Wikipedia:Teahouse: Difference between revisions

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

Read the newest questions
Skip to bottom

Most recent archives
1208, 1209, 1210, 1211, 1212, 1213, 1214, 1215, 1216, 1217, 1218, 1219, 1220, 1221, 1222, 1223, 1224, 1225, 1226, 1227

Page title capitalisation?

Hi, what I can do to capitalise the title of this page in the correct way? The page url is captialised not sure why that's not reflected in the title. Roots Picnic thanks MassiveEartha (talk) 18:14, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, MassiveEartha. I remove the template that rendered the title in lower case. That was the first line of the wikicode. The sources use upper case, so I have no idea why someone decided to add that template. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:38, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen328 ah ha! I completely missed that. many thanks MassiveEartha (talk)

Calling all Wiki Experts

Hello Wiki friends, i'm new to Wiki (created an account) but i have used Wiki my entire college career and in almost everyday life. I am interning at well respected philanthropy organization and we want our research, and knowledge to be available to everyone, and if anyone wants to explore more of what we do we want to be able to give them that bridge to help continue the expansion of knowledge and education. with that being said what better place to see what we have done and what we will do to help improve health and quality of life than here, on Wikipedia. We want to bring sound science and credible peer reviewed journals to our page however i know it is frowned upon within the community for us to do it our selves. So my question is what approach is best if we want to get our grant funded research onto wikipedia and still follow the rules of wikipedia and not be self serving. We want people to be able to easily access the information we have and see firsthand what we have done. Any information and tips would be great!

thank you everyone! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaP87 (talk • contribs) 17:05, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, DaP87. You have to be a little more specific about what is it that you want to do. Do you want to

Edit the Wikipedia article about the philanthropy organization (which organization is it, by the way?)
Use materials produced by the organization to improve our articles on health and quality of life issues?
Make such materials available so that we can edit such articles?

We'll be able to help better if you answer this. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:29, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome, and such collaborations are often successful. WP:GLAM handles many, and if their work is not relevant to your org, then one of the topical WP:Wikiprojects or a local WP:Chapter might be. We might steer you better if you used your WP:User Page to tell us more about you and your organization. I have often done such things through my local Chapter. Jim.henderson (talk) 18:29, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Finnusertop, thank you for getting back to me so quickly, our organization is the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and we want to use materials produced by us to improve articles and to help keep this information open access for any to locate and read, we are looking at Wiki data and export the information we have such as statistics and what not. Any more advice would be greatly appreciated thank you. DaP87 (talk) 12:16, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:DaP87 okay so the articles are produced by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Are the articles about medicine and health care?

Can you provide an example of one of the articles you are proposing be used? Are the articles already released under an open license (CC BY SA) and the underlying data under a CC-0 license?

Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:07, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:DaP87 Sounds like a great project. To clarify, are you hoping to embed information from existing biomedical journals articles written by authors that were funded by RWJF? For example, "Complexity of the Relationships of Pain, Posttraumatic Stress, and Depression in Combat-Injured Populations: An Integrative Review to Inform Evidence-Based Practice." was recently published and funded by RWJF. If yes, I've been discussing a similar initiative with a different funding group and would be happy to chat.

Lauren maggio (talk) 23:12, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

user: Lauren maggio yes pretty much, now most of the information we have from published journals do not have us anywhere mentioned in the paper, again we want to keep the neutral POV on Wikipedia, but the journals we have funded we feel have information that can be used for the public good and we are looking for a pipeline from our research department to Wikipedia. Here are the topics that people are finding to be interested on wiki (track pages) here is all the information we have on it. here is an example of a research journal that we funded and the data is collected [Meal Deliveries |https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/full/10.1377/hlthaff.2017.0999] I appreciate the feedback if this is valuable to the Wiki community and if it falls within the guidelines. i also want to clarify that no one at the foundation will be editing any page directly. Again thank you for your feedback. DaP87 (talk) 15:11, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Signature condensing

My signature is quite long. Is there a way for me to condense the code while retaining the look of it? Nixinova T C 04:30, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

<span style="background: #0800aa; padding: 2px;"> '''[[User:Nixinova|<span style="color: white;">Nixinova</span>]]''' </span><span style="background: #006eff; padding: 2px;"> '''[[User talk:Nixinova|<span style="color: white;">T</span>]]''' </span><span style="background: #00bbff; padding: 2px;"> '''[[Special:Contributions/Nixinova|<span style="color: white;">C</span>]] '''</span>

Here's a close approximation. It's 240 characters and should fit. You'll lose the link to your main user page, but you don't really need that when you have links to your talk and contribution pages still intact.

'''<span style="color:#fff;background:#00a;padding:3px">Nixinova</span>[[User talk:Nixinova|<span style="color:#fff;background:#07f;padding:3px">T]][[Special:Contributions/Nixinova|<span style="background:#0bf;padding:3px;color:#fff">C]]'''

You'll have to substitute your signature because the above example won't go in the signature area in your preferences. It should be said that this is strongly discouraged due to the risk of tampering with your signature (See WP:SIG#NT.) If you choose to do this, create a page with the title something like User:Nixinova/sig then place only the signature there and save it. Then in your signature space in preferences, put {{subst:User:Nixinova/sig}} or whichever the page is named and click save. Your signature should appear. Make sure you place the signature page on your watchlist if you choose to do this, and monitor it closely. Other editors may have better suggestions than this.

spintendo 08:17, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nixinova and Spintendo:Please note that using substitution to insert a signature longer than the length limits imposed on the Preferences page is not allowed: WP:SIGLEN. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:31, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Help

Hello. I am new and have been busy fixing spelling mistakes. I want to do more editing by helping fix broken links or references. I have tried to figure out how to do this, but I'm really confused. Is there a visual tutorial on how to do this, instead of just a written explanation? Thanks.CalliopeMuse (talk) 05:05, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@CalliopeMuse: Do you mean that you want to FIND articles with broken links or references faster or FIX broken links or references in a more convenient way? ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 05:55, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Both I guess. I just really don't know how to fix the links. I find the instructions to be very confusing.CalliopeMuse (talk) 05:21, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Review process takes roughly 7 weeks?!

Hi, I've been an IP user for some time and know how to edit an article quite well. I signed up here finally with this boring nickname since I wanted to write an article myself. It's now in the "draft" section. Yesterday, the box read "Review waiting. This may take 3 weeks or more. Please be patient. Drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 1040 pending submissions waiting for review." Today, it changed to currently 7 (SEVEN) weeks. Give me a break, what a crap system! Highly frustrating if you invested many hours to write an arcticle and you can't see it published as quick as possible like in other language versions of Wikipedia other than English. According to the statistics, there are 1040 articles pending for only this small number of reviewers. My question: Is there a trick for a fast lane? If not, has anyone ever thought about changing this obviously not working procedure? We would need HUNDREDS of new reviewers to cope with 1040 article dafts, wouldn't we? I'm sorry but I find it very hard to be patient. Thanks for listening! Love and have a great weekend, NorthAmericany (talk) 16:10, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, NorthAmericany. I just moved your draft to main space. You can find it at EAGLES Academy. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:27, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh that's so kind, thank you! Is there anything I can do to improve the review system in order to help other new authors? If so, let me know. Best, NorthAmericany (talk) 16:29, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing is done by volunteer editors. The more volunteers, the faster the process. If you think that you have enough experience to review, do so. David notMD (talk) 17:23, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think David notMD may not be current on the policies for Articles for creation, NorthAmericany. Although technically no one is forbbiden from reviewing AfC submissions, a script is required to handle the templates involved, and to be able to use that, you must be approved. The minimum qualification is 500 mainspace edits, but the folks who handle the approvals generally want to see some indication you have a firm grasp on notability, promotion and copyright. This is generally evidenced by article creation and or participation at Articles for Discussion (which is the primary article deletion process). Your article is solid as far as those things go, so, once you've edited more with an account, you may wish to apply. AfC is frequently backlogged. That kind of problem is not uncommon in any organization that is staffed entirely by volunteers. As one of the coordinators of WikiProject Schools, I wanted to thank you for filling a hole in our coverage. This is an important school. Thanks. I honestly had no idea such a thing ever existed! John from Idegon (talk) 22:17, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John from Idegon is absolutely right, David notMD: In order to become a reviewer, one has to have at least 500 edits but that is just a minimum requirement. I'm far from being an expert but after roughly 3 years of editing here and there, I acquired quite a solid knowledge of how things go although all this doesn't count. After signing up on Friday, my current status is that of a new user. In a year or so from now on, I might reach the level of being worthy for the reviewership. My point is though why do we stick to this procedure. The English language version of Wikipedia is the largest with over 1,000 admins and more or less 40,000 active editors. Why don't we change the current procedure that produces a backlog of 1040 articles that have to be reviewed by only 643 potential reviewers to a better one? Two options come to my mind. 1) Reviewer rights are being granted to all experienced editors, admins included, and if just one of those approves a new article, it can be moved from the draftspace to the mainspace. 2) Have a look at the very active German community, the second largest one amongst the Wikiversum. There, even IP users are allowed to create a new article. They then go directly live but at the same time to a "pool of new articles" where many active editors are present 24/7. If an article is suspicious to one of them, it's then marked for deletion right away and some experts have a closer look at it for the next 7 days. An admin then deletes or keeps the article based on the discussion and the casted votes. Their notability rules are way stricter than ours, by the way. Yes, they do have a backlog in the deletion pool, too. But new articles go live not after a 7-week-lasting process in the hands of a very small number of persons but more or less right away. That's an advantage, isn't it? Just my 2p. Have a good Sunday. Best, NorthAmericany (talk) 07:28, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NorthAmericany: Your first solution is how the system currently works. Any experienced editor can use the reviewing tools on request. Any autoconfirmed editor can move a draft from draftspace to mainspace. The reason we only have 643 reviewers is not because only 643 people are eligible (tens of thousands are), it's because only 643 people want to do it. You'll be able to create articles directly into mainspace in a couple of days, so it's really only a very small proportion of very new editors who have to wait weeks.

Your second system is also, in essence, the way we currently review new articles in mainspace (including those moved from draft). The only difference from dewiki being we have found that articles created by IPs and very new accounts are so overwhelmingly likely to be unsuitable that it makes more sense to ask them to go through draftspace first. For a bit of perspective, before we introduced the restriction on new editors creating articles, we had a backlog of 20,000 unreviewed pages in mainspace and about 400 in draftspace. So the current backlog of 3,000 + 1,000 is still a significant improvement overall. – Joe (talk) 09:02, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To add to what Joe said, the reason we've had to do things like create restrictions on article creation by new accounts and institute new page patrol is that Wikipedia, especially en.wiki, is being overrun by people using it for promotion. If the title of an article matches (not even necessarily exactly) a search phrase on Google, that Wikipedia article will almost always be the very first search result. This makes Wikipedia very attractive to PR agencies and SEO facilitators. I only patrol 20-40 articles a week, but even with the restrictions on new editors, I'm still nominating roughly half the articles I look at for deletion. John from Idegon (talk) 09:14, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How to correct title of a article

Is it possible to change a title that has wrong information? The page in question is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Battle_of_Loc_Ninh

The information on the page is for the 2nd battle not the 1st

The 1st battle is described by myself at this link http://mywar.homestead.com/66e.html

Monday is our 52nd anniversary it means quite a bit to those of that are still here

thanks Lee Helle — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blacklion66 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Blacklion66. Welcome to the Teahouse. Providing the reason for any name change can be clearly demonstrated (using proper, reliable sources) then, yes, any article can be renamed. This is done by a WP:MOVE process, which leaves a Redirect from the old name to the new one to avoid breaking any links that already exist to that article's original title.

