probably due for an archiving, that there are many sections that contain references. I'm not clear on how to use {{reflist-talk}}. Am I supposed to place the template in every section on the talk page that contains a reference? Sounds tedious :) --Mrtea (talk) 12:47, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what page you're here about but I can't imagine it would take more than a minute if you clicked edit at the top of the page to open up the entire page for editing (rather than at each section header) and then used copy and paste.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:50, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

@Fuhghettaboutit: Probably it's about Talk:WorldNetDaily page. --CiaPan (talk) 13:44, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

@Mrtea: The {{reflist-talk}} template lists (and gives numbers to) all references above it, which were not listed yet. So, yes – if you want to list all references from each section within that section, you'll need to add the template at the each section's end. --CiaPan (talk) 13:44, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

@Mrtea:, I've added the template just to the sections where references are used. Does the page now display as you expect? It didn't take long using search and copy. Dbfirs 06:40, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Quoting offline sources and attempt to vandalism with intention to malign a living person or a reputed organisation's image

I have been editing the page of City Montessori School and trying to correct the links and add factual information. However some editors are hell bent upon quoting offline sources which are nowhere available offline too in the cited daily but they dont relent. My edits removed from here twice These are attempts are maligning the reputation of living person or a reputed organisation. How to tackle this issue. Velociraptor2012 (talk) 06:04, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Velociraptor2012. Welcome to the teahouse. As you have been advised on your talk page, sources do not need to be available on-line, but they do need to be available somewhere such as bookshops or libraries. Are you claiming that a cited source is fictitious? Do you have some connection with the school? If so, then please see WP:Conflict of interest. The correct place to discuss content is on the talk page of the article. Dbfirs 06:18, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Velociraptor2012, in this edit you added that Sandeep Pandey was allegedly associated with Naxalites and was involved in anti-nationalist activities. Just to bring to your attention (per this source) that decision of ousting him was quashed with the Allahabad High Court commenting that these terms shouldn't be used lightly. In the same edit you removed what was given in the source to something altogether different. Here too you changed the info cited to The Times of India article. --Skr15081997 (talk) 07:19, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Skr15081997, Firstly the edit about Sandeep Pandey here was quoted as per the source of news which I cited. I accepted your edit to revert as it was cited with a later piece of news regarding HC order. Secondly Here I did not edit the source however I just noticed that whatever was existing was not false and had a reliable source. So there is no reason to remove it. Velociraptor2012 (talk) 10:06, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

nom de plumes

I have a question. Who are all these guys that send messages with names like MrX, drm3 and Yann? If you want to criticise me or my article on the Dublin Celts football club,dont hide in the shadows and snipe, come out and abd face me and debate. Nothing worse than a coward! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevinwsharkey (talk • contribs) 20:19, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Kevinwsharkey, and welcome to the Teahouse. Using a username other than your real name is allowed, and even encouraged, by Wikipedia policy: WP:REALNAME. It has nothing to do with "hiding"; all edits made by users are logged, and since everyone is only entitled to only one account (with limited exceptions), we know exactly what people are up to, even if they don't do it under their real names. Also, calling other users "cowards" is not appropriate: WP:NPA – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:29, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Kevinwsharkey, it appears that you are using two accounts: Kevinwsharkey and Kevin w sharkey. Please note that this is against Wikipedia's rules, and you should pick one of them and stick to using it, alone, in future - otherwise, you will be blocked from editing using either. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:35, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Kevinwsharkey. You need to know that "all these guys that send messages" are just volunteer editors like yourself who are guiding you in following the rules and policies of Wikipedia. This is an encyclopaedia, so it does not publish WP:Original research, and it has very strict rules about copyright. If you wish to publish an article about a topic that you know lots about, but has not already been written about in WP:Reliable sources, then you need to find another website or publisher. On the other hand, if you follow the rules and find WP:Reliable sources for each fact in your article, then it will be welcomed provided that you disclose your WP:Conflict of interest. Unfortunately, we cannot accept your memory of what other players have said to you as a source unless each fact has been published somewhere else. Dbfirs 06:31, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Kevinwsharkey. I endorse all the comments to you made above. In addition, you wrote "my article on the Dublin Celts football club". I hope that by "my article" you meant "the article that I created". Please be aware that as per WP:OWN, no editor "owns" or controls an Wikipedia article, nor does any editor need the permission of the creator, or of anyone, to edit any article, provided that the intent is to help improve the article. DES ^(talk) 18:43, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

How do I know your real name is Kevin W Sharkey and not, say, Maurice Micklewhite or Frances Gumm? —Tamfang (talk) 18:52, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Chief Topinabee

I'm concerned: I read something on Wikipedia about my ancestor, but some of the history got switched around. I might be able to change it; is it OK if I did that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snakeeyes26 (talk • contribs) 22:11, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

If you are just rearranging the timeline, or removing unsourced information, then go ahead and make the changes. If you are changing or removing sourced information, or adding facts that "you know", then you should also add references to WP:Reliable sources to support your changes. Your WP:Conflict of interest is probably not significant in this article. Dbfirs 06:19, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Situation Room (photograph)

How did the user make the image in the article Situation Room (photograph) clickable so clicking on a person will take me to their respective article???--Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 22:43, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello Shorouq, they have used an Image map to make an area of the image clickable. 22:53, 27 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mduvekot (talk • contribs)

(edit conflict) The user made a template {{Image map for The Situation Room}} that included coding to make parts of the image clickable. Another example can be seen if you go to the edit window at The Club (dining club)#Members. See mw:Extension:ImageMap. This sort of thing is pretty complicated to do. If there's a particular image you want this done with, it might be best to ask at Wikipedia talk:Graphics Lab for help. Deor (talk) 23:05, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

My account auto logged out and won't let me log back in ' to prevent hijacking '

That's it. I'm on mobile Internet now, where it seems to be saved but won't let me edit (user Kingsif) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.0.5 (talk) 01:52, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

• seems to be working in another tab, nevermind :) Kingsif (talk) 01:56, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Red links

I know this should be obvious, but if I am reading an article and I come across links to pages which do not exist, should I remove the links? Hillelfrei (talk) 02:39, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

• I wouldn't because with the right information could click the red link and make a page.

