Wikipedia:Teahouse

Welcome to the Teahouse...                        

A friendly place to learn about editing Wikipedia.

Ask a question

PrimeHunter, a Teahouse host

Question forum

Host profiles

Guest profiles

Experienced editor? Become a host!

Learn more about the Teahouse

Articles to improve

Question archive

Guest archive

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

Maryann Keller

Dear editors, I need your urgent help in dealing with a particular situation related to the page Maryann Keller. Can several editors clean it up and address the issue raised by the warning tag? Thank you for your cooperation. Cutie girly (talk) 11:13, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Cutie girly. Can I ask what makes this so urgent? Also, the Teahouse is a place to ask questions and learn about editing Wikipedia, rather than somewhere you can recruit editors to edit an article for you. We might be able to provide advice on how to resolve the issues with the article though, if that would help? Cordless Larry (talk) 11:32, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much Cordless Larry. Yes, I need advice. Because it was a misunderstanding. I’m new to Wikipedia and I wrote my first article - Maryann Keller. As a marketing student, I had studied texts related to Maryann involvement on Wall Street and her contributions in the auto industry. Therefore, I have decided to write an article about her. During this process, I used existing articles in the same category as a template in terms of style, structure and content. For next article, I have been contacted by Stephen Robert Morse for his article, I did not how Wikipedia works (now I know), that paid job is not allowed. Now I've learned my mistake and will never happen again. But my first article (Maryann Keller) marked as paid, although is not paid. What should I do, please help Cordless Larry. Thank you so much for your time. Cutie girly (talk) 10:35, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Paid editing isn't prohibited, Cutie girly, but does require following Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure and is pretty strongly discouraged. As for the issue with the Maryann Keller article, I suggest explaining the above at Talk:Maryann Keller, where other editors, including Smartse, who added the template, can assess whether it can be removed. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:49, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

How to know if my contribution is approved and how long does it take to be approved

Hello everyone

I am new around and have decided to contribute my quota in this amazing website called wikipedia.

I want to know how long it takes for my contributions, citations and dead link correction to be approved and how do I know if it was approved by the moderators in the house?

thanks Rebecca Exlink10 (talk) 11:51, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Rebecca. Changes you make to Wikipedia are live the second you save the page - there isn't a moderation process. If you make a change to an article, that change is immediately visible. There are a couple of exceptions (when you create a completely new article as a draft, for example, or if a page is under pending changes protection), but as a rule, when you save, the edit is live straight away. Yunshui ^雲_水 12:17, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Exlink10, and welcome to the Teahouse! To add to what Yunshui said: Wikipedia also has a Recent Changes Patrol who ensure your edits are not vandalism. There are some pages that unregistered users, or users with a low edit count, cannot edit. This is because they are often vandalized. To answer your question - all of your edits are live on Wikipedia! Thank you for your contribution to our project! Keira1996 12:25, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Just a tip, Exlink10: when you replace a dead-link reference, as you did here, you can remove the dead link template message (the code {{Dead link|date=October 2010|bot=H3llBot}} in this case). Cordless Larry (talk) 13:38, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

In this case you also needed to change the name of the reference to match that of the article which it pointed to - as it was, it was misleading as it referred to a different year. I've made both changes. If you want to see what I did, you can take a look at the 'diff' in the edit history. Neiltonks (talk) 13:16, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Added NEW REFERENCES per input; FOOTNOTING format & SHOULD I RESUBMIT NOW?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Richard_Yelland Hello, I have added references in the article--from LA Times HUFF post and Adweek-- that are now directed more at the subject of the article, Richard Yelland, rather than solely the films of Richard Yelland.

This was done per the input of the last reviewer. That reviewer cautioned that I not resubmit until the notes were properly addressed. Otherwise, the article would be frowned upon by volunteer reviewers who are donating their time. Understood -- and many thanks to this group!

For that reason, I'm asking for help on whether the the notes were sufficiently addressed and to see if the article is ready to be resubmitted.

It also appears that a couple of reviewers have been tweaking the article here and there to help get it into proper format-- which is welcomed! -- but one of them has begun footnoting in a different format. That person started the process then left a list of references still to be footnoted.

I tried to work my new references into the new format but I'm having trouble doing that. The question is -- can or will this be done (by me or a volunteer editor) once this is closer to an accepted submission?

Or should that be done now before resubmitting??

Thanks again for the help.

M USA

Morgan USA (talk) 17:30, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I guess that you might be talking about Draft:Richard Yelland? If so, you need to read Help:Referencing for beginners and format the footnotes correctly. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:36, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that is the article I'm referring to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Richard_Yelland

Morgan USA (talk) 18:34, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Morgan USA: no, you should not resubmit now. It would be a clear rejection. In its current state, it cites only two references, neither of which discusses Yelland. You need to find sources with significant discussion of him (maybe there are some among the "references still to be footnoted"), and cite them properly. Or you could try to persuade some other volunteer to do it for you. Maproom (talk) 07:20, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Keep on reading!

(1) Someone has introduced a remark saying that at some point my article needed "clarification"! He/she only needs to keep on reading and verify that the projects are listed with the notions; (2) Someone has made a mess of my references when two paragraphs were removed. Hope that in future revisers will be more careful, if not more competent.Peiris Fox (talk) 17:50, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Peiris Fox, and welcome to the Teahouse. I presume that you are referring to:

Pedro Scuro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

and in particular to this series of edits. Wikipedia articles should ideally stick to the topic named in the article title, and should always stick strictly to the Neutral point of view. Anything like advocacy or promotion of a business, a person, a cause, or a school of thought should be omitted. Much of the content removed by Seraphimblade was uncited, promotional, or not relevant to the article. The phrase "His projects" needs clarification because the article does not say which projects, nor exactly how they "introduced" the listed concepts, or where they introduced them.

When citing a printed source, please provide the page number(s). Two of your online sources currently have links that don't resolve, at least not for me. Please check them, and provide as full bibliographic data as is available on each. Please read Referencing for Beginners on how to format reference citations in Wikipedia articles. Personally i advise the use of citation templates such as {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}}, {{cite book}} and the like, but they are by no means required.