Now, sir, I can see this is clearly a very personal and very important thing for you to resolve. But please don't just rush and and repeatedly change things (as you've just done) without discussing it on the relevant Talk Page first. Other editors won't appreciate your reasons, knowledge or experience, and will simple revert you - often resulting in a block (if this happens three times within 24 hours), which is the very last thing you need. So, please could I ask you first go to the Talk Page of First Battle of Loc Ninh (which says it took began on October 1967). I see there is also page called Battle of Loc Ninh (which says it took place in April 1972), so explaining what you want to do there too, and why, is clearly going to be very important. I do need to explain that Wikipedia doesn't recognise personal blogs as adequate citations, because anyone can write one. This is no disrespect to you or your experiences, but is a principle we have to adhere to right across the encyclopaedia to ensure that everything we write here can be verified. It's clearly going to confuse people if a battle that took place in 1967 is to be called the 'second battle of..', whilst the later one in 1972 is just called 'battle of..'. So you may need to provide good evidence with links in your explanation, and to do this on both pages. Does this help? Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 19:39, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Having been emailed directly by Blacklion66 with a couple of references, and in advance of tomorrow's 52nd anniversary, I have taken the following action:

Issue raised at Talk:First Battle of Loc Ninh
Hatnote added at Battle of Loc Ninh to distinguish that page
Posted a request for editor input at WikiProject Military History
Response emailed to Blacklion66, requesting a) his concerns to be raised on the relevant Talk Page rather than by private email, b) a scan or photograph of the book and journal references he has cited to me to be emailed back to me for initial assessment. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:35, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the fighting near Loc Ninh that Blacklion66 is referring to is addressed here: Operation El Paso regards Mztourist (talk) 07:16, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Query

Why does "Template:Infobox web series" redirect to "Template: Infobox podcast"? A web series is a whole different thing I assume. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 10:15, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Harshrathod50 and welcome to the Teahouse.

They are indeed somewhat different things, but the parameters we use to describe them line up so that the same code can be used for both. There's some overlap with Template:Infobox radio show as well, so a more elaborately produced web series might want to use that latter infobox template instead. Note that "web series" or "podcast" does not show up at all in the rendered infobox as seen by readers.

At some time in the future, we may find we want to have some different parameters for web series than for podcast and the two infoboxes could be split. That might be the time when someone is thankful that they used the correct infobox description when they created their article. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:56, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input. That means my assumption was correct. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 02:00, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Acceptable references

what is the criteria for reference accectptable in wikipedia ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhishekroshan44 (talk • contribs) 15:25, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Abhishekroshan44 and welcome to the Teahouse.

There is no single standard for what makes a reference "acceptable". I'd like to suggest that you start with referencing for beginners and reliable sources. The ideal references on en-wiki are: a) in English, b) online, c) free for anyone to access, d) published by organizations with a reputation for journalistic ethics and fact-checking and e) relatively recent. Every single one of those is a preference, not a requirement. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:46, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How to change a wikipedia page name

Hello ,i want to know that how to change the wikipedia page name if the first name was incorrect or mistakenly drown? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niel4466 (talk • contribs) 16:09, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Niel4466. Changing an article title is called "moving". In effect, you move the article content from one title to another. Please read WP:MOVE for details. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:54, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Signature

Hello Wikipedia users ! I have introduced myself in Wikipedia very shortly and I am very pleased to be invited to the Teahouse after such a short time... When I first uploaded the page I saw a very interesting question about signatures... What are they and how do they work?! Thnks a lot ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hocraa (talk • contribs) 16:20, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

hello Hocraa, welcome to the Teahouse. We ask that everybody always signs their postings on talk pages (but never in articles). It's very easy to do. You just type four tildes on your keyboard (like this: ~~~~) When you save your post this automatically puts in your username and a date and timestamp. This is very useful as it shows who said what, and when. Why not give it a try by replying to this post, putting in those for tildes afterwards? Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 17:17, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Further, when you forget to sign, there's a bot that usually comes along and supplies a signature, but it includes a chastising note that the comment was unsigned.

But I imagine that you wanted to know about styling your signature. For that, see WP:Signatures and your Preferences->User profile->Signature section. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:35, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Hocraa (talk) 14:19, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Creating userspace draft and cannot find a credible source for subject's death date

I'm creating a userspace draft about a racehorse (Goodbye Halo) and am having a bit of a problem with sources. Goodbye Halo is a racehorse who was exported to Japan for breeding after she finished racing. I found several English-language forum posts and an English-language article on a site that is generally not considered credible for Wikipedia purposes that state that Goodbye Halo died in Japan in 2014. Some of the posts specifically say she died August 23, 2014. Her page on Japanese Wikipedia also says she died on August 23, 2014, but the death date is not cited and I can't cite Japanese Wikipedia directly because of WP:CIRCULAR. None of these sources appear to be linked in any way.

I can't find a credible source in English confirming the death date or even that Goodbye Halo is dead at all. I'm thinking I have two options here. Number one is just to omit the death date information, but I don't want to imply that the horse is alive when the truth of that statement is obviously up in the air. It's unlikely but not unrealistic for a horse born in 1985 to still be alive in 2018. How would I do this without implying the horse is living or dead? Articles about historical horses from the 1970s and earlier that do not have confirmed death dates simply leave that information out, but in those cases the horse is obviously dead.

Option two would be to see if I could find a Japanese-speaking editor to find a source in Japanese confirming that Goodbye Halo is dead. Is there a place where I could ask for help from a bilingual editor? Google Translate can only get me so far.

Also, how would WP:SOCIALMEDIA work for articles about animals? If, say, the farm Goodbye Halo lived at posted on social media that she died, is that credible enough? Horses can't tweet about themselves, especially not if they're dead. Aspening (talk) 19:24, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Aspening and welcome to the Teahouse.

I took a look at your draft. I unbracketed your external links because they are easier to work with that way. When you're ready to turn them into external links in a more normal way, you can do that, but be sure to include a label for each one so it's not a mystery what's at the other end of the link.

One good thing you've done is assemble references before writing very much. I personally recommend leaving the infobox to a later stage in the writing, but that's somewhat a matter of taste. The data in the infobox should be reflecting data in the body of the article, where proper sourcing is required. Filling in the infobox in advance, is a bit like putting the cart before the horse, so to speak.

When you don't have a source for a death date, you simply leave it out. Nobody looking at the article is going to think you are making a positive assertion that the horse is still alive. There are circumstances where we accept social media posts as references, but it's generally discouraged.

As for finding a helpful Japanese-speaking editor, I might suggest the looking at meta:Wikimedia Embassy#J. The editors mentioned there have offered, at some point, to help respond to inter-language questions. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:28, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond Jmcgnh's advice, Aspening, strictly speaking, you're not required to give an inline cite for every assertion of fact. You're only required to cite statements that are controversial or likely to be challenged. I won't go so far as to deny there are overofficious Wikipedians who will challenge everything that moves, but the death date of a stakes horse doesn't strike me as a particularly controversial assertion. Ravenswing 05:02, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

decline

Whats the purpose of the decline of the article? How can i add our company into wikipedia? our competitors are on wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moneybrag1000 (talk • contribs) 20:01, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the article was deleted and OP has been blocked. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:17, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Twinkle

How do I get Twinkle to automatically leave a warning on a Vandal's talk Page?Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 20:18, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Twinkle/doc#Warn_(user_talk_warnings) says you go to their talk page, open Twinkle, select "Warn," and then pick the appropriate warning.

Wikipedia:Twinkle/doc#Restore_and_rollback says that if you are looking at a diff of their edit, you can click "[Vandalism]" to revert and warn them at the same time. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:24, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) :Welcome back again, Thegooduser. Assuming you already have Twinkle activated by ticking the box in the Browsing section of Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets, you should see a Tab marked 'TW' to the right of the Read, Edit source, View history tabs. This contains drop-down options, but the Warn function is only visible if you are on a user's page, or their talk page. (You also have a Wel (=welcome) option too, including a welcome for problem editors or IP editors.) You can select the warning type, and normally you would go up one step for each mal edit. Only rarely in cases of bad faith editing might one give a higher level warning straight away. You can link to the article of concern and also leave your own additional message. If you want to give it a try, feel free to give me a few different types or levels of warnings on my own talk page (but don't do it to anyone else without good reason, because you can also get warned yourself for inappropriate templating. You can leave them for yourself, too, should you be into wikimasochism! Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:36, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian.thomson: I don't think it's quite right to say that it reverts and warns at the same time. The documentation you linked to states only that it opens the Talk page of the person being reverted. Any warning has to be added by the reverting editor themselves. But I have to thank you for highlighting this, because I've never spotted that Twinkle should be opening the user's talk page when I revert vandalism. So, after investigating why this wasn't happening for me, I finally realised that I had my browser set to block all popups. So for the last 2 years I've had to open each talk page by hand. Having now added Wikipedia into the exceptions list in Chrome's Privacy setting, I'm finally getting what the documentation describes. Really chuffed! Nick Moyes (talk) 21:54, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Nick Moyes. There's a much easier way in case this comes up again. Just right click on the green padlock in the URL when you have any en.wiki page open. It will give you a list of options, one of which should be "allow popups" (Since you already fixed it the hard way, it's probably going to say "block popups" now.) Just in case you need to do it in any other site. John from Idegon (talk) 22:23, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@John from Idegon: Neat. Didn't know that - thanks. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:28, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've been using Chrome since it came out, and it's definitely my preference. According to everyone I've talked to here, it's also the one that works best with Wikimedia software. John from Idegon (talk) 22:36, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Help with a COI and non noteable entity

Hi everyone, my apologies for the question as I feel it should be easy for me to figure out how to correct the matter. I recently edited St. Theresa Catholic Secondary School notable alumni section to include a former history teacher and myself. Neither of us have our own wiki page as I don't see how we warrant one; however this retired teacher was the recipient of the Governor Generals Award for Teach Excellence in History and I have recently been awarded the Sovereign's Medal for Volunteers from the Rideau Hall acting on behalf of the Monarch of Canada.

Both entries were removed.

The former/retired teachers award can be found via multiple third party and official sources; and is in fact noted elsewhere on the page. My COI edit can be verified when the new list of the Sovereign's Medal for Volunteers recipients list is published by Rideau Hall. I can validate now via official documentation from the Chancery of Honours.

I don't understand how one Canadian to be given an award for teaching excellence, and another to receive an official Canadian honour are not considered noteable but a hockey player is.

