Wikipedia:Teahouse

Bonadea, 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

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)

For books, I add links to WorldCat. which includes the Library of Congress and many other US & Canadian libraries, and some in Europe and Australia, and a few elsewhere. It's the most authoritative source, but like any data base, it does contain a small number of errors. Some other language WPs cite the general page for the author, but I cite the book page for every individual book. Amazon in a mail order service, and will include anything someone wants to list from which they can get a commission--I consider it a reliable source for nothing. Its "reviews" in particular are either written by the publisher, the general public, or press agents. (This is not saying anything negative about Amazon; I and everyone I know uses it for the proper purpose of comparing products and buying media and other stuff. Using it beyond its limits is like using WP beyond its limits.

For movies not yet released, see WP:CRYSTAL--there are often reliable sources for major movies, including information about the production and casting--which in any case should be the basis of the article, rather than the plot. DGG ( talk ) 18:09, 30 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: [1] -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)

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)

Well, red links should't be created per WP:REDNOT, it further states that red links should be removed, however because REDNOT is a guideline, common sense can be applied, if it's something that should be there, that anyone would expect to be there, then it's likely ok, unless consensus says otherwise.  Ҝ Ø Ƽ Ħ  13:37, 31 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)

@Albretch Mueller: [not Albrecht? Interesting]

jmcgnh wrote

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.

You responded

Once again, I am not talking about that particular portal, but WP content in general.

Do you recognize that that difference does not makes your proposal more likely to be accepted, but even less so? Such a change in all of Wikipedia would be far more massive, disruptive, unmanageable, and fringey than if it were in just one area of knowledge. (I don't expect you to change your viewpoint by having this pointed out. I'm just wondering.)

--Thnidu (talk) 03:59, 31 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: [2]. 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)

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 [3] and updated the article.[4] 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)

Hello, Chung01. I'm sorry that your question hasn't received an answer yet, but I'll give it a go. To recreate the Records of Early English Drama page, you just need to revert the edit that changed it into a direct by using the "undo" function next to that edit in the page history. You then need to work to establish the notability of the project by adding citations to third-party sources, as the version of the article before it was redirected cited no sources at all. It would be nice if you could also update the summary of the project at Victoria University, Toronto#Academics and organization. It strikes me that too much space is dedicated to the project there, given that it's a single research project in the context of a university that presumably hosts many such projects. See Wikipedia:Summary style on this point. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:19, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Cordless Larry. Thanks so much for your prompt and helpful response. (To me, a newcomer to Wikipedia and the Teahouse, it seems prompt! :-)) I will take your advice and will certainly provide citations from third-party sources for Records of Early English Drama page and make sure it meets the guidelines and standards. I'll also update the material at Victoria University, Toronto#Academics and organization. Chung01 (talk) 16:02, 31 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 . 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)

Let me re-word this: I was trying to create my user page and can't click "save." I tried on my tablet and my computer and nothing works. Mossboss254 (talk) 00:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)Mossboss254— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mossboss254 (talk • contribs) 00:33, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Your user page is User:Mossboss254. Is that the page where you clicked save? Did you write something first? A page must have content to be created on the first click. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:44, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I wrote a few sentences just to start out. Nothing. Mossboss254 (talk) 00:47, 31 May 2017 (UTC)Mossboss254

I have created User:Mossboss254. I don't know why it failed for you. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:51, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help. I can edit it and save it now. Mossboss254 (talk) 00:54, 31 May 2017 (UTC)Mossboss254

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)