I hope these comments are helpful. DES ^(talk) 20:02, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Team and thank you very much for spending your time with the article we seem to be referring. Even though your commments are not always useful, I must say. Indeed they are, for instance, when DES points out that one (not two) of my current online sources are not resolving - but can easily be fixed. On the other hand, you are certainly perplexing when suggesting that the Article may not be sticking to the subject. Which is nonsense and quite unverifiable with candid expressions such as: "much of the content removed by Seraphimblade was uncited, promotional, or not relevant to the article". Is it "promotional" to say that the Subject is included in a global listing of outstanding theorists and researchers? Is it "not relevant" to quote him on an important issue and to draw a table on it? Both quote and table were savagely and ignorantly removed. And what to say about one's capacity of understanding if you state that 'projects' are not listed when there are references for at least four of them? Please read Referencing for Beginners. I hope my comments are helpful. Peiris FoxPeiris Fox (talk) 22:47, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

The article refers to "those projects" without ever explaining what projects it means. It also refers to his harassment, arrests, and torture by the Brazilian authorities, without ever explaining what he had done to displease them. I suspect a problem is that you are too close to the subject, and assume knowledge about him that most readers won't have. You need to describe the projects before you write "those projects". You need to say what he did that displeased the military dictatorship. Maproom (talk) 07:43, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry Maproom, but you're trying to discuss entirely different things at the same time. We better do one thing at the time. To begin with, as for 'displeasing' dictators I suggested that the subject's troubles definitely started with the "promulgation of the infamous AI-5, Institutional Act Number Five, a decree issued by the military dictatorship in Brazil". AI-5 is on Wikipedia, so it is just a matter of going there and begin to understand what people like the subject did that displeased the dictarors so much. On the other hand, it was not my intention to explain the subject's projects. What I did was simply to provide a lot of references that can help to reader to hear explanations straight from the horse's mouth. All the best!Peiris Fox (talk) 21:39, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello Team, my user page has disappeared  :/

It looks like I'm gone. PVD429 was the name.

Can anybody help provide some info? I'd greatly appreciate it. (even if I could just get the text back to copy it and save it on a word document. I'd hate to think I lost it all!)

It was linked to the following:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Douglas_Gene_Hoffman_in_Iraq_2003_(c)_D._Gene_Hoffman.jpg

65.196.107.196 (talk) 20:00, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. There is and never was an user by the name User:PVD429 and the picture File:Douglas_Gene_Hoffman_in_Iraq_2003_(c)_D._Gene_Hoffman.jpg is not linked from any page. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:22, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback - Maybe it wasn't a user page? I apologize if I'm using the wrong term.

It was most definitely *some* kind of posting. One of my Soldiers created it many moons ago, it had citations of the medals that I'd been awarded (purple heart, bronze star) my tours of duty, battles, etc. But now it's all gone.

Is there any other kind of user status, page, posting that may be searched?

Thanks again!

65.196.107.196 (talk) 20:32, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, IP Editor ..., and welcome to the Teahouse. So far as I can see, there has never been a page named User:PVD429 (nor User:PVD 429) on the English-language Wikipedia, including pages now deleted. Nor is there a registered user by that name. If you had a registered user account, it is still valid, and you can log in with it, even if the user page was deleted. Note that the exact name is needed, and case is significant. If you do log in with your user name, post here and sign your post with four tildes (~~~~). from that the page can easily be found.

The file you link to is not currently in use on the English-language Wikipedia. I can't tell if it was in use on a page now deleted.

I do not find any deletion in the last 15,000 deletions on the log of any page with "PVD" as part of its name.

I am sorry but i cannot help you without further information such as the exact user name involved. DES ^(talk) 20:34, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Update - I recall the user page or name linked in the area

"File usage in commons"

I remember because I used to search for the photo, then scroll down and click on "pvd429" which was hyperlinked to the text (and the photo on the right side)

It had my entire military history  :(

Thanks again65.196.107.196 (talk) 20:35, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Ok, last breadcrumb clues...

On the Wikimedia file page there is this information below. This was the information, SOME of it, linked on the page of user pvd429.

That text is not inherent in the photo, it was due to the creation of the page user pvd429.

Maybe that helps?

"" Show extended details Categories: United States Army in the Iraq War Baghdad in the Iraq War United States Army soldiers Recipients of the Bronze Star Medal (United States) Recipients of the Purple Heart (United States) 1st Armored Division (United States) Hidden categories: Self-published work PD-self "" 65.196.107.196 (talk) 20:46, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Is this about the vanished biography of D G Hoffman? Three near identical copies of this have recently been deleted - the most recent, that I can find, being User:Stanton478. If you want the content I can supply it by email but you'll need to create a Wikipedia account and enable email on it, then use the email feature to reach me. Now the bad news, firstly from what I've read the article does not meet the notability standards for a Wikipedia article and secondly writing autobiographies is strongly, strongly discouraged so even with the content recovered I'd really advise against using it again on Wikipedia. Nthep (talk) 21:02, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

• User:Xbreadfanx/Douglas Gene Hoffman
• User:Bln14878028

These are the other two, I think.
 — Berean Hunter (talk)

Stanton claimed to be the article subject.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:12, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

holy smoke you folks are the best. Yes that is it. I got bad info that's for dang sure.

I can't believe how resourceful everybody is as a team.

I'd love to capture that info, and understand that I shouldn't post it as an autobiographical article or user page.

Will read up on this more. In the meantime, can you send it to xbreadfanx? I was able to log on to that last week. I can't believe I remembered my pw from years ago  :) (I'm xbreadfanx aka D.G.H. )

Thanks a million. This means a lot!

65.196.107.196 (talk) 12:50, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Text for tejasvi vadhita mastu in Sanskrit

Hi there, I am cleaning up a College page and the motto is a phrase in Sanskrit tejasvi vadhita mastu which when translated roughly goes something like this: Let our efforts at learning be luminous (-tejasvi) and filled with joy, and endowed with the force of purpose (-vadhita mastu). I want to include the text in Sanskrit and was wondering if anyone could help. Thank you KakhoSimpson (talk) 03:52, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi KakhoSimpson, welcome to the Teahouse. It looks like you worked it out in [1]. Code of form {{Infobox university|...}} means the page uses Template:Infobox university. Templates usually have documentation on the template page. Template:Infobox College is a redirect so it works exactly the same. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:19, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, PrimeHunter. I was rather confused which template to use as they both seem to have the same result infobox.

I still need the Sanskrit text of the motto, if anyone can help. KakhoSimpson (talk) 10:26, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

What source is needed for article to approve?

Hi there, my article on the person Krishna Hoccane is genuine and true, please help me to what other sources should be provided by me to approve the article 103.70.129.18 (talk) 04:21, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

To establish that he is notable, you will need to cite reliable independent published sources with significant discussion of him. Draft:Krishna Hoccane currently cites 30 sources. Of the first few: 1 is his own web site and so not independent; 2 does not mention him; 3 gives me a "not found" message; 4, 5, and 6 are to Wikipedia articles (Wikipedia does not regard itself as relibale, as this would give problems of circularity) which anyway do not mention him; 7 is to a Facebook page (not reliable) which anyway does not mention him. I gave up checking after that. Maproom (talk) 08:46, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

The article is now nominated for deletion, so if there are any WP:Reliable sources they need to be added quickly. It would also be helpful to remove all of the existing unreliable and non-independent sources. I can't see any reliable independent sources, even with Google's help, so that probably means the subject is not notable. Dbfirs 11:42, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Inappropriate format of a specific wikipedia page

Hello, I recently came across an page called Kashid and noticed that it's arranged in the format of a poorly written travel itinerary. The page seems to get little attention from the administrators as it seems quite trivial.. It's about a town in India that seems to be quite popular with tourists. It's a poorly edited page with some editors treating the page as a travel magazine. The article isn't factually incorrect but the format seems to be in conflict with the format of most wikipedia pages (seemingly inappropriate). My personal opinion is that the format simply doesn't belong to wikipedia. I would like to know if my question is valid and if the page requires administrator attention. How can I notify this to the administrators if it does?