Wmpetro (talk) 03:02, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Hillelfrei. Many red links should stay. See Wikipedia:Red link for the guideline. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:45, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Reference Date not Appearing

I was editing a page and using a source from UNESCO, the edit was going well but when I tried to add the date of the source it stopped showing the actual fact, just the source link. Below is the URL for the page and the date that should be linked to the reference, the reference is on the number of speakers. URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salentino_dialect Date: May 27, 2017

Wmpetro (talk) 02:54, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello Wmpetro and welcome to the Teahouse.

Sometimes you have to check the documentation for templates to figure out how to use them. If you go to Template:infobox language and check the date parameter, you will see that it expects a 4-digit year. Try just putting in "2017" in place of the longer date and see if that doesn't fix you up. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:35, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Sources

Hi, I have some information I would like to add to the Lindsey Stirling page; but I am not sure how to insert my source so it will come up as a footnote? Iris Medallion (talk) 06:31, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Iris Medallion and welcome to the teahouse. Our guidance WP:Referencing for beginners should help you to add references to WP:Reliable sources. Basically, anything between <ref> ... </ref> tags appears as a reference at the bottom of the article. Are you asking about footnotes that are separate from references? Ask again here if you need further help. Dbfirs 06:41, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Deletion notices

How do I not get a deletion notice — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheriff45 (talk • contribs) 06:51, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello Sheriff45 and welcome to the Teahouse.

One reason the articles you have been creating have been marked for deletion is that they contain no references whatsoever. Without references, they cannot remain on Wikipedia. You could do better if you follow the advice in WP:Your first article and WP:Referencing for beginners. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:19, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Sheriff45, and welcome to the teahouse. You need to be aware that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. This means that it does not contain an article about every topic and person that exists, only about those that have been written about previously in WP:Reliable sources so that they are notable in the Wikipedia sense. If you are working on an article, and have not yet added references, then you should put it in draft space so that you are allowed time to work on it before anyone puts a deletion notice on it. Dbfirs 07:22, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

facts vs. stories ...

The only truly scientific subjects under the "social sciences" section of WP's contents portals

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Contents/Portals

are Anthropology (Archaeology), Linguistics and Geography, but such preposterous cr@p as Psychology is also included.

Are there separate classifications of factually based subjects (all the physical sciences, technologies. Paleontology, Linguistics...) and story-telling ones (Psychology, History, ...) that you know of?

Albretch Mueller (talk) 07:51, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

There isn't a clear dichotomy between fact-based social sciences and story-telling ones. Different people have different opinions. I'll refrain from expressing mine because I'll not agree with you about the point on the continuum at which each should be placed. Dbfirs 07:57, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Whether it's article content or arranging portals, Wikipedia operates on the assessment given by professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, not on any individual editor's outdated lay-knowledge of the state of any given field. The distinction that you speak of (which, as if human behavior is somehow impossible to measure, doesn't seem to realize that modern Social sciences use Quantitative research instead of "story-telling") is widely referred to as Hard and soft sciences. Also, most "facts" are just the stories that appear to most plausibly describe reality. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:13, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I know well the difference between, say, Neurosciences and Psychology. I used the "social sciences" portal to make my point because even though you speak of "a continuum" (from facts to story telling?) and "more or less plausible" "opinions", there is such a thing as -factual reality- and easy ways to prove it: jump off a cliff or stop eating, breathing and you will see what will certainly happen regardless of how "continuous" or "opinionated" you may consider yourself to be. Also, there are certain factual, more or less measurable, less interpretative -aspects- pertaining to History and Psychology such as when and where something happened and associative memory, but those subject matters as a whole are social artifacts. In fact, such subject matters did stem off Religion. My question/suggestion is for WP to somehow split categorizing in extra lists its factual content from its story telling ones. Albretch Mueller (talk) 22:58, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Albrecht, the place to raise such issues would be at Talk:Psychology#Pseudoscience.3F. But remember Wikipedia is a tertiary source. To get the article changed you need to cite academic sources to support your assertion that Psychology is preposterous cr@p. It isn't my subject, but I'd be surprised if your view was with academic consensus on this. ϢereSpielChequers 23:23, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse, Albretch Mueller.