Hi Shepherdson7 I very strongly advise you to move the page to Draft-space immediately because in its current condition in Mainspace it is at risk of being deleted without notice. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:39, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of moving the page to Draft:Raktham - The Blood, in order to avoid its deletion. Once you have added references, Shepherdson7, you can use the button at the top of the page to submit it for review. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:05, 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)

hello LordVaal IV, and welcome to the Teahouse. One of the best ways not to become an admin is to be perceived as being focused on being an admin rather than on helping to build the project. Instead, try to gain some diverse experience. Comment at AfDs, Work on some articles, adding citations, adding content, helping with formatting. Fight vandalism. You can just use twinkle to warn vandals in the sequence of levels 1-4. if there is a persistant or very serious vandal, report at WP:AIV following the instructions on that page. DES ^(talk) 18:56, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello! I mentioned the Admin thing because being one on my point of view, is the main way to improve this great website. Thanks for telling me about Twinkle! I'll start using it right now. Thank you! ~Lord Vaal —Preceding undated comment added 07:46, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I think most would agree that the best way to improve the site is to write, edit and improve article content, LordVaal IV - none of which require administrator rights. By the way, are you signing your posts using four tildes (~~~~)? I'm trying to work out why your signatures are undated. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:53, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

No, I am not. As early stated, I am *very* new, so there are many things I don't know how to do so. You mean like this?:LordVaal IV (talk) 08:01, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that's better. Thanks, LordVaal IV. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:06, 31 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)

Welcome to the teahouse Cs7809. Are you talking about this draft: Draft:Gabriel Garzón-Montano? I haven't seen the accusations you mentioned, but I definitely do not see them on the draft page, or on the talk page of the draft or an your talk page for that matter so just go ahead and work on that draft.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:08, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Sphilbrick, you may want to read this and this for the context here. ‑ Iridescent 17:13, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Iridescent Thanks for the context.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:19, 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)

Welcome to the teahouse Justfun23. This page may help: Wikipedia:Translation. --S Philbrick(Talk) 16:48, 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)

Yes, what you changed was very much for the better; I condensed it just a little, and added links, and removed the tags for pressrelease and additional links. DGG ( talk ) 17:57, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

You seem to have forgotten to mention your paid editor status in relation to that article, Fbell74. Declaration is obligatory, not optional. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I've looked at this, and indeed I don't think you had gone far enough, Fbell74. The source of the problem was this edit of yours in 2015, so I've reverted to the version immediately before that. It may be that some of the references you had used could be useful to volunteer editors who want to expand the article – thank you for those. I'm not a sociologist, but it looks as if the page should probably be merged to Participatory action research, which is I think our general page on this topic. Please take care not to copy stuff from elsewhere on the internet or in copyright printed works into Wikipedia – the various precepts such as "Gather and share collective discoveries" had been published in several places long before you added them to the article; everything you write in Wikipedia must be in your own words, or must be properly quoted. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:07, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks DGG and Justlettersandnumbers taking a look at the article. DGG, I think you may have seen the version that Justlettersandnumbers reverted. I'm glad that this addressed the issues. I think the edits have gone a little far though. The current version doesn't really explain how World Café events work or what the objective is. It's all about using pre-defined questions and focusing on themes rather than problem solving and the intention is to foster creative thinking rather than to solve problems or come to a predetermined solution. A key element is allowing individuals to have their opinion heard, particularly more junior or quieter people, which isn’t always possible in group events where the loudest person may get all the attention. Without some explanation of how World Café events work it's hard to distinguish these from any other form of group activity.

Separately, the revised version doesn’t include examples of the organisations that have used World Cafe events. These are diverse and reasonably extensive, comprising Saudi Arabian oil companies, Israeli community organisations, and Canadian development agencies, among others. This underlines the geographic spread of the concept and also goes to notability. Fbell74 (talk) 06:36, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