Pollythepirate (talk) 08:47, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

@Pollythepirate: I just cleaned up the spam and boosterism. But the page wasn't protected. Next time, you can fix problems when you notice them too. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:04, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

My article is getting deleted often along with the reference

May I know that why are you deleting my articles along with the reference. If there is any problem, please report me. Last time, I wrote the article Moon that earth had 2 moons. I wrote it as a proven fact. Then it got deleted and a Wikipedian wrote in my talk page that I din't write as the collision would have formed 2 moons not 1. Then yesterday - 3rd of June, 2017, I wrote it as it would have formed 2 moons and I din't write it as a proven fact, but it also got deleted, so I want to know the reason. If you want the link of the reference which is a video please visit K. Badri Vishal (talk) 04:36, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, K. Badri Vishal. You have been trying to add a fringe theory to an important scientific article using a YouTube video as a source. This is disruptive editing and there is no way that you will get consensus for such edits. You must use high quality, respected, peer reviewed scientific sources for such claims. Examples would be articles in respected astronomy journals or books published by respected university presses. This is not negotiable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:33, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

K. Badri Vishal, User Tomruen has now added the information to the article, with a more reliable source. Rojomoke (talk) 11:12, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Fake reference problem

I came to notice that in certain articles some editors are giving fake references to push their views. What is Wikipedias policy about dealing with it ?. Some editors are giving references to non existent contents in books written by published authors. When these contents are removed or challenged these editors (who added the fake References in the first place) is making a big problem. They simply wanted certain articles to stay the way they wanted, according to their views and liking. How do I deal with such situation ? Vijays1127 08:21, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

An example would be interesting. However, the solution to editors that hide behind offline references is WP:RX. The guys there are great, and will scan the relevent chapters (although not the whole book). Here's an example of how quickly they can get you access to relatively obscure books that you'd otherwise be unable to question. They helped me successfully edit a couple of articles set up by a very intense individual that were full of fluff "supported" by offline cites. Bromley86 (talk) 09:27, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

@Bromley86 Thanks for the quick reply. One example of the above mentioned problem is in the article Draupadi under the heading "Druapadi as an epitome of feminism". Almost every reference to support this is fake. Also does the content itself come under POV ?. I can also give many such examples made by this particular user across many articles.

Another one example is the use of the term " Chatahurdi compilation of the Mahabharat". There is no Chatahurdi compilation of the Mahabharat. If you google search for Chatahurdi compilation of the Mahabharat you can only see is the edits made by this particular user on Wikipedia articles over the years and the pages with contents copied from Wikipedia. I checked the user contribution for this editor ( Pinkfloyd11) and found this particular editor always adding fake references. Even if someone point out these facts or made reverts the mistakes will be back within a fortnight. " Chatahurdi compilation of the Mahabharat", nobody ever heard of this before. Vijays1127 11:20, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

@Vijays1127: First, I'd follow the advice above about getting access to those references. If the editor was just a little off or embellished what they said a little, that's a normal matter for editing—not everyone is great at reading and paraphrasing reference material, let alone integrating multiple sources properly. However, if an editor is grossly falsifying references (which I've seen happen; in one case the "references" the individual was using didn't even really exist), that's a major conduct issue and will be treated as such. If I find someone has deliberately been falsifying references, especially repeatedly, I have no trouble handing out an indef for that, and have in the past. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:11, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade:. Hi, thanks for the Reply. I have a serious question. How do we find / request the content/reference, if the Reference provided in wiki article don't contain chapter number or page number. I noticed one user is simply giving a book name &/ author name &/ publisher name and writing ridiculous things in Wikipedia citing these as reference. 99% my mind says it's just fake references. I checked the user contributions of this particular user and the same pattern every where. Its like he/ she is " maintaining" certain pages according to his/hers point of view by giving very possibly fake References. I pointed out these are unreliable contents/ references but my edits are getting reverted saying that there is reference to that content and it's true. I requested page, chapter numbers but no reply. My edits get reverted. I simply feel that anyone can add any amount of ridiculous content if we provide a shadowy reference for an offline source. Vijays1127 04:29, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Apart from the Chatahurdi compilation of the Mahabharat reference problem here is another example I pointed out in a talk page by this particular user. Vijays1127 08:57, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Help anyone? I would like to solve a disambiguation between two entries

Dear users,

I translated the page "Franco Costa" https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco_Costa from German to English, and am afraid that there is now a conflict with another page called "Franco Lautaro Costa" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco_Costa . How shall I resolve this? As this was my first attempt to contribute to the encyclopedia, I am sorry if I accidentally edited the page. I now undid the changes to the original.

Could someone please help? I think this will have to be solved by creating a disambiguation page and breaking the links between "Franco Costa" and "Franco Lautaro Costa" one is a (painter), the other a (football player)?

SamuelCosta (talk) 09:46, 4 June 2017 (UTC) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco_Costa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco_Costa

Hey SamuelCosta. So, the first thing we need is to make sure that each of them have unique names. So which one of them gets the prized slot at Franco Costa? We have to evaluate whether that's the WP:COMMONNAME for both of them, meaning probably in this case that the footballer actually goes by the name "Franco Costa" and not "Franco Lautaro Costa". If they generally go by the full name then we should just move it to Franco Lautaro Costa and that solves our problem.

If they don't then we should try to figure out which one of them might be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. If one of them is, then they get the slot, and the other should likely be something like Franco Costa (painter) or Franco Costa (footballer). In this case, both pages should get something like Template:About, so that if someone lands on the wrong article, they can immediately find the right one.

If there is no primary topic, then they probably both go to something like Franco Costa (painter) and Franco Costa (footballer), and Franco Costa become a disambiguation page.

Regardless of where they end up, we also need to check the foreign language links in the sidebar at the left, and make sure that all the articles linked together are about the same person, and whether the titles vary between language isn't really important, since that happens all the time.

Overall, how you solve the problem is pretty subjective, but one of these options should usually do the trick enough that a reader can navigate to where they're trying to go, which is really the whole point. TimothyJosephWood 10:01, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Hey Timothyjosephwood! Thank you for your quick message. As you say, there is a problem with the language links in the sidebar at the left. Franco Costa (painter) got the German version of Wikepedia, while Franco Costa (footballer) got the English one. The Italian version is also contended between another Franco Costa. As such, the entries are three: (painter), (footballer) and (archibishop)

1. REDIRECT [[2]]

Who gets to decide who gets what? How can I amend the entry name of Franco Costa to Franco Costa (painter)? I would like to translate the (painter) in English and Italian, from the original German version.

Thank you! SamuelCosta (talk) 10:16, 4 June 2017 (UTC) https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco_Costa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco_Costa https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco_Costa

SamuelCosta Who gets to decide who gets what? Well... you do, along with anyone else that wants to weigh in. This is one of those situations where you should probably just WP:BEBOLD, work out a solution, and if anyone disagrees, discuss with them on the relevant talk pages. A lot of situations like this are most easily resolved by just fixing it yourself, and usually no one even notices as long as the solution makes fairly good sense.