The Teahouse is a place to ask questions about how to edit Wikipedia. It looks like you are looking to make a suggestion on restructuring a portion of how Wikipedia is organized. Ordinarily, I might suggest that you take this up on the Portal talk:Contents/Portals page. In this case, though, you appear to be pushing a point of view that is far from neutral or mainstream. I can confidently predict that your proposal has no chance of success on Wikipedia until you first get your suggestion adopted by the wider culture so that it becomes mainstream. Wikipedia is not the place to start your revolution. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:29, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Once again, I am not talking about that particular portal, but WP content in general. About "academic consensus" on Psychology, psychologists themselves actually reached it a long time ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenhan_experiment Albretch Mueller (talk) 00:18, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Page Created

Hi, I created a page Draft:Education Expert ( Non Government Organization), quite a while ago. I also created many pages related to moths; however, this one still seems to be in draft. Can you say if there is something wrong with the page or with something I missed? Adityavagarwal (talk) 12:31, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Adityavagarwal, and welcome to the Teahouse. Yes, you have missed a step: you need to submit the draft for review (I've added a template that let's you do so by clicking the blue button that appears). However, the draft is in no shape to pass a review. Wikipedia is not interested in what the organization has to say about itself, but what others have to say about it. You need to cite reliable third party sources and base your article on them. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:59, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I totally did not know to submit for a review. Yeah, also, the point raised by you is right. However, I do not know if there is even any third party saying that about the organization; anyways, do you think I should even apply that for a review?Adityavagarwal (talk) 14:05, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

In its current state, submitting it for review seems futile. Third party sources are absolutely necessary. Articles generally require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. No third party sources, no article, I'm afraid. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:20, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Museum of Bad Art

Teahouse

Location within Massachusetts Teahouse (the United States)
Coordinates	42.248026°N 71.172969°W / 42.248026; -71.172969

How did the user make two maps in the info box of the article Museum of Bad Art and afford it in options???--Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 13:17, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Super ninja2. I don't know how deep an explanation you want. Museum of Bad Art uses {{Infobox museum}} with |map_type = Massachusetts#USA. I have demonstrated it here with the code:

{{Infobox museum
|map_type    = Massachusetts#USA
|coordinates = {{coord|42.248026|-71.172969|display=inline}}
}}

{{Infobox museum}} calls {{Location map}} with the feature described at parameter {{{1}}} at Template:Location map#Parameters. {{Location map}} uses the feature at User:Jackmcbarn/switcher with code at MediaWiki:Gadget-switcher.js. Other wikis would need similar JavaScript for the radio button feature to work. I see you mainly edit the Arabic Wikipedia. It doesn't currently appear to have such code. Pages in the MediaWiki namespace can only be edited by administrators. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:48, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

My Edited Draft

(Jamiat Ulama e Hind (talk) 13:50, 28 May 2017 (UTC))

C.Fred

You have deleted my additions on a page Jamiat Ulama e Hind.

Can you please email me by draft of editing so I can update it

regards

Jamiat Ulama e Hind (talk) 13:50, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello Jamiat Ulama e Hind, and welcome to the Teahouse. You can access your edits to the article in its page history: here Old revision of Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind

Also please note the message on your talk page. You cannot have "Jamiat Ulama e Hind" as your username on Wikipedia. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:02, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

My edited Draft

(Jamiat Ulama e Hind (talk) 13:52, 28 May 2017 (UTC))

C.Fred

You have deleted my additions on a page Jamiat Ulama e Hind.

Can you please email me by draft of editing so I can update it

regards

Jamiat Ulama e Hind (talk) 13:52, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Courtesy ping: C.Fred. Hi Jamiat Ulama e Hind. Your edits to the page were reverted, not deleted; they still exist and each and every one remains accessible in the page history. Accordingly, there's no need to email anything. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:56, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

why don't I have a user page

Hello I'm don't have a user page or sandbox or anything Whistle toe ll (talk) 14:05, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Whistle toe ll, your user page is at User:Whistle toe ll, your sandbox would be at User:Whistle toe ll/sandbox as soon as you create it, by clicking on the link and writing something on the page that opens. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:31, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I want to write about my published book

How can I write about my published book on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhijit Borah (talk • contribs) 14:19, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

@Bhijit Borah: Hello and welcome. You really should not write about your own published book on Wikipedia, that is what is called a conflict of interest. People naturally write favorably about themselves and their own work, even if unintentionally. If you can show that your book is notable per the notability guidelines for books(click to review), you can visit Requested articles to request that others write about it. 331dot (talk) 15:07, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia Page views: Massviews using pagepile

Hello and many thanks for the helpful responses to my questions so far. I wonder if this is the right place for a question about page views. I have been looking at some pageviews for wikipedia pages on here: https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&range=latest-20&pages=Cat%7CDog

I would like to try to get the page views for a long list of medicines, so I tried to use massviews. I made a pagepile (9220) and then another much shorter one (9221), but the results I get dont make sense, eg the medicine orlistat has around 700 views a day when I enter it in page views on its own, but comes up as single digits in massviews or sometimes there is an error saying that it is not found. I think I am misundertanding or not using the tool correctly, is there an explanation or documentation anywhere on how to use massviews with pagepile? Many thanks for any insight and apologies if this is not the right place for the question. Libby EMAcomm (talk) 21:54, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Libby EMAcomm. Use uppercase initial letter in the PagePile. I made PagePile 9224 as your PagePile 9221 but with uppercase: [6]. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:48, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi PrimeHunter. Fantastic! Huge thanks for this information Libby EMAcomm (talk) 06:22, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Pictures I've posted are being deleted

Hi, I've uploaded pictures and filled out all the mandatory criteria. However, a moderator demanded that I stop uploading pictures as the images had "incomplete rationales".