Any help is greatly appreciated, cheers; PMatwyuk (talk) 21:18, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, PMatwyuk. There is well-established consensus among experienced editors that we only list alumni in school articles if the person already has a Wikipedia article. As for Brad Richardson, he is indisputably notable as a professional athlete who plays in the National Hockey League, and has a Wikipedia biography. Therefore, it was correct to remove the two names you added and to leave the hockey player in. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:47, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome Cullen328! Since the teacher can indisputably be noted as an award recipient from the GG and the facts presented can he be added? Would a source just need to be added? Likewise for when the proof is published for me as a sovereign medal's recipient? Articles could easily be written for each individual as well.PMatwyuk (talk) 23:58, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, PMatwyuk. If and only if these two people are notable, then the first step is to write acceptable Wikipedia articles about them. For the teacher, he must meet our notabilty guideline for academics. High school teachers almost never qualify. We have no notabilty guideline for volunteers, so you must meet our more general notabilty guideline for people. Please be extremely cautious about trying to write an autobiography, which is highly discouraged. In my opinion, what you are trying to do is not a good idea. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:56, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm trying to do Cullen328? I'm trying to ensure that a teacher who dedicated his life to teaching and won the countries highest award for it and has recently had his name submitted to have a high school named after him is listed as noteable alumni. As for the assumption of an autobiographies I don't have the time to write something and then have my employer proof read it before I can submit it. What would be added in both cases is nothing more than factual verifiable information. I'm glad to know though that it's considered to be a "..not good idea." to add information about alumni who have made actual contributions to the country and the world but it's okay to keep a professional athlete. Got it thanks. Athletes = Noteable, Award and honour receivers = Not Noteable. Makes perfect sense. PMatwyuk (talk) 02:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly right. The professional athlete has received significant coverage from multiple WP:RELIABLE sources. One honor--unless it was an Oscar, Tony, or Nobel--is not usually sufficient to establish notability. But if, as a WP:COI account, you choose to frame this as an anti-intellectual guideline, nobody here will dissuade you. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:43, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! That is helpful. PMatwyuk (talk) 13:44, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, PMatwyuk. When you write "Athletes = Noteable, Award and honour receivers = Not Noteable", you are neither accurately summarizing the guidelines nor what I wrote. Please read what I write carefully. The vast majority of amateur athletes are not notable. Those who rise to the Olympic level and also professional athletes playing at the highest league level of their sports are notable. This is because there are always published reliable independent sources about such people that can used to build an encyclopedia biography. As for awards, these can range from ribbons given at local fairs to major international awards like the Nobel prizes. What determines the notability of an award-winner is the depth of coverage of that person in reliable, independent published sources. As with athletes, most award winners are not notable. It all depends on the quality of the references. The sources are like gold here on Wikipedia. Feel free to disagree but that is how we operate. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:08, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, Cullen328. You keep referencing independent verifiable resources as if I do not have any; even though I have mentioned numerous times they exist. Why you continue to go on as if they don't is rather discouraging. You also where the one saying it is not a good idea even after I've stated such sources exist. PMatwyuk (talk) 13:31, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Simply furnish links to those sources then, PMatwyuk, so that other editors can evaluate them. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 14:59, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I already have, Cullen328, as I was able to get a more direct answer by another user in regards on how to do things. Regards PMatwyuk (talk) 15:07, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Translating

Hi. I have settled down to do some work on Battle of Quiberon Bay and have realised that the French version Bataille des Cardinaux (I don't know how to link to a non-English language Wikipedia page) has a lot more information. Is there a (relatively) easy way of getting an auto-translation? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:05, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To your linking question, fr:Bataille des Cardinaux links to the French article. Chris857 (talk) 22:50, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gog the Mild, welcome to our Teahouse. If you ever forget how to do the link that Chris857 has just shown, providing it's on a talk page or noticeboard (but not in an article, please) you can always link to any webpage simply by putting the url inside single square brackets, ensuring you leave one space at the end of the url and then adding the word or words you want to be hyperlinked. Thus, [https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bataille_des_Cardinaux this page link] produces this page link.

Whilst auto-translations can assist in creating a new page, they simply aren't good enough to stand on their own. We have a short instruction that asks editors to avoid doing precisely that. See WP:MACHINETRANSLATION. Using Google Translate can, of course, be a good start to working on a new article in English in draft, but it still needs a lot of human input to ensure accuracy. We recently added a tool to assist editors working on translation. I have used it, but have unfortunately temporarily forgotten the link to give you. I'll add it later if another user hasn't already helped out my failing memory. I hope this helps. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:37, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: OK, so it's all coming back to me now (as the skunk said when the wind changed direction). We have a 'Content Translation' tool that is currently under beta test. It doesn't actually do the translation, but allows you to work on pages, with each version shown side by side as you convert elements into English. See this link on how to activate and use it. I hope you might find it of interest. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:04, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The refreshing precept

It happens that I have fall on some criticism well-known articles of Wikipedia and I was thinking of some refreshment strategies.

(Of course, without challenging any of the standing principles - this is not my goal).

I was thinking of a lottery, i.e. 10 articles a day, randomly chosen, to be erased and the former contributors not to be allowed to rebuild nothing in the eventually new copy. A drop in the ocean !

About administrators, maybe one a month to be refreshed by this lottery ?

I really mean it, I care about it since I see one of my respectable contributors whom I would love to be his student, becoming a "reverter" i.e. after plenty of contributions and improvement, he will spend the rest of his life reverting newcomers' interventions on quasi-perfect works! Hubby56 (talk) 01:25, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello HUbby56 and welcome to the Teahouse.

The Teahouse is a place for new editors to get their questions answered about how to edit on Wikipedia. I'm afraid your proposals fall outside this realm and we won't attempt to answer them here. There is a place at the Village Pump where new proposals are often made, but you'll be expected to more clearly express the problem you are trying to solve and to have anticipated at least a few of the most obvious objections. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:08, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where do I find an independent editor?

I am the subject of an article on Wikipedia created in 2006 that has been woefully in need of updates and corrections in recent years. The original author is no longer active on Wikipedia so I can't expect that person to make these needed changes. When I tried to make the changes myself, I ran afoul of Wikipedia's conflict-of-interest policy. I tried to find other editors among people who know my work, but struck out there as well. So my question is: Who can I approach to make these necessary and important changes? I'm not looking for promotion. I'm just looking for accuracy. Thank you in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brennanb4 (talk • contribs) 01:51, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brennanb4, Welcome to Teahouse. You could request at the article talk page by placing {{request edit}}. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:31, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How can i made a page for "GREENTOWN MANAGEMENT HOLDINGS COMPANY LIMITED"

I had been trying to make a page for this client for half year, i really want to know the main reason why it was taken down all these times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellawongd (talk • contribs) 02:16, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:COI and WP:PAID for starters. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:23, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

... and after those, Ellawongd, please read your own talk page, where the specific reasons the draft was rejected are listed in full. To wit: "This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies, the golden rule and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time."

If those issues can't be adequately addressed, the answer to your question as to how can you make a page for this company is that you can't. Ravenswing 04:50, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Ellawongd. The very first thing that you must do is comply with our mandatory paid editing disclosure. Once you have done that, please read and study our notability guideline for businesses. If this company does not meet the guideline, then no article is possible. Then read and study Your first article. The current version of your draft is nowhere near close to being an acceptable encyclopedia article. It reads like a poorly written company brochure. If this company is your "client", then you are being paid to do a job, so learn how to do it, and how to do it well. Part of your job may be to tell this company "no". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:06, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Photo of Celebrities

Hi all, I'm writing some articles about actresses, and I'm not positive about the rules on procuring an image. Right now I'm trying to find an image for Jessica McKenna; there are lots of sources in the article that use the same few photos; is there an argument to use those under fair-use? Alternatively, can I take a screen shot of one of her acting roles and use that? Any advice is appreciated. ^†Basilosauridae ❯❯❯Talk 04:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Basilosauridae. Any photo of a living person included in a Wikipedia article must be released under an acceptable free license. We keep fair use images to a minimum, and common examples include low resolution versions of album and book covers, and movie posters. Those images are used only in articles about those albums, books and movies. My advice is to go see her and take a picture yourself, or ask her to have a friend take a photo, and the photographer can then upload it to Wikimedia Commons under an acceptable free license. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:18, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How to revert

i accidently did something i was not supposed to do and i wanted to undo it. it said that there was someone else editing and i don't know how to revert but i know how to undo. Any tips? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bondboy9756 (talk • contribs) 05:58, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bondboy9756, Welcome to Teahouse. It might be a {{edit conflict}} where by two editors edit the page a the same time and the other editor had saved the edit while you are still editing the page. When you tried to save the page, it would considered you were saving on the page which the other editor saved version. To undo is revert/undo one edit. If multiple edits need to be undo then choose "restore to this version" on the history page by selecting the 2 version of the edit. Do make an entry of the reason of the undo on the edit summary before saving the edit. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:17, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

Hello Bondboy9756 and welcome to the Teahouse.

It sounds like you might have run into an "edit conflict", where another editor has changed the page you were editing between the time you started to edit and the time when you went to write back your changes. The edit conflict page does give you fairly exact instructions about what to do, but it is sometimes easier to simply start over and do your edit again.

If we are talking about the page Trustpilot, I have undone all of your changes and restored the page to its state before you started to change it. I don't see that there were any edits by others, so it's possible you had an edit conflict with yourself.

Let's discuss a few of the things that went wrong:

you tried to use URLs to access images, but we can only accept images hosted on English Wikipedia itself (often for unfree images like a company's logo - such use requires a justification) or on Wikimedia Commons (for images that have been licensed in a way that is compatible with Wikipedia's Creative Commons licensing).
it looked like you may have been removing references in order to replace them with {{citation needed}} tags. That's not the best way to handle bad citations.
some of the material you were adding seemed to be personal opinion, not referenced to a reliable source
in two sequential edits, you removed the bulk of the article, then restored it

You're a new editor, it seems, so we expect a few mistakes and, most of the time, mistakes are easily corrected. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:27, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question about delettion of a page

Good morning,

I have a question: I have created a wikipedia page called : GlassQube Coworking . Each time I am trying to post it, it's speedily deleted from wikipedia page. Also a message is showed telling that the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company. Even though I didn't create a page to advertise.

knowing that I have read the wiki page about "|Your First Article" and I have followed the instructions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raad15214 (talk • contribs) 06:29, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could please review the page created "GlassQube Coworking" and respond to my inquiry.

Thanks Raad15214

Hi Raad15214, Welcome to Teahouse. Content in Wikipedia needs to be written in neutral point of view (NPOV) and a promotion/advertising content will be deleted. Please also visit Wikipedia notability requirements prior resubmit as a company doesnt not meet the requirement will not merit a page in Wikipedia in regardless how many edits have performed or it meets the requirement of NPOV. I do suggest you to read WP:Your First Article to familiar yourself with the info needed to write an article in Wikipedia. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:24, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your page have been rejected twice and deleted - see here [1] for such there isn't the said article to review. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:39, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So my question is: What can I do in the case of not having appropriate sources / refrences ? Can we create a wiki page without having refrences? What are the sort of refrences/ sources you are expecting us to have?

Could please review the page created "GlassQube Coworking" and respond to my inquiry.