Since there is apparently a notable archbishop by the same name, that probably lends weight to a disambiguation page rather than a redirect or a primary topic. He can be included in the disambig page as a red link, or you can choose to create a quick stub and add Template:Expand Italian to the stub to alert other folks who are active in translating things over from Italian.

The way you fix the problem is by clicking move at the top of the page, leaving a reasonable edit summary for why the pages are being moved. The software will automatically leave a redirect behind, and you can then replace the redirect with a disambiguation page once you've created Franco Costa (painter or Franco Costa (artist) or what have you. TimothyJosephWood 10:44, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Timothyjosephwood Unfortunately, I am a new user and not have the "move" function yet. I will reach out to the other "Franco Costa" talk pages. If in the meantime you have other great advice, please feel free to share! Thanks again! SamuelCosta (talk) 12:24, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Ah ha. Well, SamuelCosta, if I had realized you weren't autoconfirmed yet I wouldn't have directed you to do something you can't. Anyway, Franco Costa is now a disambiguation page, and you can create your translated article by clicking on the red link there. TimothyJosephWood 14:24, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

SamuelCosta, I have done a history-unmerge on this, so that the text you had uploaded is now at Franco Costa (painter), with the proper history. Please continue to edit it there. In particular, more reliable sources are neeeded in that article. Please read WP:CITE and Referencing for Beginners if you have not already done so. Your First Article may also be helpful. Timothyjosephwood, thanks for your your help on this issue. DES ^(talk) 17:03, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

DES thank you for your support! I will work on providing references to the newly created entry Franco Costa (painter). Sorry to ask for more help, but could you please help with solving the remaining link problems? At the moment, there is a missing link between the German wikipedia "Franco Costa" (#REDIRECT [[3]]), which refers to the English Wikipedia Franco Costa (painter). While in the same German page, on the links on the left, the Italian version of wikipedia is linked to the Argentine (footballer).

Franco Costa (#REDIRECT [[4]]) this is the original German entry, where I translated the text in English. While, this is the wrong link to the footballer of the German (painter) entry Franco Lautaro Costa (#REDIRECT [[5]])

I hope this is clear enough!

what to do about Tendentious editing?

I noticed that the Michael Sukkar page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Sukkar had quite a bit of text that had not been written in a neutral manner. I have made some changes where I don't think it will be controversial, however noticed in the history that there has been a lot of tendentious editing. When I googled the name of the offender Joshuabonney I found he appears to be the media contact for Michael Sukkar. I have mentioned this to an admin who was involved in the history chain. I guess I am wondering what the normal procedure would be to deal with this type of thing? I've noticed non-neutral text on several politician's pages, and am somewhat hesitant to make changes as I don't want to waste my time if someone is going to undo and get into some kind of battle. Powertothepeople (talk) 15:21, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Powertothepeople. There are several things you can do. A good one is to engage with Joshuabonney: he may simply not be aware of Wikipedia's policies on conflict of interest, and Paid editing: lots of people are under the misapprehension that Wikipedia is a place to promote their cause or their products. You can post on his user talk page, but since I have pinged him here, he should see this discussion anyway. Actually, I see that others have already drawn his attention to those policies on his user talk page.

Secondly, you could add the {{coi}} tag to the article, giving anyone who reads it notice that there might be an issue. Make sure you explain this in the edit summary, and it might be worth posting on the article's talk page as well.

Thirdly, as you say you have done, you may edit the article yourself, to make it more neutral. According to the principle of WP:BRD, anybody may do this; and if Joshuabonney or anybody else disagrees with you, they can revert your change. If you disagree with them, then you must open a discussion with them, according to the procedures in dispute resolution. (If your first edit was to revert somebody else's, then they should open a discussion with you). --ColinFine (talk) 16:40, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, that is very helpful to know :) Powertothepeople (talk) 22:37, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

ColinFine - a follow up question - what is the appropriate tag when content on a page has been taken straight from the subject's website/PR and shows bias and lack of quality citations BUT I don't necessarily have reason to suspect that the person who created the page has a conflict of interest? Would it be {{Primary sources}} or {{POV}} or something else? Thanks Powertothepeople (talk) 23:14, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Powertothepeople, if content in an article has been copied from an outside source, such as a company or personal website (except as a marked quotation) simply remove it. If most of the content on the page is copied from elsewhere, use {{db-g12}} to ask for the page's speedy deletion as a copyright infringement. If it has been rewritten, but is sourced only to the subject's own publications, then yes, {{Primary sources}}, and perhaps {{refimprove}} would be appropriate. Or if you can find and add appropraite independent sources and remove any bias, that is still better than any tag. DES ^(talk) 10:25, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Could someone help me correctly upload a book cover?

Dear Wikipedians, I uploaded a book cover in small resolution. In my upload, I added comments that I am new to uploading copyrighted art-works under Fair Use to Commons. Sadly, the file was soon deleted anyway.

My question is, could anyone guide me trough how to correctly upload this file onto Commons so it could be displayed in the infobox of the article The Primal Wound ? Thank you Amin (Talk) 16:04, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Update A minute after I posted this, a user on Commons told me Fair use was not allowed on Commons, but is sometimes allowed on English Wikipedia. I have since re-uploaded it there. I still believe I made errors, so any help to save the file from deletion and teach me how to do it correctly is still welcomed. Amin (Talk) 16:19, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome to the teahouse! Thanks for coming! Could you please put a link to where you uploaded the file? Thanks, DoABarrelRoll.dev(Constable of the WikiPolice)(Chat!) 17:57, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

@DoABarrelRoll.dev: Thanks for your reply Barrel, my second upload has since been delete too by now, so I cannot link it. They waste no time over it LOL. It would be glad to learn how to upload a book cover within the rules. Amin (Talk) 18:11, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

@Amin: Use the Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard. It asks you a couple of questions concerning the most common fair use cases on Wikipedia, including book covers, and produces an upload with a valid fair use rationale. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:59, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

@Finnusertop: Thank you so much. I had no idea about this page's existence. I see it is also linked in the menu on the left. I uploaded the file and selected the right options. I think I did it correctly. Amin (Talk) 15:41, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

background/notable work

how do i add background/notable work on my page?NickQuested (talk) 18:05, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi, And welcome to the teahouse! Could you explain which page you are talking about? Thanks, DoABarrelRoll.dev(Constable of the WikiPolice)(Chat!) 18:33, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hello, NickQuested and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia. I suppose that you refer to Draft:Nick Quested (which I moved from its former location at Nick quested). I moved it because this was far from ready for the main article space, and it would almost surely have been deleted soon if I had not moved it. Wikipedia articles must be neutral, not promotional: phrases such as has built one of the premiere documentary brands in the world and working with world renowned artists are not acceptable. Wikipedias articles must be based on independent, professionally published, reliable sources which should be cited in the article. Please see Wikipedia's Golden Rule, Your First Article, and our guideline on autobiographies and on conflict of interest.

Please note that it isn't your page, it is an article about you. See WP:OWN. You have no more rights to control an article about you than anyone else in the world -- in fact somewhat less than anyone else.