I don't understand what I'm doing wrong when I'm filling in all the mandatory fields on the pictures when I upload them. Thanks! Jmiclash (talk) 02:20, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jmiclash. Without knowing more specifics I am going to just give you some general comments. If the files you have uploaded are non-free content, then each use of the file needs to meet all ten of the non-free content criteria listed in WP:NFCCP. Please note that one of these criteria (or one part of one of these criteria) is WP:NFCC#10c which states that a separate specific non-free use rationale needs to be provided for each use, and the rationale should clearly state how all 10 criteria are met. The rationale can be written out in your own words or you can use one of the many template created to editors uploading such files. Many editors, however, mistakenly assume that providing such a non-free use rationale in and of itself means that the particular use of the file automatically meets all the non-free content criteria, which is not the case at all. Filling in a template or writing out a non-free use rationale only prevents the file from being speedily deleted per WP:F6 or removed per WP:NFCCE. In many cases discussion may be necessary to determine whether the particular use actually complies with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy.

In my experience, the hardest of the non-free content to meet is often WP:NFCC#8 because it also tends to be the most subjective. Non-free content is typically only allowed outside of the main infobox when the image/file itself is the subject of sourced commentary discussing what the reader is seeing. Wanting to show, for example, a screenshot from a movie, an album cover, or a company logo is not really a valid justification for non-free use. There has to be a pretty strong contextual connection be the non-free file and article content so that actually omitting would be seriously detrimental to the reader's understanding of the relevant article content. My suggestion to you is to discuss things with the "moderator" (Wikipedia technically does not have "moderators" per se, but I'm just using your term) who challenged the file's use and ask them to clarify their concerns. You can do this by posting something on their user talk page, or by starting a discussion on the file's talk page. If you would like community feedback on a specific use of a non-free file or how WP:NFCCP is being applied, then you can ask for assistance at WP:MCQ or WT:NFCC, or start a discussion at WP:FFD.-- Marchjuly (talk) 03:08, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Marchjuly, I already notified the administrator (what Jmiclash called a moderator) on their talk page about Jmiclash's question. — Gestrid (talk) 03:44, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

The reasons for the "n.a." is actually an issue with the Upload Wizard tool. I just learned of it yesterday, but apparently it does that in some cases. That being said, Jmiclash, a lot of your uploads appear to far exceed what we allow nonfree content for, and the rate you're doing it at will make this a significant effort to clean up. We don't, for example, need one image per TV episode; one in the show article will generally suffice to illustrate what the show looks like. That's especially when the image is essentially a random screenshot and isn't really discussed in depth by the article sources. Some articles they're used in use multiple nonfree images (occasionally justifiable, but not often), and others are clearly replaceable (one, for example, was of a living person where your rationale was "difficult to get a shot of a person's face"; but difficult or not, that's still what needs doing). Before you upload any more images, I would strongly encourage you to become more familiar with the restrictions surrounding nonfree content. We use as little as possible of it, as use of any nonfree content by definition detracts from our free content mission, so we use it only when essential, not simply to decorate or "have an image in the article". Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:20, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

As the person who has tagged some of the images (that I am also an admin isn't relevant) for having incomplete rationales my concern was solely over the use of n.a. for compliance with NFCC#1 and NFCC#2. If this is to do with the upload wizard that is not Jmiclash's problem and I apologise to you for making you collateral damage in the middle of this. Nthep (talk)

Hi, I understand the issue being discussed. I'm updating the file attributes on each picture manually in the hopes this partially addresses the concerns.

This is the first time I've contributed pictures. I have to say I've found it a very discouraging exercise. I reasoned that someone went to the trouble to create a page for each episode (which I thought was fantastic) and I thought I'd enhance with a screenshot of a key moment in the episode which I've described. I spent the better part of a day in this exercise only to find it not appreciated and deleted.

No matter, as administrators you have a larger concern (the integrity of Wikipedia) to deal with. I'll stop contributing and I apologize.Jmiclash (talk) 11:31, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi again Jmiclash. I am not an administrator if that makes a difference. I'm just probably a little more familiar with Wikipedia than you are. One thing you should understand is that making mistakes is OK and long as you don't keep repeating them. I'm pretty sure that nobody who has responded to your post wants you to stop contributing; they just want you to exercise a little bit more caution when it comes to non-free content use. Image use can be tricky and non-free image use can be even trickier. Even fairly experienced editors who have been editing Wikipedia for years make mistakes when it comes to non-free content use. If you have questions about a using a particular file in a particular episode article, the you can always ask for feedback from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television before uploading it or adding it. The editors in that WikiProject should be able to advise you on what to do. There is also MOS:TV and WP:TVIMAGE for some general guidance on editing TV show related articles. If you have general questions on image licensing or non-free content use, then you can ask for help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions or Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:44, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

How to delete a citation

I have added a citation using cite->template. There is some mistake and I want to delete that citation. Where do I go and delete that!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nagaraj Kolara (talk • contribs) 03:47, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Kolara. Since you were the one who added the citation, you can simply self-revert your edit. In some cases, however, you may have to manually remove the citation by clicking on edit (at the top of the article or at the relevant seciton) and tnen removing the template syntax. Just make sure to leave an edit sum explaining why in either case. If you do have to manually remove it, try and make sure not to remove any other article content or do any accidental damage to the article; also, please remember to remove both ref tags for the citation. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:05, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

List of countries by the number of billionaires

I want to ask you about the article "List of countries by the number of billionaires", Ziyd al manaseer is a Jordanian billionaire with Russian citizenship. Should I count him as Russian billionaire or as Jordanian billionaire?? Notice that I already counted him as Jordanian billionaire in the article, I'm new here so can you fix it by yourself. Thanks--Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 11:44, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Super ninja2. Sorry that your question hasn't already been answered. I think that the best approach would be to go with the nationality listed in the source (which appears to be a Forbes list). The best place to ask about this would be the article's talk page though, since it is essentially a content question rather than a how-to-edit question. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:48, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Do you include rejected ballots in election turnouts on wikipedia?