Thanks

Raad15214 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raad15214 (talk • contribs) 06:40, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Raad15214 First of all, you dont need to create any "new section" everytime you write/reply to a message. Do house all info into the same message title. What you need to do is to click "edit" next to this message name "Question about deletion of a page" and scroll down to the bottom and start writing. To answer to you question it is a NO. Content added/create in Wikipedia needs to directly support by independent, reliable source such as from newspaper and publication houses for verification. Official website, press release, user generated website, blogs and etc are not acceptable. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk)

Hello, Raad15214. You said at the beginning of this conversation that you had read Your first article. But the deleted articles and your comments here indicate that do not fully understand the information. Please read it again and study it. Also read our notabilty guideline for companies. We take these standards very seriously. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:59, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Hi Teahouse and thank you for the invite. I am a frequent user of Wikipedia and now want to be a contributor as well, what are the best areas to help? I've started with celebrity that I know from TV with a page that needs some help but would also like some general guidelines as to where wikipedia could use edits. Do people just kind of scroll through articles and look for changes needed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sloanesubway (talk • contribs) 08:07, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sloanesubway, and thanks for being willing to help out! Wikipedia:Community portal is a good place to start if you're short of something to do; there are reams of articles there in need of some TLC. However, you're under no obligation; you may find it more enjoyable to locate a WikiProject in your field of interest and look through their to-do lists, or just hit the Random Article button a few times until you find something that needs expanding. There's never a shortage of tasks... Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:22, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Users

how do you become extended confirmed user? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bondboy9756 (talk • contribs) 08:37, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You'll find the answer at WP:Extended confirmed. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:07, 11 June 2018 (UTC). Thank you!!! Bondboy9756 (talk) 09:08, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Help with an issue: literature list

Hi folks, in my article EAGLES Academy, I included a differentiated section of literature (= EAGLES in nonfictional publications, Publications by EAGLES and affiliates, Personal experiences at EAGLES, and EAGLES in fictional publications). Two users have deleted the whole list, mentioning WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Have a look at my personal talk page, one of the users told me there that he deletd the list. You can read my answer to him below his statement. I need help on this issue. Any experienced users here who could help me on how to deal with all that? I know the "not everything" rulse (It's purpose is to limit literature to relevant entries but that's what I did; plus: who defines how long is too long?!), but publications by the school and the state belong clearly to the article, notable are also the two novels that mention the school, as well as all other entries if you ask me ... I'm really upset right now. That's why I ask for help here. Thank you. Please check out the article and my talk page. NorthAmericany (talk) 08:42, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The place to discuss an article is on its talk page, in this case Talk:EAGLES Academy. - David Biddulph (talk) 09:09, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NorthAmericany, I'd suggest you take a look at other school articles and the guidelines for school articles. There's also a standard way to layout all articles. You've got a bunch of idiosyncratic section titles there, and located in the wrong location. The first person who reverted your "Literature" section gave you solid advice. Pare the list down, rename it "Additional reading" and put it after the "References" section (which you may have titled notes). Stick to the best ones, which would be secondary sources published by universities or big publishing houses. I believe you had a magazine in there. It would be better to use that as a source. If you've used a publication as a source, don't add it in additional reading (or external links). And NOT does apply. Keep in mind an encyclopedia is a summary, an overview of what secondary sources have written on the subject. It isn't meant to be a comprehensive discussion of everything out there on the subject, nor is it as catalog of all info. John from Idegon (talk) 12:00, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BLP & Interviews

Hi all, can you provide some guidance on if using print interviews are acceptable for writing BLPs? For example, would this be considered an acceptable citation for facts such as: "Julie Brister began taking classes at the Upright Citizens Brigade Theatre in 1997." https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/04/improv-teacher/479424/ ^†Basilosauridae ❯❯❯Talk 13:47, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Such primary sources are acceptable for some purposes, but do not demonstrate notability. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:23, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

new to editing

Hi Just sign up for editing or translating How to start ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuriza noor (talk • contribs) 16:43, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome! You'll find some useful links at WP:Welcome. Help on translating to and from the English Wikipedia is at WP:Translate and WP:Translate us. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:49, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

translation

hello i found an article in bahasa Indonesia in wiki, could nto find the same one in englsih. Does that mean it has not been yet translated into english ? if yes I would like to volunteer to translate, how does it work ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuriza noor (talk • contribs) 17:01, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have included this with the previous section. Have you read WP:Translate? --David Biddulph (talk) 18:12, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Yuriza noor. David Biddulph is right to point you at the "Translate" page; but I wanted to add something that is mentioned there but not strongly emphasised. Creating a new article in English Wikipedia is quite hard, and creating it by translating from another Wikipedia is not usually a short cut. It might happen that the text, and more importantly the references, in the other-language article are suitable for an English article: if so, then you can just translate the text, and use the same references (though references in English are preferred, if there are any available) - you just need to remember to attribute the origin properly. But different Wikipedias have different sets of policies, and sometimes the references in the foreign-language article are not adequate for an English article, or the content is not appropriate; sometimes the references are not sufficient even to establish the subject as notable by the standards of enwiki. So in general, it is best to treat this as an entirely new article. Use the references in the original article, and where appropriate, you can translate sections of it; but it is important not to assume that translating the article will necessarily give an acceptable English article. --ColinFine (talk) 20:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion

Hi everyone. I think the article List of Late Quaternary prehistoric bird species should be deleted based on WP:Synthesis and WP:OR, but a nonverifed user disagrees with my deletion. Since the PROD rules state that I can't add the tag back, how do I proceed when I still feel the deletion is valid? ^†Basilosauridae ❯❯❯Talk 18:29, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After a failed PROD the next available process is AFD. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:34, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Admin

Hello everyone! It is always a pleasure to visit the Teahouse ! Just a second question, how do you become an administrator ( admin ) ? Thnks everyone ! Hocraa (talk) 18:29, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:Guide to requests for adminship, wait a few years while you make a few thousand uncontroversial edits, then read WP:Guide to requests for adminship again. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:38, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First article submission was swiftly rejected. I included 5 references for the person that is running to replace Pam Bondi for Attorney General of Florida 2018

Other candidates running for this office have pages on Wikipedia... so is this a matter of adding more news articles on this individual? Sorry for being a newbie but I guess we all have to start somewhere. Lvwitt3 (talk) 19:13, 11 June 2018 (UTC)Larry (Lvwitt3)[reply]

User:69.73.79.240/sandbox has now been nominated for speedy deletion as a copyright violation, as notified on your user talk page. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:21, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

... and Florida Attorney General election, 2018 shows that not all of the potential candidates have articles. For those which have, it shows the capacity in which they are notable. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:26, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, what is an good way to make references on an article?

So I am making an article on an website I own. I, however, can't reference stuff from the web because its not on there. It's in my head and I know it perfectly. Should I make pages on the website for the subjects and reference them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimitar bgdnv (talk • contribs) 19:38, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. If there are no published references to reliable sources (and there aren't any at Draft:Lump (social network)) there can't be a Wikipedia article. Your own knowledge is no use to Wikipedia. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:47, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Dimitar bgdnv:, Welcome to the Teahouse. Unfortunately I'm going to start with discouraging advice. You should start by reading WP:COI, which will tell you that you should not be writing the article. That said, referencing help can be found at Help:Referencing_for_beginners--S Philbrick (Talk) 19:51, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

how to create Artist wikipedia page

i created a page but haven't gotten any feed back. i don't know if the page has been approved or not. i really need help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freshdolla (talk • contribs) 20:05, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Freshdolla: The draft is not going to be approved as it is right now. My usual advice for writing an article about anyone or anything:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Doing something besides those steps typically results in the article not being approved, or even in its deletion. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:07, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, also, read WP:Conflict of interest. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:11, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New and off to a BAD start! :(

Hi I'm Juls and although I joined Wikipedia years ago, have recently been asked to write an item.

Things haven't gone well, though... After writing the item on a local artist it was reviewed and accused of being advertising. I re-edited it a number of times listing only factual information, with citations (mostly from websites and newspapers) but it was deleted yesterday, so I'm a bit disappointed!

I've tried asking for specifics as to which bits were unacceptable, but haven't got any feedback.

The artist I was asked to write about is the only one of his contemporaries not yet listed on Wikipedia, so it seemed valid to write a page on him. For my final edit, I used the Wikipedia page of a similar artist as a template and copied the layout and language, but it was still deleted. :-S

Rather than giving up completely... I'm looking for advice and pointers as to where to go from here and how to list the facts without it sounding like an advert... Most of the press coverage seems quite positive, so it's trying to get it to be balanced is the challenge.

Thanks

Juls. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julsm (talk • contribs) 20:51, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Julsm: My usual advice if you're going to write an article about anyone or anything:

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

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

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

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

5) Paraphrase the whole thing just to be extra sure you've avoided any copyright violations or plagiarism. Make sure it's written in a way that someone who hates the subject still has to agree with.

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

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

Doing something besides those steps in that order typically results in the article not being approved, or even in its deletion. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:54, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hello Juls, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that "I was asked to write an item" is nearly always a bad start. I suppose it's possible that somebody altruisticly decides that Wikipedia would be improved by an article on a certain subject, and asks somebody to write it rather than writing it themselves; but nearly always, if somebody asks somebody else to write an article, it is an article about them or their associates, and their wish is not altruistic. This means that the person who is asked to write it automatically has a conflict of interest, in that they are not doing it for Wikipedia (or not only for Wikipedia). Please understand that Wikipedia does not care, at all, whether somebody wants there to be an article about them or not: if they are notable then there can be an article (though only if somebody chooses to write it, of course), even if they don't want one; if they are not notable (in Wikipedia's special sense) then there cannot be an article, even if they wanted one.

Furthermore, Wikipedia is essentially uninterested in what a subject says or has said about themselves, or what their friends, relatives, employees, agents, or associates, have said about them. Almost the whole of the article should be based on what people who have no connection with the subject have chosen to publish about them. Start with the professional, independent references, and aim to summarise what these say: nothing more. --ColinFine (talk) 21:11, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Julsm, and welcome to the Teahouse and to WIkipedia. The above advice is good. Your draft looks to me like a good start, although additional independent published reliable sources would be helpful. The key thing is to follow the sources wherever they lead. If there has been controversy, then there must be critical sources, and they should be cited. Oh and do please remember to sign posts to talk and discussion pages such as this one with four tildes (~~~~). DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:28, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

how to add a new page on wikipedia

Hello, I have started a new page on wiki, but I do not understand the process behind. Whne and how will the page appear on the public domain? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TopskiyP (talk • contribs) 23:59, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So far, you've only added this content, which looks like it belongs in the Victor Musgrave article. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:02, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could you help me to understand how to create a new page on Wiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by TopskiyP (talk • contribs) 00:06, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TopskiyP, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Here are some steps which, when followed, often lead to good results.