A small translation doubt

Could somebody find a translation word for constitutionalist in malayalam?I need it to use it in ml:മേഖലകളുടെ_അടിസ്ഥാനത്തിൽ_യുണൈറ്റഡ്_കിങ്ഡം_പാർലമെന്റ്_നിയോജകമണ്ഡലങ്ങളുടെ(1918-1945)_പട്ടിക page.Adithyak1997 (talk) 15:26, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Adithyak1997 I've taken the liberty of converting the very long and completely indecipherable %-coded url link in your post to a proper Malayalam interwiki link. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:33, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the problem causedAdithyak1997 (talk) 15:35, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Adithyak1997 It's no problem at all. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:50, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Does ഭരണഘടനാ വിരുദ്ധത work? I simply put "constitutionalist" into Google Translate, but perhaps you've tried it already. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:52, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I checked that. The problem was that it was regarding the results of election. So I think it is the name of some party. I am not sure whether it will suit the context.Adithyak1997 (talk) 16:05, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Visibility

I created a new page 2 days ago and I have edited it/corrected it. How long will it take for the page to be visible immediately it is googled/searched for? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adewukehinloni (talk • contribs) 16:14, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Adewukehinloni and welcome to the Teahouse. A new page includes the "NOINDEX" keyword until it is 30 days old, or has been "patrolled" by an experienced editor. This asks google and other search engines not to index it. DES ^(talk) 16:20, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Adewukehinloni, the article Kehinde Olorunyomi needs more and better sources cited. and we here at Wikipedia never embed youtube or other videos. We only link to them. And Youtube is often not a reliable source, depending on who posted a video. DES ^(talk) 16:24, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Core

What are top 5 core policies of this Wikipedia ? Fanalysis (talk) 16:35, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Fanalysis Welcome to the teahouse. Maybe others will have their own thoughts, but this is a good start: Wikipedia:Five_pillars--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:44, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Fanalysis, a useful analogy (for me) is to think of the five pillars as Wikipedia's "constitution" - all other policies are based on them. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:29, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Approved Edits - Identifying errors

Hey guys,

I have a couple questions.

1) How do I know if my suggested edits have been approved?

2) I have been attempting to recode reference links for footnotes, but unless their is red indicating a dead link etc, I do not know how to identify them.

Thanks,

Thom — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thom ryan (talk • contribs) 12:47, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Thom ryan and welcome to the Teahouse. Except on a few pages using "pending changes" protection, all edits are approved and visible at once. Or rather no "approval" is needed.

Could you explain a bit more what problem you are having with footnotes? DES ^(talk) 17:26, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me

Just in terms of locating what broken links to focus on and target.

20:38, 30 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thom ryan (talk • contribs)

Ah I see, Thom ryan. Unfortunately with external links (including those used in source citations) the only way to know if a link is currently broken is to try it. At least that is the only way that I know of. You can also look for citations where the bibliographic data (author, publisher, date, work, etc) is missing or incomplete, and add any missing data that can be determined. DES ^(talk) 21:53, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

by the way, please sign talk page comments with four tildes (~~~~). The software will convert this into a link to your user page, and a timestamp, or a customized signature if you have set one up. See WP:SIG for details. DES ^(talk) 21:53, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Template link leads to editor instead of article

I created the article Buckhorn (Hamburg U-Bahn station), but the red link to it in Template:Hamburg rail did not turn blue. What's more, when I click on the link to the article in the template, it leads me to the VisualEditor editing window of the article, instead of the article itself. How do I fix this? DraconicDark (talk) 19:24, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Maybe you're just seeing a cached version of the page? On the category page for Hamburg U-Bahn stations, the station link is blue, and clicking it brings me to the article, not the edit page. Hope this helps. - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 19:33, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, DraconicDark, and welcome to the Teahouse. It seems to be working for me now. Sometiems it takes some time for changes in tempaltes to propagate to all articles involved. DES ^(talk) 19:42, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. The issue seems to have fixed itself, although to me, the link still appears red. DraconicDark (talk) 19:49, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

DraconicDark, Hoisbüttel (Hamburg U-Bahn station) is a red link, although the adjacent Buckhorn (Hamburg U-Bahn station) is bluise, as I see it. DES ^(talk) 21:43, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