In draft mode you can work on this article, along with other editors, until you request that an experienced editor review it for a possible move back to the main article space. Please ask for help with any aspects of editing or Wikipedia's policies and guidelines that you have problems with. DES ^(talk) 18:44, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

DoABarrelRoll.dev, a quick look at a user's contributions will often answer the 'which article" question. NickQuested, it is very helpful to include a wiki-link when asking about an article on the Teahouse or any other help page. DES ^(talk) 18:46, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

@NickQuested: You can't, except in draft space along with other, disinterested editors, as DESiegel has said. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (often abbreviated WP:COI). Briefly and simplistically, no one may write about themself. --Thnidu (talk) 00:42, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Actually, Thnidu, while writing about oneself is discouraged, as per our guideline on autobiography, it is not forbidden. NickQuested, any statements you add should be supported by citations to reliable sources, and should be relevant to the reason for the subject's notability. Large amounts of trivia are not acceptable in a Wikipedia article, although that is something of a judgement call. In no way should any page attempt to promote you or your work, or any cause, or indeed anything at all. The only opinions expressed should be those of named and cited individuals or entities, preferably with a direct quotation.

Image

I tried to add an image to the page entitled "Little Bear Fire", but nothing happened. Is there a waiting period or something? Thanks. Klien 21:57, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

There's no waiting period, edits take effect immediately. But no-one has changed the Little Bear Fire article for more than eight months. Maproom (talk) 22:33, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

@Wilfred Klein: Please remove the checkmark from "Treat the above as wiki markup" at Special:Preferences. It causes your signature to be invalid. commons:Special:Contributions/Wilfred Klein shows you have uploaded two images today but Special:Contributions/Wilfred Klein shows no addition of the images to any articles. Uploading a file and adding it to a page are separate actions. You did add one of them to User:Wilfred Klein/sandbox.s PrimeHunter (talk) 23:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

about article or page name.

how can i redirect two or more alternative names to the same page?Sebak.biswas.me (talk) 22:34, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Sebak.biswas.me. You create a redirect for each of the plausible alternate names. Please read Wikipedia:Redirect for complete instructions. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:45, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

@Sebak.biswas.me: Read Help:Redirect. --Thnidu (talk) 00:45, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

To published my wikipedia

Good morning,

I would like to ask you to help me how to make my page in public

one of you asked me the other day if i received e-mail from you I havent got any e-mail

thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pipiet Fardiman (talk • contribs)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Pipiet Fardiman. It appears that you are writing an autobiography on your user page. Your user page is to present information about you as a Wikipedia editor, not to draft an encyclopedia article. Please read WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY which explains that writing an article about yourself is highly discouraged on Wikipedia. When I do a Google search on you, I see a lot of YouTube videos and social media presence, but I do not see significant coverage of you in reliable sources like books, magazines and newspapers. I suggest that you read and study Your first article, which should give you a better understanding of what is required for a Wikipedia article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:20, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

As far as e-mail is concerned, it doesn't look as if you have enabled receiving email from other users at Special:Preferences. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:06, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

How to deconflict controversial viewes?

I hold myself to high standards. If there is a page to be improved, I will propose the changes on talk pages only. If there is a tacit agreement – I will update the article accordingly. If there is a need to write an entirely new page - how to invite other editors to review the newly proposed article?

I will also stick to the science. The peer-review (scientific method) ensures that subjective elements are eliminated. With this, the changes are lot less controversial.

However, from my experiences as IT consultant, others do not always stick to the high standards. There will always be subjective opinions contrary to the scientific method. This is a possible cause of a conflict.

My question is: How to deconflict conflicting views at Wikipedia? Damir Ibrisimovic (talk) 00:10, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Damir Ibrisimovic. An acceptable Wikipedia article summarizes what reliable published sources have said about the topic. If there are a range of views in the sources, then the article should describe them all, and should be written from the neutral point of view. No Wikipedia article should advocate a specific point of view. The first place to resolve disagreements is the article's talk page. If that is not successful, we have several established forms of dispute resolution. If you want a draft article to be reviewed before becoming an encyclopedia article, use the optional Articles for Creation process.

Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:32, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Cullen. Enjoy the day, Damir Ibrisimovic (talk) 01:21, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Ombox

I keep seeing subpages with the subtitle "ombox". What is an "ombox"? There's no page about it in WP: or Help: space (and there bloody well should be one for every piece of Wikipedia jargon). Please {{Ping}} me to discuss. --Thnidu (talk) 00:50, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

@Thnidu: WP:OMBOX redirects to Template:Ombox. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:19, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: Oh, dear. I was searching on my smartphone, and I must have accidentally mistyped or something. Thank you, and I'm sorry for bothering you for something that was right there. --Thnidu (talk) 01:50, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Infobox creation

I want to create a infobox for Narada sting operation.Please Help.FORCE RADICAL (talk) 06:26, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Forceradical. Not everything is well suited for an infobox but you could use Template:Infobox event. Read the documentation there and come back if you have problems. Note you can only use parameter names which are already defined by a template. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:11, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Edit in Infobox

How can I add a new field in infobox? Rasanath7 (talk) 06:30, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Rasanath7, welcome to the Teahouse. Which field in which infobox? Each type of infobox has a template page defining which parameters can be used, e.g. Template:Infobox organization. If you have [6] in mind then it doesn't have an app parameter and getting consensus to add one is unlikely. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:44, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Its infobox Organization and actually I want to add a field 'app' to that infobox and I want to mention a link. plz direct me.

182.58.37.75 (talk) 13:39, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Help

Dennis Sumrak (talk) 09:19, 5 June 2017 (UTC)I've accidentally made a mess of the article entitled "little Bear Fire". Can you pleas clean it up for me how? I just meant to add an image, but obviously I have forgotten how. I am very sorry. Maybe you could direct me to a tutorial that wi refresh my memory . Dennis Sumrak (talk) 09:19, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Wilfred Klein

Changes to Little Bear Fire undone, as requested (special:diff/783897757).

You may want to see e.g. Help:Viewing media, Help:Files and Wikipedia:Extended image syntax. --CiaPan (talk) 09:46, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

@Wilfred Klein: Another time you can click the "View history" tab and then "undo" to revert your edit. Please don't post an email address. Your broken edit said "File:From Hull Road". commons:Special:Contributions/Wilfred Klein shows no file with a similar name so I don't know which file you were trying to add. We have millions of files stored in the same place away from articles using them so in the future, please choose file names which make sense without knowing an article, e.g "Little Bear Fire seen from Mecham Road.jpg" instead of "From Mecham Road.jpg". The file name is not displayed to readers when the file is used but each use can write a caption independent of the file name. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:01, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Editing help required

Dear all, I am new to Wikipedia and would truly appreciate your help in getting commented issues on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angela_Sommerhoff resolved. There are in particular two comments I am struggling with most are: 1. "This article contains content that is written like an advertisement. and 2. "This article is an orphan, as no other articles link to it". Are there volunteers that would help me to edit the article properly? Thanks in advance! Artmessenger (talk) 09:21, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Artmessenger. The orphan tag is easy to fix - do a search for the article title with a single tilde (~) in front; this will bring up a list of all articles that mention Angela Sommerhoff (there's actually only one, List of painters by name beginning with "S". Go to that article, find Sommerhoff's name, and enclose it in double square brackets to create a link. Really, you need at least two or three incoming links to merit removal of the orphan tag, so you may want to add her name to any articles where she might be relevant.