First, review our guideline on notability, our policy on Verifiability, and our specific guideline on the notability of people. Consider whether your subject clearly meets the standards listed there.
Second, read how to create Your First Article and referencing for beginners and again consider if you want to go ahead.
Third, If you have any connection or affiliation with the subject, disclose it in accordance with our guideline on Conflict of interest. If you have been or expect to be paid for making edits, or are making them as part of your job, disclose this according to the strict rules of the Paid-contribution disclosure. This is absolutely required; omitting it can result in you being blocked from further editing.
Fourth, gather sources. You want independent, professionally published, reliable sources with each discussing the subject in some detail. If you can't find several such sources, stop; an article will not be created! Sources do NOT need to be online, or in English, although it is helpful if at least some are. The "independent" part is vital. Wikipedia does not consider as independent sources such as press releases, or news stories based on press releases, or anything published by the subject itself or an affiliate of the subject. Strictly local coverage is also not preferred. Regional or national newspapers or magazines, books published by mainstream publishers (not self-published), or scholarly journals are usually good. So are online equivalents of these. (Additional sources may verify particular statements but not discuss the subject in detail. But those significant detailed sources are needed first.)
Fifth, use the article wizard to create a draft under the articles for creation project. This is always a good idea for an inexperienced editor, but in the case of an editor with a conflict of interest it is essential.
Sixth, use the sources gathered before (and other sources you may find along the way) to write the article. Cite all significant statements to sources. Do not express opinions or judgements, unless they are explicitly attributed to named people or entities, preferably in a direct quotation, and cited to a source. Do not use puffery or marketing-speak. Provide page numbers, dates, authors and titles for sources to the extent these are available. A title is always needed.
Seventh, when (well perhaps if) your draft is declined, pay attention to the comments of the reviewer, and correct the draft and resubmit it. During this whole process, if you face any unresolvable editing hurdles, or cannot comprehend any editing issue, feel free to post a request here or at the help desk and ask the regulars. Repeat this until the draft passes review.

Congratulations, you have now created a valid Wikipedia article. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:10, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, TopskiyP, please remember in future to sign comments on tak and discussion pages, like this one with four tildes (~~~~). The wiki software will convert this to a link to your user page (or your custom signature if you set one in your preferences) plus a timestamp. Also, please remember that "wiki" is the name of the software that runs this site, and many other sites. This site is "Wikipedia". Please don't say "a wiki" when you mean "a Wikipedia article". Thank you. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:14, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An Observation About Stubs

I received the following on my talk page from User:Wik wp in response to my decline of Draft:Investor Times as not notable, having no references.

Wik wp wrote

Hi Robert

Thank you for your review. I actually created two news pages. One was for Mature Times and one for Investor Times.

Both had red links on wikipedia page UK Newspapers so I did some research and created pages for those links. Both were created as Stubs so they could be expanded over time. Both pages have similar amount of content. The Mature Times page created seems to have been accepted, yet the Investor Times page does not.

I agree that both pages do need improvements such as references. I just wanted to help get the pages created as stubs and improved over time.

Let me know your thoughts.

Thanks again for your time. Wik wp (talk) 11:23, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-Up

I am not really asking a question here, because Wikipedia policies and guidelines are clear, but we do seem to have a good-faith misunderstanding about stubs. The author created the stubs because there were red links in a list. Both converting red links in a list to blue and expanding stubs are encouraged, but only if the red links are replaced with articles that are at least “valid” stubs, and these stubs were unreferenced. This was clearly a misunderstanding of stubs, which should have at least one reference (although sometimes not much else).

I will add that, in the case of Investor Times, Wik wp created a draft, which was declined. In the case of Mature Times, Wik wp created a draft and moved the draft to mainspace, where a A7 nomination was declined because A7 doesn’t apply to newspapers, but an unreferenced stub is subject to AFD.

Just a comment about a reasonable misunderstanding about what is and is not done with stubs.

Robert McClenon (talk) 00:47, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with table formatting

Hi, I keep trying to add rows of in formation to a table. I have tried editing through the editing source and visual editing. I can successfully add a row of content, but it messes up the formatting for another row. I have tried copying and pasting what others have done, plus just inserting rows in the visual editing window, and it always messes up other rows. I don't know why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bogglethemind83 (talk • contribs) 02:03, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bogglethemind83, and welcome to the Teahouse. Please be more specific. The only edits i see where you are adding rows to a table are to Man of the Woods Tour ‎ , here and here You self reverted these. I don't see that they caused any formatitng problems, however. I think that row markers in table syntax should use a pipe and a hyphen (|-), not a pipe and an ndash (|–) or an mdash (|—). I am not sure if it matters, however. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:08, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey DESiegel. Thanks for the welcome and your response. I tried to add a concert date to the page, but when I did, it messed up the Mohegan concert date, so I undid it. And I tried recently to add another date, but I didn't publish it because I could see in the preview that it was messing up the Mohegan and Philly dates. I want to add 2 dates on November 29 and December 1 in Phoenix and Las Vegas because they were announced, but when I try to add a row, things get messed up. And I tried doing it with the visual editor as well, and as soon as I inserted a new row, the columns for attendance and gross revenue moved to the left where it says United States. I feel like Mohegan is before another line break, so maybe that's why it's getting messed up. But Philadelphia got messed up the same way when I added a second row. Basically, I try adding a row either by the source editing or visual editing, and the attendance and gross revenue columns (which are supposed to be on the far right) move to the left where the country is supposed to be. And I can't delete them with the visual editing tool either because it ends up deleting the entire table.

Use of last name in an article about a person who changed their named after marriage

Hi! I'm editing an article about a woman who changed her last name after being married. I was just wondering, what is the convention to use here? (should I use her new last name throughout the entire article, should I use her first name, should I use her maiden name up until she gets married, etc.) Thanks! Hickland (talk) 03:11, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Hickland and welcome back to the Teahouse.

The convention, as always, is WP:COMMONNAME. You figure out by what name the preponderance of sources refer to her and you follow that. The subject's own preferences can be given a small amount of weight in making this decision but not complete deference. It would be confusing to switch between names, so the reference to the person should be consistent within the article. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:24, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

However, Hickland, all the sourcable names should usually be mentioned in the lead section, often in the lead sentence. The birth name can be identified with "born" if the common name is otherwise, or with {{nee}}. There was a debate on that recently, which may be worth reading. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:47, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Word count app

I have tried for ever to use the word count app and someone miss the mark. Can someone help?2605:E000:9149:A600:38D0:9A58:B64D:5E21 (talk) 06:01, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IP editor. Please ask your question in any known variant of the English language. If we can understand what you mean, we can do our best to answer. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:26, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since it took you several times to pick the right words to convey your attitude I guess I should as well. Thank you for going out of your way to exhibit what I would consider someo=thing attributable to disrespect and disregard. It really was not necessary but I guess internet anonymity suites a need. I have tried forever to use the word count app and somehow miss the mark. Can someone help with something less critical and more explanatory about just how it is suppose to go.2605:E000:9149:A600:38D0:9A58:B64D:5E21 (talk) 10:17, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is very hard for us to help unless we know what you are talking about. What word count app are you talking about? How has someone missed the mark? ~ GB fan 10:25, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a joke? I never said in the second response someone, I said somehow. Am I under the wrong impression that there is a way to count words in a WP article?2605:E000:9149:A600:38D0:9A58:B64D:5E21 (talk) 10:46, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No there is no joke. I missed that you changed the word from someone to somehow from the first post to the second post. There is a way to check the word count. Pull up the article, then click history. Near the top there is a link called Revision history statistics. The word count is near the bottom. ~ GB fan 10:59, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, you seemed to be talking about some specific word count app that you have been trying to use forever. Not the generic question, is there a way to count the number of words in an article. ~ GB fan 11:06, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From what I remember there is an app where you can count a particular segment of an article. What has been suggested is not that. And, no I d not remember where I say that as it has been some time since I last attempted it.2605:E000:9149:A600:38D0:9A58:B64D:5E21 (talk) 11:10, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help any more. That is the only function to count words in an article that I have ever seen. ~ GB fan 11:14, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are user-defined scripts such as User:Dr pda/prosesize.js; if there are any problems with those they should be addressed to the user who developed the script. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:19, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone explain how to do the following as I have tried it many times and seem unable to get it right. Thank you: Wikipedia:Department of Fun/Word Count 2605:E000:9149:A600:38D0:9A58:B64D:5E21 (talk) 16:11, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello anon. The file you've stumbled upon is a template used in playing a game: Wikipedia:Department of Fun/Word Association. (A game I had never heard of before.) It does not count words at all; it is used to display a word count in a consistent fashion while playing the game. If that's not a good enough explanation, please help us understand better what you are wanting to do. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

— jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} , I am not anonymous and have never been. I am (talk) and well endorsed by that ID usage according to WP. I accept your apology for having displayed the wrong and often confused idea about IP identified WP users. I would advise in future that in order not to endorse the view that IP identified usuers are not fully qualified to participate in WP be avoided. Again, I accept your apology for the misperceived statement.2605:E000:9149:A600:38D0:9A58:B64D:5E21 (talk) 20:06, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Take a bow, guys. I so would not have the right temperament to be a teahouse host! ;) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:17, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blue screen

My computer screen turned blue with writing. Then it went black with in seconds. what did I do wrong or what went wrong. Some say the Motherboard went bad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.25.5.38 (talk) 13:12, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello anonymous and welcome to the Teahouse.

The Teahouse is a friendly and helpful place for editors to ask questions about how to edit Wikipedia. Your question, or rather, statement is not going to be addressed here. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:10, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IP user. The Computing Reference Desk might be a better place to ask; but nobody will be able to help you much with only the information you have given. It is the equivalent of saying "I was driving, and my car stopped". From that information, we have no way of knowing whether you ran out of fuel, whether the engine or gearbox failed, or whether you drove into a wall. You probably need to show it to somebody who understands computer hardware, but that is only a guess. --ColinFine (talk) 18:39, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

World Naked Bike Ride page blocked by Facebook

How can the World Naked Bike Ride page be set up so that it doesn't violate the community guidelines of Facebook via that image that pops up when tagged?

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

I'm a 5 year organizer of the ride in Columbus Ohio and in trying to communicate history of the ride to other riders and volunteers I've been getting blocked by Facebook. Any thoughts? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.118.103.138 (talk) 17:10, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello anonymous. I'm afraid there is not much point asking your question here. Our Teahouse is to assist editors working on Wikipedia, not to configure pages to display on Facebook. I've just looked at https://www.facebook.com/wnbr.international/ and it does show images of naked participants, and I've also just posted the link from Wikipedia there, and it seems to preview the images OK. But if you're finding problems embedding the link, why not just copy the text of the article and re-lay it for a Facebook post? Just say it is sourced from the Wikipedia page and its various contributors and you'd be OK using the text, I feel. Does that help? Nick Moyes (talk) 18:00, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello anonymous user and welcome to the Teahouse.

The general view of Wikipedia editors is that Wikipedia is not censored and if Facebook decides that the page violates their community guidelines, that is their right. One of the things that Wikipedia does not intend to be is an avenue for promotion or "information" by an organizer, so if you are connected with the event, you have a conflict of interest and should not be editing the article.

Since photos of your event would need to be chastely cropped in order for them to be acceptable on Facebook, I can only suggest that you seek other avenues than Facebook for anything beyond the simplest information. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:53, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Popups in Sandboxes?

Why doesn't the reference popups work in sandboxes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheAnonymous91384 (talk • contribs) 17:28, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For me they do. Have you disabled Reference Tooltips at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets? --David Biddulph (talk) 17:39, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question regarding "Trivia" section/information

Hello, I think I need help in understating certain Wikipedia's definition/policy, particularly regarding the "Trivia" stuff. I've made an edit in an article about certain person, adding certain information about subject's Cosplay activity with the hopes that either myself or someone else will expand this further. However, before someone had the chance to expand on this, that edit was simply reverted with comment about "removing trivia"... My question is, how exactly this information can be considered as "trivia" since it is a well-noted fact, covered by reliable sources such as Newsweek here, ESPN's video here, one the Polygon's section here as well as other less popular (but I believe still usable) sources such as here and there and also being prominently presented in subject's own Twitch channel as well as subject's dedicated Patreon account related to this specific activity? Is all of this still considered as "trivia" even though it's a major, well-known part of subject's online personality?Omgwtfbbqsomethingrandom (talk) 19:36, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of trivia is subjective, of course. You may read more in Wikipedia:Handling_trivia (stand-alone trivia). Ruslik_Zero 20:37, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with mobile view?

Hello, I recently typed "Blanc & Eclare" on Google, and I got a Wikipedia result for it. However, upon clicking the link, it led me to the page of the designer of Blanc & Eclare. This shouldn't be the case, since the brand has its own page. My screenshot of the result. I don't know if this is the appropriate place to ask about it, about how can this be fixed? Thank you. Jesstan01 (talk) 21:55, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jesstan01. Until three days ago, our article Blanc & Eclare was a redirect to Jessica Jung. Google will probably catch up in a few days, but we have no control over what it does. --ColinFine (talk) 23:32, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

re Keen, Joseph Lawrence

Hi, Lawrence was a senior engraver with de la rue, there is not a whole of lot of information available about him but enough I think to warrant him a wiki page, can you please think about starting one http://stampengravers.blogspot.com/2014/08/keen-joseph-lawrence.html juliamichell 22:24, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello juliamichell, and welcome to the Teahouse. You can request at Requested articles that someone create this. I am afraid the time lag on such request is large. Also there is not a whole of lot of information available about him often translates to "there is no way to create a properly sourced Wikipedia article about him" or even to "he is not notable in Wikipedia terms"

Or you could try to create a valid Wikipedia article yourself. In that case i would advise following the steps below, or something close to them. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:19, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First, review our guideline on notability, our policy on Verifiability, and our specific guideline on the notability of people. Consider whether your subject clearly meets the standards listed there.
Second, read how to create Your First Article and referencing for beginners and again consider if you want to go ahead.
Third, If you have any connection or affiliation with the subject, disclose it in accordance with our guideline on Conflict of interest. If you have been or expect to be paid for making edits, or are making them as part of your job, disclose this according to the strict rules of the Paid-contribution disclosure. This is absolutely required; omitting it can result in you being blocked from further editing.
Fourth, gather sources. You want independent, professionally published, reliable sources with each discussing the subject in some detail. If you can't find several such sources, stop; an article will not be created! Sources do NOT need to be online, or in English, although it is helpful if at least some are. The "independent" part is vital. Wikipedia does not consider as independent sources such as press releases, or news stories based on press releases, or anything published by the subject itself or an affiliate of the subject. Strictly local coverage is also not preferred. Regional or national newspapers or magazines, books published by mainstream publishers (not self-published), or scholarly journals are usually good. So are online equivalents of these. (Additional sources may verify particular statements but not discuss the subject in detail. But those significant detailed sources are needed first.)
Fifth, use the article wizard to create a draft under the articles for creation project. This is always a good idea for an inexperienced editor, but in the case of an editor with a conflict of interest it is essential.
Sixth, use the sources gathered before (and other sources you may find along the way) to write the article. Cite all significant statements to sources. Do not express opinions or judgements, unless they are explicitly attributed to named people or entities, preferably in a direct quotation, and cited to a source. Do not use puffery or marketing-speak. Provide page numbers, dates, authors and titles for sources to the extent these are available. A title is always needed.
Seventh, when (well perhaps if) your draft is declined, pay attention to the comments of the reviewer, and correct the draft and resubmit it. During this whole process, if you face any unresolvable editing hurdles, or cannot comprehend any editing issue, feel free to post a request here or at the help desk and ask the regulars. Repeat this until the draft passes review.

Congratulations, you have now created a valid Wikipedia article. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:19, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where can I complain a bureaucrat?

I had an objection to certian topic on Turkish wikipedia. I reported the abuse of power to the relevant bureaucrat, it has been almost a month and the bureaucrat is not doing anything. He does not seem to do anything. Where can I complain about it?

The background of the event: I told the patrol that certian passages are no original research, I told them that they are distorting the source. We discussed it, they did not show any reason to prevent my proposal and to keep their version, they just stated "if we accept your changes, there will be a rotation of one-eighty, it will change the artically totally in a different way." Then, their bureaucrat protected the page, they are not stating any reasons and are not allowing any change. I told them over and over again that they are giving misinforation in wikipedia. It is going on for more than 5 months now and nothing is done. The same passages are updated in English version wikipedia, the same user edit-warred me here but after I reported him to Wikipedia admin noticeboard/incidents and to Admin noticeboard edit warring he quitted doing so on English wikipedia, probably due to him having no powers to prevent me here without stating any reasons. But on Turkish wikipedia the same user is a patrol and he stops me from changing the article via his/her powers. Where can I solve this problem? If it is not a right place to complain this issue, tell me where to apply? I know it is very unlikely that I am in the right place, I do not know where to go and I know this is the place I can ask this question. Where can I report this abuse of power and ignorance of the bureaucrat? --Ruhubelent (talk) 00:11, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhubelent, if I'm understanding you correctly, the problem you had on en.wiki has been dealt with? Because, I'm sorry to say, neither our scope or knowledge here extends beyond en.wiki. The scope of our mission at Teahouse is to provide friendly assistance with problems newer editors encounter on en.wiki, which would include advice on how to handle a disruptive user, even an administrator. Here, bureaucrats have very little interaction with everyday editors. Other than supervising various election processes, I'm not even sure of their function. Each language Wikipedia are entirely separate organizations. It's possible, but doubtful a host at Teahouse would have an answer for you, but one may be able to point you to a better place to ask. John from Idegon (talk) 00:29, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@John from Idegon: I know it was a wrong place to ask the question but I am hoping there will be someone who can point me to a place where I can ask this question. Who overlooks all wikipedias? Who assigns those bureaucrats? Where should I contact? These are the questions I am seeking an answer for. There may be someone who controls and can inspect bureaucrats. --Ruhubelent (talk) 00:34, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhubelent Each edition of Wikipedia (one per language) has its own organization, and its own methods of appointing admins and bureaucrats. On the en edition, bureaucrats as such do rather little, and most significant tasks are done by admins (also known as sysops). Most bureaucrats are also admins. I believe this is true on most editions, but I cannot be sure. There is no one and no group that overlooks all wikipedias. The Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) provides support, and enforces a few core principles, but does not do any detailed supervision. Each language-edition of Wikipedia is independent and self-organizing, and has its own processes for dealing with problems. I have no idea what the processes are on the Turkish Wikipedia. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:53, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhubelent, it's possible you may be able to find someone who would be able to help you out at our Wikiproject Turkey. John from Idegon (talk) 01:03, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@John from Idegon: @DES:, now if I understood correctly: There is no way to oppose the bureaucrat and a bureaucrat can abuse Wikipedia or his/her powers as much as he wishes or as much as he can? No way to supervise them? Even in the relevant wikipedias? --Ruhubelent (talk) 05:33, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No one said that. What we said, both of us in different ways, is that there is no interrelation between English Wikipedia and Turkish Wikipedia. None. I can say there is no one on English Wikipedia with any authority to do anything about anything that happens on Turkish Wikipedia. What you are doing here is getting upset with us because we can't solve your issue with a DIFFERENT ORGANIZATION. Would you expect Burger King to be able to solve a complaint you have about McDonald's? Because that is what you are seemingly expecting us to do. John from Idegon (talk) 05:46, 13 June 2018 (UTC) @John from Idegon: --Ruhubelent (talk) 19:39, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No no no. That is not what I am expecting you to do. What I am asking is to point me to the place where can the actions of those bureaucrats be questioned? If there is a way to do that, point me to that direction. If not, then am I not wrong to deduce bureaucrats can do whatever they do and no one can question them?

User:Ruhubelent - John from Idegon and DES are right. Also, if Turkish is your first language, your complaint may be better understood by administrators of the Turkish Wikipedia in Turkish. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:03, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon:, Turkish is no different than my first language. Administrators of the Turkish wikipedia is ignoring this issue for a month, Turkish wikipedia community is ignoring it for more than 5 months. That is why I am seeking a supervision from higher authority. Turkish patrol even stated that he would not allow any change that would diminish Turkish writer's status into a liar. The point in question exposes the distortion of Turkish writer, the same crisis was experienced on English wikipedia as well but they did not have power here, I reported him and then he quitted edit-warring here but there on Turkish wikipedia he has powers to prevent me and protect the page, so did they. --Ruhubelent (talk) 19:39, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As you've been told, we cannot help you with any issues on the Turkish Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 19:48, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New user

I've been using wikipedia for a while and decided I should make an account and get at least a little more involved. I'm posting this for two reasons: 1, I just made my first edit and wanted to make sure I did good (Streisand effect). 2, I wanted to know if there are any tips I should hear from veteran users before I get started. I've read the 5 eternal pillars of truth and most of the wikifauna articles, so I'm not completely clueless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GenericName1108 (talk • contribs) 00:23, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GenericName1108: Welcome to Wikipedia! Yup, your edit is perfectly fine.

Tips...plenty, but most of those would depend on the area you intend to edit and the type of work you'd like to do. A couple of general tips would be to not be afraid to ask other editors for help if needed (considering you've found your way to the Teahouse already, I suspect you'd do that even without me giving you that tip though) and to sign your posts by adding ~~~~ at the end of your post when you're on talk-pages or other pages (like this one) intended for communication with other editors. Other than the Teahouse, please also feel free to pop by my talkpage if you run into any issues or need help. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 00:36, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hello, GenericName1108 and welcome to the Teahouse. Your first edit looks fine. One piece of advice, rememer to sign posts on discussion pages like this one, and talk pages, with four tildes (~~~~). Ths software will convert this into a link to your user page (or your custom signature if you set one in your preferences) and a timestamp.

Do try to be careful that in adding content you cite reliable sources for most non-obvious facts (but see you don't need to cite that the sky is blue).
Do please provide edit summaries to explain your intent on each edit.
Do remember to be civil and the assume the good faith of other editors. Do work collaboratively with others here.
If someone reverts edits of yours, do remember the bold, revert, discuss cycle and in no event edit war.
Do ask for help freely when you are unsure. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:44, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Thank you very much for your advice! GenericName1108 (talk) 04:34, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How do I add images on PlayStation Vita?

I use a PlayStation Vita for most of my edits on wikipedia, and I have trouble trying to do something, like uploading a file. Visual editor doesn't work on it, and I have no way of adding an images. Can anyone help me? Pyraminxsolver (talk) 00:57, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How do I delete an article with a non-notable subject?

Hi everyone, just wondering how I might go about deleting an article? I’m pretty new here and I haven’t quite learned all the ins and outs yet. Thought I would ask for help from more experienced editors and take a break for some tea before doing anything else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chōd wrangler (talk • contribs) 01:38, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chōd wrangler You haven't really contributed anything except to remove an image that has as a fair use claim and you already want to start deleting articles? How we delete articles is explained at Wikipedia:Deletion policy. I would not recommend deletion as an area to start out in. Why not spend some time contributing content first? Vexations (talk) 01:56, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hello, Chōd wrangler, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia. Lack of notability is a common reason for deleting an article, but please be reasonably sure that the article does not in fact meet our General Notability guideline or one of our subject-specific notability guidelines. I could offer more specific advice if you indicated what article you would like to have deleted. Article deletions can be suggested at Articles for Discussion commonly known as AfD. Please read that and the linked pages. I urge you to consult a more experienced editor, as what is and is not considered notable on Wikipedia is not always as obvious as people initially think it should be. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 02:00, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please WP:SIGN comments on talk and discussion pages with four tildes (~~~~). Thank you. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 02:00, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

Hello Chōd wrangler and welcome to the Teahouse.

Only administrators can delete articles, but most of the time they are deleting in response to requests from other editors. There are three mechanisms for requesting that a page be deleted. Please see deletion for details.

The mildest possible method is proposed deletion, which can be used where there is no likely controversy. It's mild because any editor, including the article's major contributor, can remove the proposed deletion tag and that ends the process then and there. If nobody objects to the deletion, at the end of the seven-day period, the PROD expires and the article will be considered by an admin for deletion. They too can disagree with the deletion and simply remove the PROD.

When an argument about notability has to occur, the page gets nominated in the articles for deletion process. Other editors can recommend for or against deletion and one thing that commonly happens is that, despite the article having poor references or not demonstrating notability, an editor may uncover additional sources that do help establish notability. Also, a page may be merged into another article or redirected, or there may be a resolution that it be draftified. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:09, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Help on editing a page?

So I would like to edit the page known as "List of fandom nicknames", by adding a another box to the diagram. How do I do this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joey kl22 (talk • contribs) 03:23, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Joey kl22, welcome to the Teahouse. I see you use VisualEditor. In the source editor you can see the existing code of the table in List of fandom nicknames and copy the format. If you start a visual edit then there is a pencil icon at the top right to switch to the source editor. Use the "Show preview" button before saving to make sure your edit is not damaging the table. It's also possible to add table rows in VisualEditor and this is a simple table where it may work well but many tables use special source code. PrimeHunter (talk) 08:57, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TWA

Is it mandatory to finish the Wikipedia Adventure?Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 03:46, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it's not at all mandatory to finish TWA, many experienced editors have never done it. It's made to be helpful, so if it helps you, you should finish it, but otherwise there's no need. --Habst (talk) 03:54, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back to the Teahouse, Thegooduser. No, starting and finishing that learning game is completely optional, not mandatory. If you lose interest, go improve the encyclopedia instead. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:57, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen328 Could you go to the section in my talk page "False positive with your advertisement detection bot" and add a comment there? Thanks!Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 04:00, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New article

hey,

so, i'm trying to post a new article here. how do i know the article i published is being reviewed or not..?? how long does it normally take to get a respond from anyone??

best,

a newcomer — Preceding unsigned comment added by PasPenny.S (talk • contribs) 04:55, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@PasPenny.S: Assuming this is about Draft:Galerie DUMONTEIL, that draft is not under review yet. You could request a review by copy-pasting the code {{subst:submit}}, but I would advise against it because the chance of it being accepted is low. Wikipedia only has articles about "notable" topics, and the references currently present in the draft fail to establish notability. Have a look at our specific notability guideline for organizations; if that topic meets it, prove it with sources, if it does not, there is no gain in editing the draft any further. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 06:02, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

hey

so, i'm working on a new draft, how do i change the title from all CAPs to lowercases??

and,,, did i put the article under review now??

HELP

best, — Preceding unsigned comment added by PasPenny.S (talk • contribs) 10:12, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PasPenny.S, I believe Draft:Galerie DUMONTEIL is the article you referred to. If you want to change to Galerie Dumonteil, we would do it for you. The page at the moment is not yet submitted. Please type (dont copy and paste) {{subst:submit}} on top of the page. However, at the current stand, the article will be rejected as the source provided does not "directly" support the Gallerie but the founder. You need multiple independent, reliable sources to support the content you provided. Pls see WP:RS. Also please read WP:Your First Article on how to write article in Wikipedia. Come back here if you have further questions. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:32, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HOW TO GET STARTED

just a bit confused as to where to create pages

it appears the sandbox is just for doodling around in

I started a draft page - but was told its best to work offline first

not sure I understand why or how or where to do so

I would like to be able to test the pages as I make progress

I wish to create a set of pages for the architect C. N. Otis I thought it best to clone the Frank Llyod Wright pages as that structure of pages seems well-suited to the task

cloning his page as a draft page seems to be a no-no

so where do I start - all very confusing

here are the first three pages I wish to clone of Wright's and then edit to contain the content for C. N. Otis

please advise

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

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_D._Martin_House

Lewis Buttery — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lewis buttery (talk • contribs) 05:06, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sphilbrick advised on your talk page to edit offline, but I do not agree with their advice. You can duplicate Wikipedia content, online, as long as you provide proper attribution as described in WP:COPYWITHIN (a simple content copied from page XXX, see that page's history for attribution is sufficient). The only point is editing offline until every bit of the article has changed is if you absolutely want to avoid making that attribution. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 06:08, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Lewis Buttery, and welcome to the Teahouse. One bit of advice I would give is that creating new pages is absolutely not the best way to get started: it is a difficult and challenging process, and attempting it before acquiring an understanding of how Wikipedia works often leads to frustration and confrontation. I always advise new editors to spend a few months learning the ropes by making small improvements to existing articles before they try creating new ones.

Then, I would advise studying Your first article. While it can be useful to look at existing articles for ideas on layout, if you do, it's worth making sure you choose one that has been through the Good article process. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with Frank Lloyd Wright; but if you choose Dan Dworsky, for example, that is an article about an American architect which has been reviewed and rated as a Good article. (I have never heard of Dworsky: I found that article using Petscan on "Good articles" and "Architects").

In any case, the layout is not the best place to start, and nor is what you know: start with the sources - reliably published sources, wholly independent of the subject of the article, and write it based only on what those sources say. When you have got the bones of an article, you can flesh it out with non-independent sources, images etc. But an article stands or falls on its published sources. --ColinFine (talk) 15:21, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have a 45 page article on C.N. Otis that I wrote and have decided to create wiki pages based on that info the Wright pages have a structure to them that I like and I'm trying to determine the best way to clone those pages and make the needed edits for C.N. Otis

where is the best place to make these clones/edits ???

this should be "easy" to do and yet I find myself frustrated and confused by all this complexity of "working environment"

I spend 30+ years as a systems analyst/programmer for mainframes having bought my first computer in 1978 totally self taught in multiple mainframe languages and VBA and Windows Script Host etc I guess my brains are fried as I start to go down the wiki road and I find myself halting and saying I'm really don't want all this hassle

Does anyone want a job setting up the structure of these pages for me ? I can handle making the content edits - but the structure hassles are beyond my interest levels at this point

I have a museum to run and other tasks to tackle in my research and cracking the ways of wiki don't seem enticing to me at all :(

Lew — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lewis buttery (talk • contribs) 16:01, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, Lewis buttery. How useful your 45-page article is for writing a Wikipedia article depends on many things. If it has been published by a reputable publisher, then it may be used as a source for a Wikipedia article - but you are discouraged from writing a Wikipedia article based on it yourself, because that is seen as a conflct of interest. (If it has been published then you may not reproduce large chunks of it directly in Wikipedia unless you have specifically licensed it under a suitable free licence, which would allow anybody to reuse it for any purpose). If it is an unpublished work then you obviously cannot reference it, but you might find some of the material you wrote useful in writing a Wikipedia article. Please be aware, though, that writing for Wikipedia is very different from most academic writing. The text should contain no evaluations, judgments, arguments, or conclusions, unless these are individually cited to a single source each. Even a deduction from information in two sources is not permitted, if it is not itself from one of the sources: see the policy on No original research. So it is very likely that the sources you used to write your article are extremely pertinent for a Wikipedia article on the subject; but the content of your article probably not, unless you happened to hit on a similar set of guidelines to those used in Wikipedia.

Many people share your belief that it should be easy to write a Wikipedia article. Unfortunately, it isn't (and in my personal opinion, steps to make the technical part of the process easier would be counterproductive, as they would encourage more people to try it without understanding the nature of the task).

A systems and programming background is really not much help - again, it can make it easier to acquire the technical skills, but those are not where the meat of the task lies.

I would strongly advise you to do as Your first article suggests, and create a draft with the Article wizard; then you can tinker with it as much as you like before submitting it for review. If you wanted to copy an existing article into that draft in order to replicate its structure, that would be fine (there are rules about copying within Wikipedia, but as long as you say in the Edit Summary where the material was copied from, those are met). But as I said above, it is the sources, and summarising what they say, that is the important part of the task, not the structure of the article.

And I will reiterate that I always advise new editors to do a fair bit of editing existing articles before they attempt to create a new one. --ColinFine (talk) 18:58, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Asterisks

Colin: with all due respect why would I want to edit other existing articles when my sole goal is to create pages for the architect C. N. Otis ?

I have a decent amount of content on the architect C. N. Otis and his 36 buildings done in the 19th century but I am getting the impression that doing Wiki pages for him is going to be a major PITA

I find all these hoops and rules and regulations to be approaching the ridiculous level so I give up

I understand citing sources etc and I have that info from when I did my research

I'll create a set of webpages for him and his work and if some enterprising sole wants to create wiki pages for him - bless them - better thee than me :(

I don't have the time or energy for all this BS :(

Bye

Extended content

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lewis buttery (talk • contribs) 19:59, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis buttery I have created a stub article for Calvin N. Otis you are welcome to add to it. Theroadislong (talk) 21:20, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kerch-Yenikale_Canal

Good Day The channel to be to the west from Tuzla Island. The territory to the west from Tuzla Island is Ukraine https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/398748747 Therefore the channel has to is designated as the Ukrainian territory under control of Russia (watch those the Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation). Add please Ukraine. --Bohdan Bondar (talk) 07:05, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bohdan Bondar, and welcome to the Teahouse. Discussions about the content of a particular article should take place at the talk page of that article. I see you have posted there already: please do not post in multiple places. Alternatively you can edit the article yourself, preferably citing a source. --ColinFine (talk) 15:26, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

can someone please help me with an edit question?

I wrote a long piece on Carmel Snow a while back that put her in the context of her time and place, explaining her significance.