DraconicDark, sometimes a takes a while for changes to filter through to templates and the like. One way to be sure that the change has actually happened is to purge the template page. Press Edit, then change the end of the url from action=edit to action=purge and hit return; click the blue "Yes" button on the next page, and you should get a fully updated view of the template. If the link is still red, there's probably a typo somewhere (in the template, in the page title …). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:55, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. The link no longer appears red. DraconicDark (talk) 00:52, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

A question

What is the diffrence between footnotes and notes in the article WWI??--Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 20:20, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Super ninja2. In that article and not necessarily others, World War I#Footnotes explains a detail while World War I#Notes gives sources (except notes 2 and 3 which should maybe be footnotes). You may have to click "[show]" in the infobox for the links on "^" at Footnotes to work. See more at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout#Notes and references. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:04, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Online and print ISBNs

I'm improving a reference, and the publisher's website gives two ISBN-13s for the book: one for print and one for online. Presumably the content is the same in both, since no difference is mentioned. But {{cite book}} makes no provision for two ISBNs of this kind. Is there a way to list them both without duplicating the whole citation? Please {{ ping }} me to reply.

--Thnidu (talk) 00:18, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse, Thnidu. Here is my recommendation: If the book is available online in full for free, then use the ISBN for the online version. Otherwise, use the print ISBN, since clicking that allows readers to find local libraries holding the book. Personally, I see no benefit to including both ISBNs, but other editors may have other opinions. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:36, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Thnidu. If you were doing a bibliography, the inclusion of separate entries for ebook edition and print edition might have value. Since you are providing a source citation I think you should say where you got it and provide the ISBN of whichever version you actually consulted. While they are probably identical in content, this is not always true -- sometimes corrections or updates are made in one format but not the other. In any case, for most recent books our Boo0k Sources page will enable the reader to find print copies in libraries and at booksellers even when an ebook ISBN is provided, so it won't matter much. If you didn't consult the book at all, but are just adding metadata, flip a coin, or choose the one you think the original editor who added the source probably used. DES ^(talk) 01:43, 31 May 2017 (UTC) @Thnidu: DES ^(talk) 01:44, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Cullen328 & DESiegel. Both your suggestions are quite helpful and apt. (Heya, Cullen328, I'm glad to be back here.)--Thnidu (talk) 03:29, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Not really in response to this thread but as a general warning. I recently used a fairly substantial Google/Amazon preview for referencing and used the page numbers "printed" on the pages. I then got the book from the library and, although it had the same ISBN and publication date, its layout was quite different. The preview's pages were shorter and the images and "infoboxes" positioned differently wrt the text. It still looked just like a real book. I therefore decided to re-do the previous page numbers. Anyone using the ISBN to access the online preview will think the page numbers I gave are wrong. (I've now decided to note this in my citations). Thincat (talk) 17:44, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Create New Bio Page

Hi,

I have figure out sandbox, and in visual edit mode I have inserted a template name "biography" but I am unable to edit anything within the template without hitting save and going live. Can you guide me how to edit without going live please?

Spiderman2334 (talk) 03:51, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Spiderman2334. Everything in Wikipedia is visible to the world: articles, talk pages, drafts, discussion pages, everything. So in a sense, you cannot submit any edit without "going live". Having said that, various places are not normally indexed by search engines, so they are less visible; and because they are intended for people to use them to develop articles, they are not judged as strictly for conformity to Wikipedia's policies. There are two places in particular: user sandboxes, and Draft space. You created the article Fereidoon Izadseta in main space, not in a sandbox, and so it is immediately subject to all of Wikipedia's policies. If you had created it in one of the draft spaces, it would be called User:Spiderman2334/Fereidoon Izadseta or Draft:Fereidoon Izadseta (those links are both red, because neither of those pages actually exist). If you had asked before creating it - or if you had read Your first article beforehand - you would havebeen advised to use the Articles for creation process, which would have created the draft in one of those places. Now, you could move it to one of those places, using the move command; but I don't think there's much point in doing so unless somebody proposes the article for deletion. Read Your first article (linked above, and on your talk page) and continue to develop the article where you have created it. --ColinFine (talk) 14:31, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

How to challenge claim that source I am using is unreliable?