Hi, I'm doing a bit of work on some local elections and was wondering what the best way to show rejected/spoilt ballots in the turnout figures was - should I just add them to the total turnout figure and leave it at that or create and extra row for rejected ballots? Ballotboxworm (talk) 12:25, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ballotboxworm. I think the best place to ask this question might be at Wikipedia:WikiProject Elections and Referendums. The members of that WikiProject probably have come across this before and they should be able to help. Just post your question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:29, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Adding a paragraph to "World Chess Championship 2016"

At the end of this article is a section entitled "Aftermath" which, among other things, discusses alternative rules under which the championship might be conducted. I added a paragraph that would balance the importance of slow games and fast games in a way that makes fast games more important than now. This paragraph was simply removed by someone on the same day. I don't know who removed it or why. What are my options? Thanks. John Michael Farmer John Michael Farmer (talk) 16:16, 29 May 2017 (UTC) 2606:A000:8AC9:9000:19D3:B765:EC6B:7A61 (talk) 16:12, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse John Michael Farmer We only summarise what reliable, independent published sources say about the topic, if you can supply a source that supports your addition you are welcome to add it back. Any unreferenced content can be removed. Theroadislong (talk) 16:22, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Help on "List of most streamed songs on Spotify" article

Yesterday on May 28th, both the song "Despacito" and the remix: "Despacito - Remix" rose to the same amount of streams on Spotify (about 717 million) even though the day before on the 27th they both had about 300 million streams each without any explanation. Then on the day of this writing (May 29th), they both maintained the same amount of streams (now about 725 million) and re-debuted or rose to the top/near the top of all of the Spotify Top 50 Charts for each country only listed as the original song and not the remix. In addition, the song disappeared from Luis Fonsi's, Daddy Yankee's, and Justin Bieber's artist pages on Spotify. This does not allow us to see the amount of streams of the remix and the original separately. I can only assume that Spotify combined the two for some reason, which led to combining the streams. On the article, we only add the streams for each individual song, not including the remixes. Since we cannot see the individual amounts, should we leave the chart as is or add the song into the article's chart as a combined single? Also, how should we cite it: As the original title, the remix title, or both? Thanks!Dknott37 (talk) 16:24, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Linking to another page

I added a movie title, By Dawn's Early Light, to the Powers Booth Film page. I tried to create a link to that movies page but but when I click on the title it says "Creating By Dawn's Early Light (1990 Film)". There is already a page for that movie. Can someone show me the correct way to create the link?

Thanks, Mike MurphyALF700 (talk) 16:40, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

ALF700, the page seems to be at By Dawn's Early Light, presumably because no other film has had the same title; the extra "(1990 film)" bit is only added when there's more than one film or whatever with the same name (see, e.g., Superman (disambiguation) for examples). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:22, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse ALF700 I've done that for you, if you look, it is just as User:Justlettersandnumbers says. Theroadislong (talk) 17:31, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Page for Artist Javier Martin, sources and neutrality.

I am working on and article about contemporary artist Javier Martin. As he is still a living person I want to ensure that this revision is written in a neutral tone. Are there any rules and/or tips when describing an artist or his work. Especially since art is very subjective. I have numerous published sources ranging from print publications to well known online outlets (Forbes, Vice, Tatler). However, several are not US based will that present a problem in terms of the source being considered reliable. Also several of the articles are interviews with the artist or reviews of exhibtions. Would those be considered biased sources. Finally am I allowed to quote the artist directly, if the quote is being sourced from a published interview. Thealiengirl (talk) 18:26, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Thealiengirl. Thanks for recognising the need to write in a neutral tone. This is important whether the subject is living or not. The important thing is not to express opinions in Wikipedia's voice. So, at present, I see that Draft:Javier Martin includes the sentence "His works carry eloquent meaning and profound political messages, inducing viewers to reflect on their behavior and social responsibility". Firstly, that statement would need a source, but secondly, since it's clearly an opinion rather than a fact, it needs to be attributed to the person who expressed that view (e.g. "According to person X/newspaper Y, his works carry eloquent meaning and profound political messages..."). Yes, you can quote from interviews as long as you cite the source. I'm not sure why you think that non-US sources will be considered unreliable - that's certainly not the case. To learn more about what sources are considered reliable, take a look at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Wikipedia:Writing better articles also offers good advice. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:38, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Removing a COI tag

Hi there,

I am still new the wiki. I would like to work on articles that have tags, by addressing the issues and removing the tag. Can someone explain to me how I can go about adding a COI tag?

I am looking at a page that has been edited numerous times since the COI tag. I myself am not seeing the COI anymore. Can i just remove the tag or should I speak with the user that initiated the tag first?

Bionaire (talk) 18:42, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Bionaire. Welcome to the Teahouse: it's great that you're planning to clean up some tagged articles. If you look at Template:COI, you'll find it has some guidance on when to add or remove the tag. There are very few places in Wikipedia where you are required to discuss an action with other people first; but it is often a good idea to do so, either out of politeness, or if you think the action may be controversial. --ColinFine (talk) 19:39, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

How to edit page of election candidates for my constituency

There is a page for Blaydon parliamentary constituency UK on Wikipedia This has a sub-section which is titled Election 2017 candidates This does not show all 7 candidates in the general election as it does not show Lisabela Zxywhiddm Marschild of The Space Navies Party.