The advertising issues can be dealt with by copyediting; it looks like a major rewrite would be required. You simply can't have language like Angela Sommerhoff strives to capture the beauty of a thought or she is in great demand for remittance work in an encyclopedia. Most of the article is also unsourced, and this also needs to be addressed. There are also a lot of inappropriate external links that need to be removed. Yunshui ^雲_水 09:58, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Artmessenger. It is unfortunate that, like many people, you have begun your time as a Wikipedia editor by trying one of the most difficult activities: creating a new article, without understanding how Wikipedia's policies work. Please read your first article, and referencing for beginners. Starting at the beginning of the "Early life and education section", we read that "Angela was born as the third out of seven children". That is a factual statement, and is OK, provided a published source is given. But "Her mother ... and father ... put a lot of emphasis on the broad cultural education of their children". That is an evaluative claim, and does not belong in a Wikipedia article unless it is directly cited to a reliably published source, independent of Sommerhoff. And similarly the following sentences.

The thing that new editors often don't realise is that Wikipedia is not interested in what you know or think, or what I know or think; and it is certainly not interested in what the subject of an article (or their friends or associates) says or wants to say. It is only interested in what reliably published sources wholly independent of the subject have said about them. An article should summarise (without plagiarising) those sources, and little else. It certainly should not contain any evaluative or speculative material beyond those sources.

I hope you don't get disillusioned by this reply, or your experience with that article: you are very welcome to contribute to Wikipedia. But you need to understand how Wikipedia works first. --ColinFine (talk) 10:16, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Clean start

Nearly two or three years ago, I used accounts to edit Wikipedia. I initially used one account, but I made disruptive edits in good faith. Then I had a clean start under a new name with less disruptive editing. However, there were still some serious embarrassments. I then drastically decreased my activity level, editing as an ip (without disruption) sporadically. Both old accounts are fully abandoned. Is this reasonable under Wikipedia:Sock puppetry and Wikipedia:Clean start? Should I create a new account to restart for the second time? Thanks. 211.100.57.204 (talk) 10:31, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, IP editor using an address ending in ...204, and Welcome to the Teahouse. It is perfectly acceptable to edit while not logging in, i.e. to use an IP address as your user name, provided that you do not also use your old accounts to edit the same topics, or otherwise edit deceptively. You could think of it as a second clean start, and all the same rules and principles described at Wikipedia:Clean start apply. This is, of course, assuming that you were not under any actual sanctions (as opposed to loss of reputation).

You are in no way required to create and use a new account. However, as you should know, there are some benefits to using an account, including: a useful user talk page, user sub-pages and sandboxes, increased privacy, a watchlist, , the ability to receive notifications, and the ability to build positive reputation. If you therefore choose to edit from an account, you may create and use one if you choose. I would urge you to follow all the advice at Wikipedia:Clean start, and very carefully stay clear of any disruptive editing. DES ^(talk) 12:47, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I have another related question. Wikipedia:Clean start requests one to use {{retired}} in order to indicate inactive accounts. Is this necessary if the account is inactive for the long period of time stated above? (please note that the new IP address in the signature might be different due to address changes) 211.100.57.204 (talk) 09:16, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

World Cafe

Hi DGG and Justlettersandnumbers - you commented recently on a message I posted on the World Café article. The thread of the post seems to have disappeared. It may have been archived because the request appeared to have been answered. However, I didn't see a response to my last message in the thread and wondered if you might give some thought to the points I made?

Essentially, I was saying that, as it stands, the article doesn’t really give an understanding of how World Café events actually work and how they differ from other types of group activity. I thought it would be useful to include an explanation of this.

Additionally, while the older version of the article indicated the range of organisations that have used World Café events, both in terms of type and geographical location, this is missing from the article as it now stands. I made the point that this underlines the notability of the article and so may be worth including. What do you think? Fbell74 (talk) 11:12, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

The thread is archived at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 621#Request: World Cafe. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:35, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Fbell74. I haven't been to look at the earlier discussion, or the article. But just reacting to what you've said above: If an independent reliable source has discussed how the events differ from other kinds of group activity, then it may be appropraite for the article to summarise what this source has said. If not, then such a discussion does not belong in the article, as it would be original research. Secondly, notability is defined very precisely in Wikipedia's terms, and the number of customers (or fans, or associates, or whatever) does not figure in it. In most cases, a selective list of significant customers or partners is more appropriate than an exhaustive list. --ColinFine (talk) 13:02, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Added a ping link. CiaPan (talk) 13:16, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

... but of course the ping link won't ping as it wasn't added in the same edit as the signature. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:11, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

You have once again failed to declare your WP:PAID relationship to this topic while discussing it, Fbell74. Why exactly is that? Just as before, declaration is obligatory, not optional.

I assume that you have by now looked at DGG's clear and detailed reply to your previous post. It seems to deal with all your concerns.

As for what I think … well, I think that paid editors should stick rigorously to the conditions under which their presence here is – for reasons that I am quite incapable of understanding – tolerated. And I think that someone, or perhaps a small army, needs to go into John Travis (physician) with heavy equipment. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:54, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks David Biddulph for pointing out the link to the previous thread. I can see the detailed response left by DGG to my other post, which addressed the points I had made before.

ColinFine There are independent reliable sources that were included in the previous version of the article, which describe the World Café method. These tend to focus on the latter rather than discussing several kinds of group activity, so they don’t necessarily make comparisons between the different types. Do you think they would still be worth using? DGG picked up the point about not including a long list of customers and suggested inputting references instead. That’s probably a better way to go, maybe mentioning types (e.g. local government, oil companies).

Justlettersandnumbers - apologies, I had previously indicated in the article that I was a paid contributor, but didn’t repeat this in the Teahouse posts. Hopefully this will rectify that. Fbell74 (talk) 16:29, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I have to know what is meant by the template"Use dmy dates"?

I have noticed this template in almost every articles if I try to edit.I can't understand about it whether it is used to update or not?Abishe (talk) 12:02, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Abishe. It means that when adding dates to the article (in the text or in references, for example) should be in the "5 June 2017" format, rather than other possibilities such as "June 5, 2017". Cordless Larry (talk) 12:05, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

It is explained at Template:Use dmy dates. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:07, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

infobox not rendering properly

Hi fellow Wikians,

The info box of the following article isn't displaying properly on the page. Please help.