I am attempting to edit the article on Donna Brazile to include some information about an allegation made towards her, an allegation that was written about on the journalistic site WorldNetDaily. I don't personally have any reason to doubt the reliability of this source, but I understand it is not popular with some in the Wikipedia editing community. Essentially, I am unclear about who gets to decide that this source is unreliable, and why it is being portrayed that I am in an 'editing war' when from my view I am just trying to keep what I feel is a good addition to the article. I could more easily, it seems, charge that the people removing it are engaging in an 'editing war.' I am really new to this and just trying to understand who gets to form consensus about what a reliable source is - is there a vote? Who has ultimate power in deciding? I don't want to be banned, but feel my addition should stand and am perhaps naively wondering how to address this. How can I move forward in challenging this, or is it a lost cause? Proustfala (talk) 04:28, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Proustfala, and welcome to the Teahouse. You can read about what are considered reliable sources here and here. It is crystal clear that WorldNetDaily is known for anything but fact-checking and accuracy. Reliability is determined by comparing the source with the policy and guidance pages I linked to. In less clear cases they can be referred to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard for discussion.

As for "edit warring", it is not about what your motivation is but about how you pursue your goal. Back-and-forth reverting of others is not allowed, regardless of whether you are right or wrong about your edits. After you are reverted, you are expected to discuss the issue on the article Talk page instead of repeatedly re-introducing your edits. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:37, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Also, please see WP:BLP for additional advice. You'd want to source possibly controversial claims about living people only to the most reliable sources, and phrase them as carefully as possible. Especially allegations, rumors and speculative reports are problematic in that context. GermanJoe (talk) 05:01, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Can I add a response here? Sorry, I don't totally get how Teahouse works yet. Ok, well thank you - that gives me plenty to think over. I have one more theoretical question, though. So just theoretically say there is a source whose talk page is full of people giving examples of why they don't find that source reliable. Even though there are dozens of examples, I don't find nearly any of them compelling (not saying that is the case here, just theoretically). Sure I can say my piece, but is it ultimately a 'majority rule' situation, or is there an overseer who officially deems one source or another 'unreliable'? I am not saying that is the case here, just trying to clarify how consensus is formed around such things.

Consensus is never a majority vote because each editor is expected to base their opinion on established policies and guidelines. But if five experienced editors explain why a source is unreliable and a new editor does not yet understand the policies and guidelines, then consensus is pretty clear. The appropriate venue for in depth discussion of the reliability of a source for a specific assertion in an article is WP:RSN. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:56, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

More formal discussions are closed by an uninvolved editor, or in many cases, by an uninvolved administrator. They evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the arguments to determine consensus. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:03, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Is this allowed

On the article on MissingNo. it doesn't say how to activate it in games. Do you think adding that section is okay and won't deleted by the bot? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Happychickeman (talk • contribs) 12:59, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a game manual - that sort of instructional information belongs on a Pokemon-specific wiki, not on Wikipedia, I'm afraid. Yunshui ^雲_水 13:20, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

publsihing or reviewing my article

I have written a draft article and tagged it for review. Its been a month now and nothing has happened, have I made a mistake? MatthewWood92 (talk) 13:14, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi MatthewWood92. I'm sorry to say that you haven't actually submitted the page for review. To do so, edit the draft and add the following code at the top: {{subst:submit}}. This will submit it for review at Articles for creation. Yunshui ^雲_水 13:19, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't know why you say "Its been a month now". Your draft was first created on 12 May, only 19 days ago, and you haven't yet submitted it for review. I've added a template with a submit button for you to use to submit it for review. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:23, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Content of lead section in short articles