How do I edit the sub-section of this page which shows the list of candidates

In order to show Lisabela Zxywhiddm Marschild — Preceding unsigned comment added by MoTSN (talk • contribs) 18:51, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi MoTSN, welcome to the Teahouse. I confirmed the candidate in a reliable BBC source [7] and updated the article.[8] The Space Navies Party doesn't have an article or Wikipedia color so the entry looks a little different from the others. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:36, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

how to undo a merge made 6 yrs ago

Hello,

I wish to update information about the "Records of Early English Drama" (REED) page and found out it was merged with another page (Victoria University, Toronto) years ago. It looks like there was no discussion raised about this merger and no one noticed this change to the REED page in 2011. I would now like to un-merge the REED page or somehow make the REED page not a redirect and build on the previous version of the REED page.

History:

A merge from the "Records of Early English Drama" (REED) page into the "Victoria University, Toronto" was made on 8 Jan 2011 (at 18:38 stated on Records of EArly English Drama page; at 18:09 on the Victoria University, Toronto page). The Records of Early English Drama page remains but redirects to the Victoria University page. There has been no further edits to the REED page but many subsequent edits to the Victoria University page.

I'd like to remove the merge and revert back to a separate REED page (with reference links to Victoria University) because:

(1) it is now 2017 and REED information on the Victoria University page is out of date (for example, REED is no longer part of Victoria University)

(2) there is more information available about REED which I think merits it being a separate page (as it was prior to 2011).

(3) The merge left out former REED links and REED related links which were on the former separate REED page.

Questions:

• What is the best procedure to take to un-merge a page?
• Can I just undo the merge from within the REED view history page?
• How will that affect the Victoria University page? I assume after that I'll have to go in and revise the Victoria University page also.

Thanks for any help you can provide.Chung01 (talk) 19:43, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

can't find page where it tells the syntax for references

help! Have reference from NYT and SanFrancisco Chronicle and need to know the "style" thanksMentalhealthwriter (talk) 22:11, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Mentalhealthwriter, and welcome to the Teahouse. Take a look at Help:Referencing for beginners – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:24, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I am new to Wikipedia

I'm new to Wikipedia here so could I get some tips about formatting and whatnot? I would really like to be able to make nice looking pages here in Wikipedia! TCAtrevor (talk) 22:39, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, TCAtrevor. Please take a look at Help:Cheatsheet, which explains the most common aspects of wikicode. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:47, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Standard romanization of Japanese pages?

Is there any standard method of Japanese romanization on Wiktionary? There seem to be a lot of inconsistencies. For example, I added a romaji section to the "susi" (寿司) page. It was deleted about a day later. I've seen other talk over this, but no general consensus. Is Hepburn generally the way to go (i.e. isshou vs. issyou).

71.233.106.251 (talk) 23:54, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi, welcome to the Teahouse. This page is for the English Wikipedia (an encyclopedia). Wiktionary (a dictionary) is another wiki with their own rules and practices. You can try posting to wikt:Wiktionary:Information desk. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:13, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Embedding the international treaty and school infoboxes into the organisation infobox.

Hi,

I'm busy trying to amend, update and improve the European Schools wiki page. I would like to use an infobox that actually reflects what they are. This is tricky because they are a suis generis entity. "The European Schools" is an international organisation created by an international treaty, which runs 14 "schools", which are under its authority, across the EU. It is not a government agency (so that template is out). It is not a "school", but an organisation responsible for running them. I would like the infobox to be both reflective of what it is, and to be simple and concise. I have tried to put together something on my {{User:EU_explained/sandbox|sandbox|]]. The "school jurisdiction" template is also not great for this use as it is designed for North America and doesn't seem to have the fields I need to express the information on the European Schools. I would like to embed the "international treaty" infobox into the "status" label on the "organisation" infobox, but this appears to be buggy as neither were intended for this feature. I guess I'm at a loss for how to present this information. Creating a custom infobox from scratch would be better, but I am new to wikipedia. Help?! EU explained (talk) 23:57, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, EU explained. I immediately looked for Template:infobox NGO, but as I guess you've found, that doesn't exist. Is there anything suitable in Category:Organization infobox templates? Failing that, you may find something helpful at Help:Designing infoboxes, or ask for help at WT:WikiProject Infoboxes. --ColinFine (talk) 11:58, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

My Page

Hello! I was trying to create a page about myself. When I try to click "save" nothing happens. Any suggestions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mossboss254 (talk • contribs) 00:41, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

What was the page titled? Also, creating pages about yourself or something you're affiliated with is highly discouraged -- see WP:AUTOBIO and WP:COI. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:51, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Can I be a administrator?

Starlineloo (talk) 01:11, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Edit for about a year, makes thousands of edits, learn the rules and you might be able to. ~ GB fan 01:21, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

GA articles and inline citation

Would anyone be able to explain to me the standard for inline citation in GA articles? Is inline citation required? How thorough should the inline citations be to pass GA review? Should potentially controversial statements have direct inline citation? Seraphim System ^(talk) 02:06, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Have you tried taking a look at Wikipedia:Good article criteria? Since GA articles are typically held to a higher standard, it might also help for you to look at some existing or currently nominated articles which are similar to the article you're asking about so as to get a general feelield of what is expected. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:22, 30 May 2017 (UTC); [Post edited by Marchjuly to change "field" to "feel". -- 04:33, 30 May 2017 (UTC)]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Seraphim System. According to WP:Inline citations, "Many Wikipedia articles contain inline citations: they are required for Featured Articles, Good Articles, and A-Class Articles." Personally, I would never consider writing or expanding an article without using inline citations. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:04, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I know most GA articles do use thorough inline citation but the policy User:Cullen328 highlighted is what I was looking for, I just want to be sure it is actually part of our policies and not just my personal preference. Seraphim System ^(talk) 03:09, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Image upload