Link: Id fresh foods
Theaphorist (talk) 12:11, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

 Fixed

@Theaphorist: It was an unbalanced pair of double square brackets on a wikilink. See Special:Diff/783914510. --CiaPan (talk) 12:17, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

regarding Yehuda Yannay

This article includes a list of references, related reading or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks inline citations. Please help to improve this article by introducing more precise citations. (April 2016) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

Does this relate only to the REFERENCES paragraph? Give me one example what is it meant when you read my descriptive texts How doe you correct and remove this heading 174.103.164.28 (talk) 13:32, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that the reference section is just a list of books with no indication of which pieces of information can be found where. Wikipedia prefers in-line references which give the book, chapter and page for each fact stated in the article. See WP:Referencing for beginners or any good article for examples. The subject's own books are not independent sources, but might be appropriate for certain statements. Dbfirs 13:40, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, IP Editor. Dbfirs is quite correct. In general, after each statement that has a supporting source, use <ref>...</ref> tags. Inside the ref tags, place the source citation, which, for a book, should give, author, title and page number, and if available, the publication year and the ISBN. You can format this manually, or use {{cite book}}. Do read WP:Referencing for beginners for more details. DES ^(talk) 14:16, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Once the problem is fixed, any editor can remove the template at the top of the page that generates the warning note. DES ^(talk) 14:18, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

is Wikipedia considered as a social media?

Wikipedia is an inforation business,although Wikipedia is considered as social media by some sources,Wikipedia is actually about information sharing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 43.250.241.7 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for the question. Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia. It is emphatically not a social media site. Yunshui ^雲_水 14:57, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Where should I seek help drafting a new page?

I'm writing a page for keybase (self: edit this to have a link) in my sandbox (self: see previous note). Where should I go to get help making the draft as best as it can be before submitting for review?

Also, in Nthep's picture, is Nthep the cat or the man?

AManNamedEdwan (talk) 15:40, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, AManNamedEdwan, and welcome to the Teahouse. The first question is, are you affiliated with keybase in any way? if you are, you should declare that, on your user page or elsewhere. If you are, are you being paid or compensated in any way for making this page, or are you doing it as part of your employment, even if not receiving separate pay for it? If you are, you must disclose that as specified at WP:PAID.

The next question is Notability. I notice that half of the sources in your current sandbox draft are from keybase itself. The remaining sources look good, but several addition independent professionally published reliable sources would help a lot. You already seem to have citation format down, which is more than many new editors managed at this stage. But remember that all quotes must be explicitly attributed to a person or an entity (such as a business) and must be directly cited toi a source that contains the quote. See WP:QUOTE. DES ^(talk) 18:24, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

The first question is, are you affiliated with keybase in any way? Nope. (Honestly have no idea how you got to that conclusion.)
I'm aware of the issues with sources from keybase itself, which is something I was worrying about from the beginning. I'll try to find more sources that aren't just docs from keybase itself. Unfortunately, it's only recently that it has begun to really show up in independent sources, and even then only as small summaries.
As far as the quote goes, it's from a previous version of the Keybase homepage which has since been replaced by an announcement of a new feature (which in this case, is incredibly annoying). I may just remove it and replace with something else.
Thanks for your advice. AManNamedEdwan (talk) 20:41, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

You might be able to find the old version of the page using https://archive.org/, AManNamedEdwan. Your priority should be to find coverage in independent sources, though, otherwise there is a risk that the article will be nominated for deletion when it goes live, for not demonstrating that the subject meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:50, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I have seen the quote on an archived version of the page, but I'd like to find it just about anywhere else first (ie. an independent source.) I've found a similar bit of language here, but it looks like that would be a quote of a quote which is probably just as bad. I'll keep digging, or write something similar to what lives at the top of Reddit. AManNamedEdwan (talk) 21:05, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Welcome, AManNamedEdwan. Nthep is the cat, I believe. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:22, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

oh AManNamedEdwan (talk) 20:41, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi again AManNamedEdwan, You wrote: Nope. (Honestly have no idea how you got to that conclusion.) So many times when a relatively new editor writes an article about a business, largely sourced from the business's own website, the editor turns out to be the owner or an employee. This happens often enough that asking about it is pretty routine.

You wrote Unfortunately, it's only recently that it has begun to really show up in independent sources, and even then only as small summaries. Unfortunately, that does not bode well for notability. Something that is new, and has received scant coverage from independent reliable sources is often not ready for a Wikipedia article. But sometimes it is. Personally, the subject sounds interesting, and i hope it proves notable.

If you have further questions, or need help with Wikipedia's many technical aspects, or with its various and sundry conventions and policies, please feel free to ask here again, or to use {{help me}}. DES ^(talk) 00:23, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice/information. I'll see what I can do as far as sandboxed drafting goes, and hopefully will get it into the main list someday. Notability by sources is indeed proving difficult, but with time that may (hopefully) change. Or it won't. Either way, a fun exercise in learning MediaWiki's language.
Thanks for the help, AManNamedEdwan (talk) 01:28, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

yayt

how do you put pictures on your new page?Banme101 (talk) 16:13, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Banme101. Unfortunately images are not always easy to handle on Wikipedia, because of the complexities of copyright. Another experienced editor has written an essay which may help you: User:Yunshui/Images for beginners.

I see that you haven't yet created any pages: that is also a difficult operation, and I recommend you read Your first article carefully before you try it. (If you were talking about your user page, I suggest you have a look at WP:UPYES and WP:UPNO before you start). --ColinFine (talk) 19:16, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, .Banme101. In order to give you any competent advice about adding a specific picture, we must know some very detailed information about the photo. I am assuming that the image is a photo. What does the photo show? Who took the photo? When was it taken? When and where was it first published? Did you take the photo itself? What is the copyright status of the photo? Where did you find the photo? Where do you intend to use the photo on Wikipedia? These questions may seem overly detailed but we take copyright status very seriously on Wikipedia, and this is how we evaluate an image. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:11, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Creating a page

I'm trying to create a Wikipedia page for Allied Beverage Group and I'm having issues in creating a page that complies with Wikipedia rules. Here is the template < redacted pointless copying of user talk page > Mblahut33 (talk) 16:31, 5 June 2017 (UTC) (Mblahut33 (talk) 16:28, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. There is no point in repeating back to us the advice which you have been given on your user talk page, so I have deleted that part of your question. Have you read the messages, and have you followed the wikilinks from the words in blue to pages which give more detail? Which parts of the advice are you struggling to understand? --David Biddulph (talk) 17:25, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Can I change the title of an article?