It was replaced in its entirety today by someone who eliminated the entire text, replacing it with a much more skeletal one

I'm saddened to have worked hard on a scholarly entry, only to see it replaced by a less informative one. I don't think that readers will be well served. I can see adding to the original material, but to delete all of it, altogether? Including footnotes, etc. etc.?

I'm not a frequent contributor here and, given my professional obligations, cannot take that on. I'd so appreciate it if someone could help me undo this new version, and create a fairer portrait of this subject?

Thank you, Biographer1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biographer1 (talk • contribs) 10:38, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Biographer1 Welcome to Teahouse. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Content are summaries from many independence, reliable source and not an elaborate of every things about the subject. You edits have been reverted twice because you removed the "sourced" content - see here [2]. If you want to add any info, please back it up with sources (from newspapers, journals, publication houses) of such claim Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:51, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand why you were reverted. You took an article with 11 sources that is wikilinked to other articles and changed it to an article with one questionable source and no wikilinks. If you want to improve the article, I suggest you start with what is there now and improve the article. If you have concerns about the quality of the article the place to raise those concerns is on the article talk page, Talk:Carmel Snow. 10:53, 13 June 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GB fan (talk • contribs) 10:53, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The version which you tried to reinstate was unsourced as well as malformatted. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:54, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your help! An earlier version was extensively sourced, as I recall. In any case, I'd be delighted to add sources as necessary.

This text has withstood scrutiny for over a decade. The larger question to me was why the original couldn't have been added to, rather than deleted altogether.

It's nice to have some of these new details, such as the color of CS's wedding dress, but the piece needs to put her in the context of her time. I'm unclear about why the new material -- and sources -- couldn't just have been added to the earlier text.

I'm a professional biographer and journalist and worked hard to give this subject credence. Carmel Snow had a profound effect on the cultural in America and Western Europe in the mid 20th century.

I'm convinced that there were sources in the original page. Is there a way to look back at earlier versions?

My only interest in giving this extraordinary subject her due!

Many thanks for whatever help you can offer.

Biographer1 (talk) 11:29, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to look back at earlier versions, click the "View history" tab at the top of the article, and it will take you to the history. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:34, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can see every single version the article. Go to the article, Carmel Snow. Then click on "View history". Next just above where the first version is, click "500". Now all the versions are visible on a single page. Now if you click on the time/date sequence you can see what the article looked like then. ~ GB fan 11:36, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox Problem

"i was sweating it, my heartpulse was racing like a horse then i panicked as if wikipedia was trying to kill me and all of a sudden sandbox said that all my contributions were vandalism..." I was just test editing on the wikipedia sandbox and i didn't see why my edit wasn't a test edit. Bondboy9756 (talk) 10:59, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bondboy9756, Welcome to Teahouse - Your edit on User:Smoke' talk page -see here [3] was considered vandalism. Please stick to "Your sandbox" for experiencing with editing in Wikipedia. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:13, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Racist Editing of the Rodney King Page?!?!

Hey I got here through some OJ simpson diving and have just read the Wikipage for Rodney King and its basically saying he was an alcoholic who killed himself and got divorced three times and goes into great depth about the non violent incident with police:?!?!?!?

Can someone fix this badly spelt racially biased and uninformed edit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rodney_King&action=edit — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.148.149.172 (talk) 11:47, 13 June 2018‎ (UTC)[reply]

You and I must be reading a different article. Rodney King does not say the incident with the police was non-violent. It also doesn't say he killed himself. You will need to be have more information to substantiate what you are saying. The best place to discuss changes to the article is on the talk page, Talk:Rodney King. ~ GB fan 12:06, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Desktop

Can I use the desktop version of wikipedia on a smartphone/tablet ? Kpgj hpjm 12:00, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you can, I do it. At the bottom, of any mobile page is a link called "Desktop", click it and you will be taken to the desktop version. ~ GB fan 12:08, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is there no way to go to the desktop mode without clicking ? Kpgj hpjm 14:56, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kpgjhpjm: I believe the only (but rather straightforward) way to ensure this is to make sure that when Wikipedia is called, it uses the "en.wikipedia.org" address rather than "en.m.wikipedia.org". If you can configure that on your mobile device, you should be good to go - but unless you are actually using a bookmark in a browser, I don't know if it's easily done. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:06, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kalank 2018 Movie

Is there a valid source that says that Pritam is the one who will be composing music for the film. I believe Shankar-Ehsaan-Loy will continue as a successful combination again after 2 states. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.99.198.240 (talk) 12:09, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please mention the link where Pritam is the composer and not Shankar-Ehsaan-Loy. I am unable to see your comment. Best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikZee (talk • contribs) 12:28, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

editing draft

I just submitted a draft for submission but need to update my sources or it will be denied. How do I access it at this point? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aardvarksnout (talk • contribs) 16:08, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Aardvarksnout and welcome to the Teahouse.

It appears you are speaking of the draft at Draft:Global Music Awards. It's still right where you were working on it and you are encouraged to continue to improve it while waiting for a review. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:57, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SANDTRAP!

how in hades do I move my draft out of my sandbox? I can see absolutely no method for doing so available. am I blind? please help! Aardvarksnout (talk) 16:39, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To do it yourself your account has to be confirmed or autoconfirmed. Your account will become autoconfirmed at 14:25 (UTC), 16 June 2018. If you want someone else you can ask for it to be moved at WP:RM/TR. ~ GB fan 17:13, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

want to add a foto of mine to my profile

want to add a foto of mine to my profile..how do i do that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iddocniyas (talk • contribs) 17:20, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Personal edits

I just sent 2 days updating my personal Wikipedia page and it was deleted by Wikipedia. What are my resources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebford2 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Ebford2, and welcome to the Teahouse! I understand and apologize that this happened. However, in a nutshell, Wikipedia is not the place to write an autobiography. Nearly all autobiographies get deleted from Wikipedia, as 99.9% of people aren't notable or significant enough to have a Wikipedia article. See WP:YOURSELF. Hope this helps, and please let us know if you have any further questions! =)--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 18:58, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize - I misread your post. But about what you were saying, writing about a subject where you have a conflict of interest is discouraged, see WP:COI. If you think something should be changed, it's better to request this on the talk page. Also, if you do edit the page, you will still need to always source your statements - e.g., if something happened in your personal life, you can't just add it because you know it happened to you, you still need a reliable source stating that it happened. Hope this helps!--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 19:03, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and one more thing. If you do have a conflict of interest on a certain topic that has Wikipedia page, you should disclose this on the article's talk page. See WP:DISCLOSE for details.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 19:08, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why does someone I don't know have the authority to change the changes I have made to my personal Wikipedia page.

I thought we lived in a Democracy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebford2 (talk • contribs) 19:13, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ebford2: You don't really have a personal Wikipedia page as all pages here are collectively part of Wikipedia. Tradition dictates that you have more control over your user page, but you don't have one yet. To which page do you refer?--S Philbrick (Talk) 19:17, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The page is Edsel Ford II. While it may be about you, Edsel Ford II ‎, it is not your page to do with as you please. See WP:OWN. Meters (talk) 19:20, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)@Ebford2: See WP:OWN, WP:COI, and WP:FACEBOOK. Your line about "I thought we lived in a Democracy" is a non-sequitur, especially considering that would mean that other people should be able to edit the page about you (however, see WP:NOTDEMOCRACY and WP:FREESPEECH regarding this consensus-based private site's interactions with the principles of democracy and free-speech). This is a private website which you do not own. We have an article about you, but it is not "your" article, you do not own it. If you see some way it violates our polices such as WP:BLP or WP:RS, then you can point them out on the article's talk page. Do not edit the article about you again. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:20, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes

Why are people so insistent on removing infoboxes from peoples pages if they have correct information? They do not detract from the page, they add to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurenann1401 (talk • contribs) 20:12, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Laurenann1401, welcome to the Teahouse. We have around three million articles with infoboxes and more than 95% of them have probably never been removed except as vandalism like blanking the whole page. If you seek help about a specific page then please always name it. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:46, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Laurenann1401. Is this about Colleen Ballinger? You commented on Talk:Colleen Ballinger# Infobox edit war, in response to a thread about removing an infobox started on 9 December 2016

Not everyone agrees that an infobox always adds to an article. Some editors think that an infobox is usually redundant, and in some cases editors think that an infobox will tend to over-simplify complex issues, and thereby distort them. This is a matter to be decided for each separate article, and there is no rule requiring or forbidding an info box on any particular article. Posting on the article talk page is the way to seek consensus on adding an infobox. Or one can simply make a bold edit as long as you are prepared for the possibility that someone might revert it, in which case you should follow the bold, revert, discuss cycle and start or join a discussion on the article talk page. In any case, do not edit war by reverting back and forth. That can get everyone involved blocked from editing for a time. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:41, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and in future, please sign posts to article talk pages and discussion pages such as this with four tildes (~~~~). The Wikimedia software will replace this with a link to your user page (or your custom signature if you have one set) and a timestamp. This helps other users keep track of who wrote what. It also helps archiving scripts. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:41, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

add a picture or 2 to an article

I CAME ACCROSS 2 PHOTOES CONCERNING THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE OF WORLD WAR 1 ERA. HOW CAN I SUBMIT TO WIKIPEDIA? — Preceding unsigned comment added by YESHIAM (talk • contribs) 21:32, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 845: / Line 845: @@
 :Hi [[User:Laurenann1401|Laurenann1401]], welcome to the Teahouse. We have around three million articles with infoboxes and more than 95% of them have probably never been removed except as vandalism like blanking the whole page. If you seek help about a specific page then please always name it. [[User:PrimeHunter|PrimeHunter]] ([[User talk:PrimeHunter|talk]]) 20:46, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
+::Hello, {{U|Laurenann1401}}. Is this about [[Colleen Ballinger]]? You commented on [[Talk:Colleen Ballinger# Infobox edit war]], in response to a thread about removing an infobox started on 9 December 2016
+::Not everyone agrees that an infobox always adds to an article. Some editors think that an infobox is usually redundant, and in some cases editors think that an infobox will tend to over-simplify complex issues, and thereby distort them. This is a matter to be decided for each separate article, and there is no rule requiring or forbidding an info box on any particular article. Posting on the article talk page is the way to seek consensus on adding an infobox. Or one can simply make a [[WP:BOLD|bold edit]] as long as you are prepared for the possibility that someone might revert it, in which case you should follow the [[WP:BRD|bold, revert, discuss cycle]] and start or join a discussion on the article talk page. In any case, do '''not''' [[WP:WAR|edit war]] by reverting back and forth. That can get everyone involved blocked from editing for a time. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|<sup>(talk)</sup>]][[Special:Contributions/DESiegel|<sub>DESiegel Contribs</sub>]] 21:41, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
+::Oh and in future, please [[WP:SIGN|sign]] posts to article talk pages and discussion pages such as this with four tildes (<code><nowiki>~~~~</nowiki></code>). The Wikimedia software will replace this with a link to your user page (or your custom signature if you have one set) and a timestamp. This helps other users keep track of who wrote what. It also helps archiving scripts. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|<sup>(talk)</sup>]][[Special:Contributions/DESiegel|<sub>DESiegel Contribs</sub>]] 21:41, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 == add a picture or 2 to an article ==