Hello everyone.. I'm just new editor.. I edit more than 5 profile picture there pages.. But my every edit is removed.. Why! was I doing a wrong method? I took a image upload it on wizard upload and choose the category "I found it on google or random website" because I didn't understand to choose any other option. Did I wrong? please tell me how can I upload image properly. I have images which I cut from video and then edit them. These mine own images. How can I upload. . Please help me.. Shivanu14 (talk) 03:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)Shivanu Singh (Shivanu14)

Hi Shivanu14. It looks like you upload a number of files to Wikimedia Commons and they were subsequently deleted by an Commons' administrator as copyright violations. Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia are techinically two separate projects with their own respective policies and guidelines, so there's not much the Wikipedia Teahouse can do to help you other than to give you some general advice. Basically, Wikimedia Commons only will accept images which are clearly freely licensed or are deemed to be in the public domain. Please note that "free" in this context does not mean "free of charge" or "free to download from the Internet"; it means "free from copyright protection". In most cases, the person who takes a photo is considered to be the copyright holder and that person needs to clearly and explicitly agree to release the file under a free license for it to be accpeted on Commons. My suggestion to you is to read the messages left for you at c:User talk:Shivanu14. A Commons' adminsitrator named c:User:Jcb left a message for you describing the problem, so you can ask Jcb for clarification and what needs to be done for the images to be restored. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:30, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Unable to get my content approved

Hello there,

I'm new to Wikipedia. For the last 1 month, I've been trying to get my content approved for an education brand - 'Extramarks', but all in vain. Is there something that I've not been doing right? Please help! Bidisha91 (talk) 04:58, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Bidisha91. Your draft article contains no references, which are mandatory for verifiability, and to show that the topic is notable. Please read and study Your first article and Referencing for beginners. Also read all the links left in the message declining the draft. In addition, external links in the body of an article are not allowed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:13, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Is my Signature Okay

I am not colour blind neither is any one of my family yet I feel my signature stands out in the page.i would like feeedback of other Wikipedians if my signature is okay or not ⭐FORCE RADICAL⭐ @ 05:21, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Forceradical and welcome to the teahouse. Your signature seems to shout "look at me!!!", but that's only my personal opinion. The characters at the beginning and end just display as boxes for me, but will display differently for others. Some other people have bright signatures, and there's no rule against this as long as it doesn't affect the subsequent formatting. It's your contribution to the project that people will judge you on. Dbfirs 05:58, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Forceradical on my screen it forces the spacing between the line it is on and the one above to be wider than normal. I also think it's a bit "shouty". Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:24, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your commentsDodger67Dbfirs I have tweaked my signature slightly on hearing your comments.I am doing this so that later on editors do not say that I have violatedWP:SIGAPP⮘FORCE RADICAL⮚ 07:22, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I think that one's worse, Forceradical, because there is less contrast between the colours. Why not just use plain text? Cordless Larry (talk) 12:01, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

The new one is worse, but neither one is easy to read. I am not colour blind or any real eye problems and both of them are hard to read. My problem is that the type face you are using is hard to read. ~ GB fan 12:09, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, the 12pt font size isn't really in line with WP:SIG, which specifically asks that you avoid enlarging signature text. The contrast between the text and the background also needs to be increased; it should be at least 7:1 according to the WCAG (which is the standard aimed for by WP:ACCESSIBILITY). Yunshui ^雲_水 12:12, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Please help before the page is deleted.

Hello, I have spent 20 hrs on creating a page on the artist Christopher Jon Luke Dowgin. He is from my hometown and I have appreciated his work for many years now. I do find that others like myself beyond this town will find him of interest. His books are on sale throughout the country and have been read in Scotland, Norway, Australia, and England.

I have people commenting on disambiguation. I do reference an article twice in different spots. I do not use one word with different meanings throughout the page like Mercury. So I can use help in understanding where the editor said this occurred. I have 19 inline cites and there will be more, but an editor said it was too little. Can someone tell me what statements need to be cited that are not in the article.

There is mention to events connected to people that are dead. Some of the cites come from on those people are published FBI and and local authority reports.

Also if the article is still being written should it be in a sandbox. Is that what a sandbox is for. If so how can an article be moved to a sandbox and then moved back?

Cheers,
Salem North Man Salem North Man (talk) 05:44, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Salem North Man, and welcome to the Teahouse. Don't panic! The article Christopher Jon Luke Dowgin is not currently up for deletion, and as far as I can see, it never has been. Somebody has added cleanup tags to it to say that it could do with improvements in a number of ways, but so far nobody has said "This article should be deleted" for whatever reason.

The problem pointed out in the tags is that huge sections of the text have no inline references, and many of the references that are there are not substantial writing about Dowgin, but simply to verify details. The thing to remember is that Wikipedia has no interest - at all - in what you know, or think (or what I know or think), and very little interest in what the subject of an article has said or published. It is only interested in what people who have no connection with the the subject have published about the subject, in reliable places. An article, especially an article about a living person, should be written almost entirely based upon what such independent people have published about the subject - and if there is no substantial information published about the subject, then it is impossible to write an acceptable article, and you are not allowed to try: the Wikipedia jargon for this is that the subject is not notable: this does not have quite the same meaning as usual.