According to the Wikipedia style guide, the lead section should summarise the rest of the article. However, in the case of a very short article, the article may only contain a lead section. In this case, what should happen with the article? Should it be deleted or should new information be added to the lead section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Righter1000 (talk • contribs) 13:52, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Righter1000, and welcome to the Teahouse. In that case we have what is known as a stub. The best course of action is to find additional reliable sources about the topic and expand the article so that it is no longer a stub. In the process a separate lead section should be created. Sometimes that can't be done, and sometimes an editor has no time to do it at the moment. In either case, there is no need to delete the article. It can be left as a stub to await future developments, if the topic is suitable for Wikipedia. DES ^(talk) 15:16, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Can you insert an infobox in visual editing mode?

Consider the infobox at right when you view Matt Damon's Wikipedia page. Is it possible to insert this structure in visual editing mode? If so, how? Aop4 (talk) 14:01, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello Aop4, yes you can add and edit infoboxes using the Visual Editor. Click on Insert > Template, then type infobox person and click on Add template. Fill in the name, then click on Add more information and Show 89 more fields. Fill in the values for all the parameters that you want to show, like Birth date. Mduvekot (talk) 14:32, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

How to post a picture

Please how can I post a picture on Wikipedia using html language?Uspeku (talk) 14:22, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Uspeku. Basically, you don't; you need to use Wikimarkup. I wrote an essay for beginners on how to add images here, it may help explain the process for you. Yunshui ^雲_水 14:34, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

hello can i ask something?

can i get backlink from wikipedia please? ofcourse for i'll exchange with some articleFerizamia (talk) 15:02, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

That isn't how things work here, I'm afraid. We don't do affiliate marketing, and all external links are tagged nofollow. We also have a lot of restrictions on what sort of links are permitted. So, short answer - no, you can't. Yunshui ^雲_水 15:09, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

HI all just started to try and make my first Page.

Hi all This is basically just a Hello. I am just starting to try and produce my first article/page. I have only carried out a few edits before starting this attempt and am (as expect) well out of my depth and on a learning curve that looks more like making a free climb of Everest. I made a very quick start at a draft and sent it for review. I knew it was nowhere near any acceptable standard but the intention was to get feedback and see how the review thing worked.

My review submited is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Brunei_Subaqua_Diving_Club_BSADC,for_REVIEW.

I was surprised that the review may take so long ( I should not have been, on reflection) but in fact within an hour or a little more I got a mai from David.moreno72 Thanks David, Great Job. Your extremely quick response was fantastic considering the workload that is reported. Though it is good to see that the new submissions are looked at and obvious NOGOs are bumped back straight away allowing reviewers to concentrate on the true review workload and the beginers like me to get some feed back straight away and continue one hopes on a better path to a more acceptable submission.

Thanks again David. I did try and find a/the way to reply to you quickly and directly but that, like a lot/most of what I have tried to do so far, was not obvious and on this occasion at least, defeated me. So i have done it here. I did click on your tag and got your page ok and read it with a smile but. I still could not work out how to reply.

Anyway that is it really, I have some guidance from David and know where I have to start to move on and will get to it. When I have specific problems I will return here for help.

In fact there is one item that is related but has bee rejected under another process, this someone my be able to guide me on here. I have a amature subaqua dive club LOGO, that is the LOGO for the club that is subject of my new page. The LOGO was deleted (again almost immediately) with the reason, which I basically understand. I have responded through the due process and await the out come. But here you might give me a better understanding of the problem in this specific case. The LOGO is of course a LOGO. enough said. However the LOGO was designed and drawn by me. I made it for the Club that I was a member of, the Diving Officer and Chairman of and gave it to the club to use freely as we saw fit. The Club was disbanded in January of 2016. I, myself, gave the official news to the UK BSAC HQ to whom we were affiliated and the club was recorded as disbanded. If there was a copyright (i know little about copyright) and I assume that automatically under the system there must be, then it must be my copyright as the author/artist, it is my work. No official address was ever made by me to or for the club with regard to any such copyright.