The spelling of the name Hussein Barghouti, which is also the title of the article, is correctly spelled Barghouthi. I was wondering if it's possible to change it or re-create the article with the correct spelling. Please help. AtharZeer (talk) 16:33, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done Maproom (talk) 16:38, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Pictures in info boxes

Vinnylospo (talk) 18:39, 5 June 2017 (UTC) Hi, I'm newer to wikipedia and I am wondering how to add the team wordmarks on sports rivalry pages. More specifically, far first and so far only page I made, the cowboys-packers rivalry. I also want to know how to add an image above the wordmarks similar to how it was done on the bears-vikings rivalry. Can you please help? Thanks, please respond back. -Vin Vinnylospo (talk) 18:39, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

@Vinnylospo If you look at your article, you'll see this text up at the top:

| team1logo       = 
| team2logo       = 

What you need to do is paste the wordmarks for the teams into those slots, like this:

| team1logo       = File:Dallas Cowboys Wordmark.png
| team2logo       = File:Green Bay Packers green wordmark.png
 

Let me know if you need any more help. Great first article so far! Margalob (talk) 20:25, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi I'm Braden

Hi I'm Braden can you be my friend we can play infinite warfare and slouch people. We can also make a family friendly YouTube video. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Familyfriendlybraden (talk • contribs)

Hello, Familyfriendlybraden. I'm afraid you've come to the wrong place to ask this. This is a help facility for editing Wikipedia, not for any other kind of activities. You are very welcome to get involved with editing Wikipedia, but please keep social activities, game playing, and making videos, to other sites. --ColinFine (talk) 22:34, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

@ColinFine: Hi Colin, when something like this happens, does the post get removed? Checks Facts _{will happily talk} 01:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Checks_Facts. Normally, we only remove a post if it includes things like gross personal attacks on other people, obviously obscene language without any intent to improve the encyclopedia, or complete gibberish. Otherwise, we leave posts intact, since someone may learn something from them. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Own page

How Do I Create My Page — Preceding unsigned comment added by BBFAN222 (talk • contribs)

Hello, BBFAN222. If you mean, how can your create your user page, to tell people a little bit about yourself as a Wikipedia editor, please see Help:User page. If you mean that you want to create an article about yourself, the answer is please don't: you will cause grief and hassle for yourself and others if you try it. Creating a new article is one of the harder tasks on Wikipedia anyway, and autobiography is strongly discouraged. Wikipedia isn't for telling the world about things, (whether people, organisations, bands, concepts or anything else): Wikipedia is for summarising what reliable sources have already publshed about a subject. --ColinFine (talk) 22:39, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

GOING AROUND IN CIRCLES

AT THE BEGINNING OF THE 2ND MISSION OF THE WIKI ADVENTURE I AM NOT ABLE TO RESPOND, THE DIRECTIONS KEEP REPEATING. CAN YOU HELP ME? Jean-ramon (talk) 23:25, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

...I'm by no means an experienced editor or host, but I'm pretty sure this isn't what belongs here. AManNamedEdwan (talk) 00:26, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

AManNamedEdwan, The Wikipedia Adventure is a training script on how to use Wikipedia, very lightly covered as a sort of video game or interactive story. It is suggested to many new users in {{welcome}}. A question about how to proceed through it is very much on topic here. I would make a substantive reply, but I am not really knowledgeable about the "adventure", beyond knowing what it is. DES ^(talk) 00:35, 6 June 2017 (UTC) It can be found at Wikipedia:The_Wikipedia_Adventure if you are interested. DES ^(talk) 00:37, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Ah. Well, you learn something new every day I guess (or a few somethings!) Sorry for that uninformed response Jean-ramon. AManNamedEdwan (talk) 00:57, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I am trying to help!
After looking at Wikipedia:The_Wikipedia_Adventure, I think I see what you're doing but the issue you're having is unclear. Could you elaborate a bit more? AManNamedEdwan (talk) 01:02, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

addition of photos/graphics

Nice to meet everyone. As someone new to Wikipedia, I am wondering about the importance of images. How important, to what extent do graphics play a part in my article? thanks!Kirschnik (talk) 07:12, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello Kirschnik, and welcome to Wikipedia. I'm wondering what you mean by "my article": Wikipedia articles don't belong to people. Incidentally, I see that the only article you have edited is Sam Spiegel Film and Television School, and in one of your edits, you removed two paragraphs, including five references. I assume that this was an accident, and I've restored the article to the state it was in before the removal. Maproom (talk) 08:59, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks so much.

I guess the terminology is still new to me - but that is true, I did take out two paragraphs and replaced them with updates that more accurately reflect the current state of the Sam Spiegel Film School. How do I make sure that the new paragraphs are updated? Instead of those previously there? Kirschnik (talk) 09:34, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Kirschnik. To answer your actual question: images are a good thing to make articles more attractive, and sometimes to help understanding. But they are not usually essential - which is just as well, because copyright restrictions often mean that there is no image available that can reasonably illustrate an article. Always concentrate on getting good references and a neutral tone before worrying about images. If you want to start working with images, User:Yunshui/Images for beginners is a good place to start. --ColinFine (talk) 10:11, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Kirschnik: you deleted two paragraphs, with the edit summary "added chair of the board as well as a list of award winning graduates along with their films". That misleading edit summary makes your action look suspicious. If you want to remove those paragraphs, you should first explain on the article's talk page why you think the information in them is false or irrelevant, and why the references in them should not be trusted. If you want to add new material, you should include references to independent sources. I see that you have admitted to being a paid editor: please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. I now understand what you meant by "my article". That article is not yours, it is WIkipedia's. Maproom (talk) 10:57, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

How to add Infobox?

I want to ask how to add Infoboxes to wikipedia articles. I use mobile phone for editing articles. I want to discover how to add Infoboxes to wikipedia articles by editing articles?

Sinner (talk) 07:53, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Sinner. I have little experience in editing on my mobile, so I can't speak to that. In general, the way I would go about adding an infobox to an article is to find an article on a similar subject, Edit Source on that article, and copy the whole infobox (from "{{infobox ... " to "}}") into the new article, and then edit the parameters as appropriate. --ColinFine (talk) 10:15, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Permission needed !

The article Moon was last edited by me featuring that the Earth might have 2 moons, not 1. But user Tomruen has redone my paragraph along with another reference. So I just want to know that can I delete his parafraph of Moon and make it as mine. But if I make it as mine, will it be deleted. This time a got a perfect reliable source. So just check it that it is a perfect reliable source. Sorry, I can't put the reference because some unwanted things like 20%. Because of this, it won't open the page and my article get deleted. So please teach me to get rid of some unwanted thing which are there in my referenceBadri Vishal and Mansi Krishna (talk) 10:22, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/K. Badri Vishal. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:32, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

User has been blocked indefinitely; see the user page and contributions listing. --CiaPan (talk) 11:51, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Question re: the latest feedback on my article

Hello, I recently go the following feedback on my article in Wiki and I don't know what it means. Could you please help?

"Needs to be rewritten entirely now that copyvio has been removed."

I don't know what a copyvio is. RLowery (talk) 14:02, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Hey RLowery. Copyvio is shorthand for copyright violation, which usually means that significant portions of the text were copy/pasted from another copyrighted source, or was closely enough paraphrased that it wouldn't legally constitute an original work. On Wikipedia, we shouldn't be going beyond the information in the sources, since that would be original research, but we also have to rephrase that information so that the presentation is "our own". TimothyJosephWood 14:15, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

How do I know if what im posting is appropoiate content ?

Hi editors, first time attempting to contribute-

How do I know if my content is appropriate to post? eg. If I did a post like "Things to do in Cape Town, South Africa", or would I have to refine the topic more? Editorguy 919 (talk) 16:11, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

how to get book jacket cover to use in Wiki

How do I get a book jacket cover to use in Wiki article?MoondawgII (talk) 16:28, 6 June 2017 (UTC)