So what somebody needs to do to improve the article is to find some sources - articles in reliable organs such as major newspapers - that talk about Dowgin at some length, and write the article based only on what those sources say. Anything tht cannot be cited to a published source, or that is cited only to something that Dowgin or his associates have published, should be removed from the article. Some uncontroversial factual data can then be added from WP:primary sources, such as government publications. Please read Your first article.

To your specific questions: don't worry too much about the note about disambiguation pages: this is a minor problem that can be fixed any time. It simply means that several of the wikilinks in the page point to disambiguation pages such as Gone with the Wind, rather than to the particular instance of that phrase which the link wants to direct the reader to.

As for user sandboxes: they (and the more recent alternative, Draft space) are a place where you can work on a draft article relatively protected from somebody coming along and proposing deletion. (There are still reasons why they can be deleted, but far fewer than an article in main space). They are entirely optional, but I would always advise using them. However, since you've got this far without your draft being challenged, I don't think there's any point in moving it now. If somebody does come along and nominate it for deletion (which would only be likely to happen if they thought that Dowgin does not meet the criteria for notability), then you could move it to a sandbox or draft space to give you time to find the sources that would be needed. You do this by simply moving the article. --ColinFine (talk) 12:49, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I have started a page on Paul Alan Barker.

How do i submit for review to publish please?MariaHuesca (talk) 06:19, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, MariaHuesca. When the draft Draft:Paul Alan Barker is ready for review, you can submit it by adding {{subst:submit}} to the draft (including the double curly brackets). But please do not do so now, as it is nowhere near ready for submission: it is not an article, it is a CV, and Wikipedia does not publish CV's. If you look at some Good articles, you will see two qualities in particular which they have and your draft does not: first, they are written in connected, grammatical sentences, not note form. Secondly, Every single piece of information in them is cited to a published reliable source. If an article does not cite sources, it is in a sense completely useless, because the reader has no way of verifing the information. Please read WP:Referencing for beginners and WP:Golden rule. --ColinFine (talk) 12:59, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Wiki page not appearing on google search

This page I created has the URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raktham_-_The_Blood The page does not appear on google searches though. Why is it so? Thanks much. Shepherdson7 (talk) 06:55, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Google simply doesn't know you've created it. Wait some time and let Google find out the new page appeared somewhere in the Internet mega-cloud... --CiaPan (talk) 07:01, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Shepherdson7 and welcome to the Teahouse. You have some work to do before the page is acceptable to Wikipedia. Please read WP:Referencing for beginners, and find some WP:Reliable sources to add to the article, then it is more likely to be accepted when it is reviewed. In its present form, it is unlikely ever to appear in a Google search, or to remain in Wikipedia. Dbfirs 07:22, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Creating a new page

I want to create a new page about Eureka Stadium, in Ballarat, but I am unsure of how to do so. Thanks!The Editer (talk) 08:13, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, The Editer, and welcome to the Teahouse. Creating a new article is one of the harder tasks on Wikipedia, but you're welcome to try, when you think you're ready. I suggest you start by following all the advice in Your first article. --ColinFine (talk) 13:05, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

How to report vandalism?/Adminsitration?

Hello, I am LordVaal IV, and I am extremely new here. I have a certain question, that I'd like to know the answer of, in order to help me improve the quality of this, our website. How can I report and fight vandalism? I have already read the Wikipedia:Vandalism page, but I'd love to know if there are a set of steps to report it. Also, which is the fastest way to be an Admin, in year or two? Thank you. ~Lord Vaal —Preceding undated comment added 09:42, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Article of Artist I am a fan of keeps being deleted/accused of promotional language/affiliation

I am writing an article about an artist myself and several friends are fans of with no connection, but we have been accused that we are part of a connection to the artist because we have relatively new accounts. I'm not sure how I can go about verifying that I have no direct connection to the artist, but regardless the page I appear to have devised seems to meet all requirements - but if it does not, what am I missing? I don't see any blatant promotion for the artist, solely factual statements without biases about the artists career. The article is in my sandbox and I would kindly appreciate any constructive suggestions or editing help.

I have included a draft of the article in my talk page as well as in my sandbox. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cs7809 Thanks! Cs7809 (talk) 09:46, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Translation assessment

Hello! I would like to asses pages translated from Romanian in English. However I'd like to know if there any Wikipedia Guidelines in this matter. Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks, Justfun23 (talk) 10:20, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

How do I revert multiple edits?

I have been trying to police vandalism via the recent changes page. And I have seen people revert multiple edits at once, and was wondering how this can be done, or if it is only available to admins or something like that. Thank you! El cid, el campeador (talk) 13:34, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi El cid, el campeador. There are several ways to revert multiple edits. The basic way is to find the most recent good version of the article (before the vandalism began) and then edit that without changing any content; this effectively overwrites the current version with the older version. If you're a confirmed user, you can enable Twinkle in your preferences, which allows you to revert multiple edits, or if you're a trusted user you can apply for rollback rights (which allows you to do the same thing). Yunshui ^雲_水 13:45, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks so much! That answers my question perfectly. Have a great day. El cid, el campeador (talk) 13:46, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Request: World Cafe

In the World Cafe article I’ve made some changes to the content to address concerns raised that it reads like a press release or news article. I’m not sure if this has gone far enough.

I’ve gone back to the editor ‘’’ DGG’’’, who placed the alert on the article, but it looks like he’s slightly busy at the moment.

I wondered whether an editor might take a look at the current version of the article to see whether it needs additional work.Fbell74 (talk) 14:39, 30 May 2017 (UTC)