So now I uploaded a copy of my file and used it as my work for the page and club it relates to.

I have explained this in the due process to have the deleted file reinstated BUT as it IS a LOGO I have a GUT feeling that it will still be rejected. From the guidance material I have read so far, that is my feeling.

There of course must be a solution to this issue as all articles/Pages that are already approve of a similar type to the one I am doing have (MUST HAVE) the LOGO of the page subject matter in the PRIMARY OPENING DATA.

So what am I doing wrong or what due process have I not completed that is required so that I can use the LOGO like all the other pages. This may be jumping he gun as it may yet be accepted. I am still waiting to see if my request to undelete it is successful. But I have a strong feeling it is not going to be that simple.

Your comments help will be much appreciated. Please keep them simple "think Baby" then think "New Born" and you will be getting close to my current LEVEL. Actually my level is before that but we will not go there!!!

Thanks all I am looking forward to this challenge, not just to achieve the objective of recording the History of the First BSAC club in Brunei but I am also really looking forward to learning the process/s required to achieve it here. I can see that this is going to be a huge learning curve and not without its difficulties and frustrations. I do however have plenty if time to kill and am not know for giving up easily, far from it, the more difficult it gets, the more determined I become.

Thanks all Ngoring (talk) 15:10, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ngoring. I'm glad you're getting some help with your article. Logos on Wikipedia are generally used under Fair Use terms, meaning that whilst they are not free to reuse, we are legally able to show them on the site for the specific purpose of illustrating something about the logo itself or the logo's owner. One of the conditions of Fair Use is that the logo must be used on at least one live article - since your article is still a draft, that condition cannot be satisfied. My suggestion would be to iron out the issues with the draft and get it to the point of being a live article - once that happens, you can legitimately upload the logo for use on Wikipedia without having to sign away your rights to it. Yunshui ^雲_水 15:14, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

In a similar vein, we can't use text from other websites on Wikipedia - even if you wrote it yourself, we can't use it without a suitable release (see Donating copyrighted materials for details). In this case, the content of your website would not be suitable for Wikipedia anyway, so I would suggest that it isn't worth your while. Yunshui ^雲_水 15:33, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Yunshui FIRST I hope this is the correct why I should be responding????? not what I am use to in chat but see the/only way here.

Ok thanks that Informations was great I think I actually understood it ALL. The LOGO issue is much clearer now though I must say that one (or more) help articles that I saw /read, with regard to logos? (i think) or maybe more generical clearly stayed that Fair Use was not accepted!! Notwithstanding this I fully accept your advice in this case and that it will apply when I have finished and had may page accepted and published. Thanks again, Great Help. If this was not the why to reply please let me know and advise the correct way. Also how do I tag David.moreno72 to this article so he knows I have sent it. Or by mentioning him in the text above is he automatically notified?? May guess is he is not, so how? Ngoring (talk) 16:28, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

@Ngoring: to resubmit the article for review, press the blue button that says "Resubmit". As you've been told above, don't worry about the logo: you can't have it on the draft right now (for copyright reasons), but if your article is accepted it will be a very simple procedure to add it. If we get at that point, I can do it for you since I know the exact steps and have done it many, many times. However, I don't think the article will be accepted. You need to cite a reliable source for everything that is likely to be challenged. When you are writing about a company, that basically means everything. For everything you say, you need to tell us where did you get that information from. And here's the thing, these sources need to be preferably unaffiliated with the company (newspaper articles by professional journalists, etc. are good independent sources). If you can't muster enough independent sources, the article will not be approved. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:49, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Talk page signing

On talk pages, signing is one of the most important aspects. Other editors have to know who left what message, else the project falls apart. It's done with a four tilde signature.

With that said, is the three tilde sig, which excludes time and date, acceptable for talk pages?

Is it frowned upon; if so, why?

When is it applicable?

How important is including time and date if messages are already in a chronological order?

When is the five tilde sig (just time / date) acceptable?

Some assistance with these questions would be highly appreciated.

Best, Alt. Eno

17:52, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Alt. Eno. Posts are often not in chronological order. Users may insert their post directly below an old post they are replying to, but indented one more level. There are also new users who don't know where they are supposed to post. Always sign talk page posts with four tildes. Three and five tildes have a few possible uses mentioned at Wikipedia:Signatures. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:13, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

COI Rule Clarification for Summit School of Ahwatukee

I was working on the Summit School of Ahwatukee page and all revisions were rolled back. The reasoning was | Rm promotional twaddle; WP:COI editors are STRONGLY DISCOURAGED from editing the article directly; please use {{request edit}} on the talk-page. (TW))

This particular issue has already been discussed with Wikipedia.

I understand that it is discouraged. I also know that it is also not banned or not allowed. I believe all my revisions for entry (20:52, 31 May 2017) were factual, cited, and did not contain ambiguous or biased language. Could another editor please look over this version and let me know whether or not it meets criteria. Thank you.Carriejohnston2 (talk) 21:27, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

@Carriejohnston2: So, here's the thing. I've dealt with COI a decent bit. And "strongly discouraged" really means that in most cases where we see an editor with a COI trying to edit directly, it ends badly. It's really hard to edit neutrally about something you're close to or have an interest in promoting. That's a collective "you" by the way, it'd be hard for me to do or for anyone to do. In most cases, bias ends up creeping in, even if it's unconscious and unintentional, which is why we really, really discourage people from doing that. In this case, you added a long list of relatively non-notable awards, and a full list of accreditations under its own section. That's excessive detail for an encyclopedia article, and even if presented in neutral language, is putting highly undue weight on those aspects. You also added an explicit "__INDEX__" tag. That's also inappropriate; the function of Wikipedia is not to provide SEO juice. It's possible there's some salvageable material out of it, but that's exactly why we recommend going over it on the talk page. Otherwise, it will just wind up getting reverted wholesale, as you saw here, and that doesn't do anyone any good. It's just really hard to stay neutral on something you're that close to. So I will endorse the recommendation that aside from doing things like reverting blatant vandalism, you do stick to the talk page (you can use {{request edit}} as above to call attention to the fact that you've made a request) and let other editors review your proposed edits. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:46, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Carriejohnston2: the first source you cited does not even mention Summit School of Ahwatukee. The second one says nothing to support of the statement for which you cited it. The third one says that the school was nominated for an award, not that it won it as you have claimed. This degree of bias is, unfortunately, not unusual for an editor with a conflict of interest. That is why CoI editing is strongly discouraged. Maproom (talk) 22:03, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

How to publish my page

I created my page a few days ago and I want it to go live on Wikipedia. How do I do that? Where can I submit my page? Marieokoro (talk) 00:35, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

You have got confused between an article and a user page. If you wish to create an article you need to read the advice at WP:Your first article, and in particular you need to include references to published independent reliable sources. --David Biddulph (talk) 00:56, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Marieokoro. Most editors presume military general officers to be notable and eligible for a Wikipedia biography. Please read WP:SOLDIER. Therefore, I encourage you to continue. But you need to provide references to reliable sources that verify all of the claims in your draft article. I am in complete agreement with David Biddulph. Please read the links he provided, and follow that advice. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:22, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Finding Articles

I have trouble finding articles. I use the random article button, but I only like stubs. so how do I do it? please help, GrecoRomanNut (talk) 03:35, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi GrecoRomanNut. Welcome to the Teahouse. Have a look at Category:Stub categories and see if that helps. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 04:10, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Rivertorch, I will check it out GrecoRomanNut (talk) 04:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC)