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
1222, 1223, 1224, 1225, 1226, 1227, 1228, 1229, 1230, 1231, 1232, 1233, 1234, 1235, 1236, 1237, 1238, 1239, 1240, 1241

Where can I complain a bureaucrat?

UPDATE: I am looking for an authority that can supervise the bureaucrat of another wikipedia, I am not expecting English wikipedia to do something. If you know the right place, point me there. That wikipedia has not done anything to the patrol that defamed me 3 times in a month and banned me instead for demanding that patrol be penalized. The same user is writing baseless content to wikipedia, is distorting the sources and despite me reporting the issue bureaucrats and admins are not doing anything. They are not giving any explanation to the steps they do, I want to report this issue to the higher authoirty. END UPDATE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruhubelent (talk • contribs) 16:00, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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]

@331dot:, As you've been told, I am not here expecting English wikipedia to do something. I am asking this question to clarify the place we can complain about the issue. Where is that? Or there is no any place who can supervise it? Bureaucrats can do whatever they want? If there is no way to supervise them, tell it directly. If there is way, then where? --Ruhubelent (talk) 22:14, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak to the processes and oversight, or lack thereof, of the Turkish Wikipedia. I suspect few users here could. You need to use whatever processes that version of Wikipedia has. 331dot (talk) 22:18, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am using it, they are not doing anything even if I reported a user that insulted me verbally 3 times in a month. I reported him a month ago right after the time that user insulted me, still no action. I am reporting no original research issue, still no action. So, in short they can do everything and there is nothing WIKIPEDIA does to prevent such actions? If someone outside wikipedia sees all of these, they will no longer take wikipedia seriously. --Ruhubelent (talk) 22:52, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ruhubelent: I don't think there is such a place. Coordination of all Wikimedia projects happens on the Meta-Wiki, and the Stewards there have advanced permissions across all Wikimedia wikis, but they generally don't interfere with individual projects unless those projects lack administrators and bureaucrats of their own. clpo13_(talk) 22:34, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That means it is likely that those Stewards will not interfere in this situation since the Wikipedia version I have a problem with has its own bureaucrat? Since it has a bureaucrat and admin? If it is true, it means once a person is appointed as a bureaucrat he/she canact as he wishes on Wikipedia and there is no way to question him/her. What a frivolity --Ruhubelent (talk) 22:52, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhubelent It means that whatever remedy for improper action by an admin or bureaucrat there may be, it will occur on the relevant Wikipedia edition, in accodanc with the procedures of that edition. on wn.wikipedia, there are a whole set of procedures for dispute resolutin, there are [[WP:AN], WP:ANI and other noticeboards, and ultimately there is ATRBCOM (the arbitration committee) I don't know what equivalents of these there may be on the Turkish-language edition of Wikipedia. But if you can somehow manage to establish consensus that the other person is acting improperly there, there will probably be a way to deal with it. Those people who are admins (sysops) on that Wikipedia have the technical power to block users there. Under what circumstances they would use it, I do not know. But finding some appropriate forum on that project and raising the issue there is more likely to et what you want than any post here. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:11, 13 June 2018 (UTC) Ruhubelent DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:11, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DESiegel, I need an authority over Turkish wikipedia. I have applied to everywhere on Turkish wikipedia. They banned me instead of banning a patrol that has defamed me 3 times in a month. I have been reporting this offense as well for a month, nothing is done and today I am banned for a week. Turkish wikipedia's bureaucrat banned me today, I have posted the offense to the pages of bureaucrats, to the page of community portal and demanded they penalize the attacker. Instead they banned me with doing nothing to the attacker. And the userf of Turkish wikipedia only started to respond my charges today after I am banned. They have not appeared for 5 months but today 2 of them replied, what a coincidence. They respond at the time I can no longer respond them. --Ruhubelent (talk) 15:51, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no higher authority to consult. If the Turkish Wikipedia has decided to ban and block you, and doesn't want to listen to you, there isn't much else you can do- and there is nothing that we can do. 331dot (talk) 15:56, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure? What is your position on Wikipedia? Are you a patrol or someone like that? I mean, your answer is in compliance with Wikipedia's policy? Let us wait and see what others say. If what you say is the case, then this means bureaucrtas of wikipedia can do whatever they want and there is nothing to prevent them. They can write articles as they wish, they can publish their worldviews on wikipedia and protect it and there is nothing that can be done. I hope I can get all these published on major media sources and newspapers. We shall let the world see how absurd system Wikipedia has. --Ruhubelent (talk) 16:06, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an administrator here, and I certainly don't know everything, but Wikipedia is a private entity and can determine who uses it as it sees fit, this can include blocking people for any reason or even no reason. Personally, I don't want to do that, but those that run the Turkish Wikipedia can determine who uses it as they see fit and I don't see as if you have much recourse. I think you are going to have to let this go; there are other websites you can contribute to, or you can start your own. 331dot (talk) 16:18, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know a certian site can determine their policies as they wish. I was not implying Wikipedia must obey certian rules. What I am saying is Wikipedia has such an absurd system, they can be absurd I am not objecting to Wikipedia's right to be that absurd. I am not trying to wikipedia obey something, what I am gonna try to do is to let this absurdity be shared as much as possible. --Ruhubelent (talk) 16:22, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhubelent, to the best of my knowledge 331dot is correct, there is no supervising authority over the Turkish Wikipedia (or any other) outside itself. I am an admin here on en.Wikipedia, and have been an editor since 2005. I am reasonably sure that there is no such supervising authority. From your story, it does sound as if you have been treated improperly, although of course there could be another side for all that I know. You could try to bring attention to this on User talk:Jimbo Wales -- as the founder of Wikipedia Jimbo has significant moral authority, although litle or now power of decree. His talk page is much read. Besides that, if the Community at the Turkish-langauge Wikipedia has decided to block you and that what has happened to you does not need any response, there is really nothing that you can do. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:04, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Multi-Lingual Multi-Encyclopedic Directory to Help

It occurs to me that editors come here, or one of the other assistance forums, on the English Wikipedia to ask for help with a complaint on a Wikipedia in another language. It occurs to me that it might be useful to have, probably on Meta, a directory listing the Help resources for all of the Wikipedias in all of the languages, including brief descriptions about the resources in the language of the resource. We could then direct editors like this one to the superdirectory. (Of course, that might require support from the WMF because it crosses systems. The WMF has an inconsistent record of helping users. But it might be worth asking.) Robert McClenon (talk) 23:43, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So, where should I ask or apply? Where can we give this proposal? --Ruhubelent (talk) 15:51, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhubelent I poked around a bit, and if I'm understanding the situation correctly, there is a Wikipedia page saying someone said X, but you can prove they actually said Y because you've can show a link to the actual footage. That's original research, and no one on Wikipedia will help you insert original research into an article, even if that original research is demonstrably true and the Wikipedia article is demonstrably false. The only way you can make the correction without someone reverting it is to find the information mentioned in a reliable source. valereee (talk) 13:42, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, Valeree, you misunderstood the event. In the opposite way. The source used there EXPLICITLY states that someone said Y while, yes as you say, Turkish wikipedia shows it as that someone said X. I am not referring to the footage, I am referring to the source they are using. Things are more interesting in this situation because 1) The same source is used on English wikipedia for the same content, the same user edit-warred here but quitted. He has no power on Ennglish wikipedia. 2) Again, the same source is being used on Turkish wikipedia for the same content but the same is preventing me due to his power on Turkish wikipedia, not only the user but other authorities as well. Things get even more interesting because they are not only blocking me "it is original research" but they are not answering me if I ask them "look, is this statement found on that source or not?" Another patrol has discussed me several things regarding the topic but he deliberately dodging this question, all I concluded from this situation is: That users are afraid of getting banned in case they answer the question. --Ruhubelent (talk) 07:12, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Valeree; please take a look at English version of the same section: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1980_Turkish_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat&oldid=846365854#Allegations_of_the_US_involvement There, I have updated the section. All content are directly translated from the sources. And in front of sources I put the sentence that was translated. They are just preventing me from doing the same on Turkish wikipedia. The patrol even explicitly stated he would not allow a commentary change that would exalt Henze (Carter) and diminish Birand. I asked him what is a commentary in my proposal, he did not reply. He did not point out. Yet Turkish wikipedia's bureaucrat is ignoring everything and banned me. --Ruhubelent (talk) 08:55, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

how many kinds of barnstars are there?

"One, two, three, i messingly count them in a unordingly way and mess-up the barnstar names as a whole..." Bondboy9756 (talk) 11:03, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bondboy9756. Can I ask whether you have plans to contribute content to the encyclopedia or help with maintaining it? Cordless Larry (talk) 11:05, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They're insanely diverse. There are probably as many types of barn stars as there are types of articles. They're infamously difficult to get. Many editors do invaluable work only to have their edits go unnoticed and not even get one. I for the life of me can't see how some editors have dozens of them. Waste IMO to edit Wikipedia just because you want a barn star. Buy a real one on eBay. EnglishEfternamn _*t/c* 23:45, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Avigdor Eskin

Good Day What format of a source in the PDF file. On many people sanctions are imposed. I want to write about it in articles. --Bohdan Bondar (talk) 17:43, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bohdan Bondar. You cite a PDF like any other published source: with enough information to enable a reader to identify and in principle obtain the source, eg through a library. I am not aware of a particular citation template for PDFs, because these usually relate to a kind of publication (book, news, journal, website etc) rather than a format. Have a look at Citing sources. --ColinFine (talk) 20:26, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

talk Thank you . I experimented for a long time but managed to get what I wanted--Bohdan Bondar (talk) 16:46, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Biography

Why did you delete my article if it has valid references?

(talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emilthebest06 (talk • contribs) 18:23, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

my article

I started an article on Laurelstone in my account & can't figure out how to return to continue writing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.57.62 (talk) 13:25, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So it looks like your account is Hamish1066. Did you connect an email address to your account? If so, you should be able to recover your password. Otherwise, you're just gonna have to keep guessing what your password might have been. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:31, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The draft is at Draft:Laurelstone. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 13:33, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I got the article by clicking on the above link. Thank you. I still don't know how to recover the article through my account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.57.62 (talk) 22:32, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean that you don't know how to recover your account? The article is there, it's recovered, you can keep editing it. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:44, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed text

Hello, I have added text to an article and it keeps being removed by another user, who says that the author I quote is not worth including. I have provided links to the author's credentials on a university website, but the text keeps on being removed. Is there usually a resolution to these sorts of dispute? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saint Michael 2010 (talk • contribs) 15:03, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Saint Michael 2010. You and Cagwinn seem to be edit-warring on Lucius of Britain, and you both need to stop. What you need to do, according to the policy on dispute resolution, is to start discussing the matter on Talk:Lucius of Britain, which neither of you has yet done (I see that Cagwinn was involved in a discussion there four years ago, which mentioned David Knight's book; but there has been no recent discussion). If you cannot reach agreement, then the DR page I pointed you at tells you how to proceed. --ColinFine (talk) 15:50, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, I will put something on the talk page next week. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saint Michael 2010 (talk • contribs) 16:02, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Michael 2010 is pushing fringe theories and refuses to abide by WP:UNDUE. David Knight is NOT a recognized scholar, he is a fringe author with no qualifications and none of his bizarre theories have been accepted by genuine scholars in the field. Cagwinn (talk) 19:15, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Cagwinn! If your statement is indeed true, then you would be far more likely to receive a receptive response if you carefully (and judiciously) laid out your proof in the article's talk page as ColinFine suggested and were willing to discuss the issue peacefully with Saint Michael 2010. Thanks for your efforts to improve Wikipedia! —zfJames Please add {{ping|ZfJames}} to your reply (talk page, contribs) 02:23, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Knight's book has already been discussed a bit on the article's talk page. The fact that you don't see any scholars of Roman era Britain citing Knight's book speaks to its utter lack of notability. Also, Knight is an archaeologist, not an historian, and he naively treats medieval literature such as Geoffrey of Monmouth's fictitious Historia Regum Britanniae as if it is a genuine historical source (which it is not). Knight is a fringe author with fringe theories - thus, per WP:UNDUE, his ideas about Lucius of Britain do not belong on Wikipedia. Cagwinn (talk) 06:46, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And your discussions about the article and its source don't belong on this page, Cagwinn, but on the articl'es talk page; or thereafter as directed by WP:conflict resolution. --ColinFine (talk) 10:15, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clear conflict of interest - how to report?

A local scandal is affecting someone who has a Wiki page that was pretty clearly created by them (or someone close to them)and continually updated by them. They now seem to be adding personal information about the scandal which attempts to lessons the charges against them (which were reported in the national newspaper), without providing any citations. How can this be dealt with? Ross Porter (Canadian broadcaster) NOTE: this page has been repeatedly called up for COI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.189.56.241 (talk) 15:54, 15 June 2018 (UTC) Thanks. 205.189.56.241 (talk) 15:32, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. The place to report this is Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. Please note that you need to notify anyone who you report there that you have done so, by posting on their talk page. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:01, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Cordless Larry 142.216.128.5 (talk) 16:04, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Citing a private e-mail from a credible source

Hi All,

Apologies in advance if this is covered in a policy somewhere; I've looked in various places including on WP:CITET but none of the source categories are quite right.

This is regarding a Finnish TV series, where the Wikipedia article contains an error (a relatively minor one, but still) in what comes to the personal details of the main character, both in the Finnish (presumably original) article as well as the English one. I searched for a reputable source to clarify this, but couldn't find one, so I contacted the production company. The series producer replied by e-mail to clarify the matter. So far, so good.

However, I would now like to correct the mistake in the article(s), but how do I do this when I still don't have a citable source? Or should I therefore not?

Thanks — DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:11, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DoubleGrazing. Interesting question. I think my approach in this situation would be to post what you've already said here on the talk page of the article in question, and paste in elements of the email you received from the production company. If you asked there whether anyone minded if you changed the content accordingly (and then waited a while for a reply) it would probably then be OK to be bold and alter minor details of the type you seem to be referring to. The difficulty comes when a statement already has a citation to a source which is incorrect, and you have the right information, but a poor source. But by having that discussion on the article's talk page, all editors in future will at least see what information you have dug out, irrespective of whether editor concensus allows it to remain there, or not. Others might take a different approach, but I think from what you said that this would be OK. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:42, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nick Moyes, that's pretty much what I was thinking also, just wasn't sure. In this case no source is currently cited so there's nothing I need to contest, which probably makes things easier. Ta muchly, :) DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:53, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to have to disagree with Nick here. Local consensus can't override WP:V – one of our central policies. Personal communications can't be used as sources here because nobody else can verify them. I think the best you can do is remove the statement in question altogether, since it isn't referenced. But you can't include information sourced from an unpublished email.

@DoubleGrazing: – Joe (talk) 17:01, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Joe Roe, I hear what you say, but... The detail I'm looking to add is entirely uncontentious; in fact, anyone watching the series could most likely gather the same info first-hand themselves (I could probably cite the series as a reference, I just don't know which particular episodes). I also think it would genuinely add useful information here, given that the article as it stands has at best an ambiguity, at worst an actual error. I guess I could go back to the production company and ask them to post something on their website, but this seems a bit OTT just so that I could mention what is after all a minor point on Wikipedia. Moving forward, how should I resolve this, now that I have two opposing pieces of advice? DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:40, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you can cite the series itself if its something uncontroversial. In fact, you don't even need to cite it. See MOS:PLOTSOURCE. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:55, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Creating my own article.

My question is for all the members of the Teahouse - How will I create my own article about someone one Wikipedia? Please answer me on my talk page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gamer10101 .

Gamer10101 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamer10101 (talk • contribs) 16:34, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no expert, but seems to me like WP:HOW could be a good place to start. DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:44, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gamer10101, welcome to our Teahouse. Forgive me for answering here, not on your talk page, as you requested (though I will post a copy there). We have many other editors who like to see answers to questions. But I will leave you a 'talkback' notification when I'm done. Addding to what DoubleGrazing has suggested, you do need to be aware that creating a new article is one of the most difficult challenges here, especially for a newcomer. Firstly, you person needs to meet our Notability (people) criteria. Whilst you might think some Youtuber with half a million followers is clearly notable, that's irrelevant from Wikipedia's point of view. So do please read and appreciate that to demonstrate notability, you absolutely must cite references that show the person has been written about, in depth by independent, reliable sources. Se we discount their own blogs, YouTube pages and social media accounts, and other peoples blogs and websites, but require instead newspapers, media outlets, books and journals which have written about that person, thing, or place in some detail. Thanks, by the way, for declaring your Conflict of Interest over Draft:Abdur Rahman. (It's not this person is it? If so, I urge you not to write about yourself, especially as, just like me, that person doesn't look to be anywhere close to meeting our criteria for notability. See Wikipedia:Autobiography.)

To help familiarise yourself with how things work here, do try out The Wikipedia Adventure and then read Wikipedia:Your first article. It is almost inevitable that you will make a mistake if you plunge right in to article creation straight away. It's often best to make lots of smaller edits across multiple pages to'get a feel' of how things are done. When another editor reverts what you've done, please don't be upset, angry or offended. Consider the reasons they gave for reverting that edit, and try not to do it again. It's OK to politely ask them to explain why they've undone something you thought was perfectly reasonable. That way you'll more quickly learn what to do and what not to do. The one things we don't do is editing, reverting,editing, reverting between two editors - that's a surefire way to get blocked from editing, as is blindly carrying on when other more experienced editors have asked you not to do something again. So, we discuss our concerns on talk pages - whether it's on the article or on an editor's own talk page. Finally, your question asked about creating 'my own article'. Nobody here owns any page - even if its about themselves. Everything is in the public domain and can be constructively edited by anybody,providing they follow our guidelines (of which, sadly, there a rather a lot). But we're always here at the Teahouse to help if you get stuck. Good luck, and welcome to Wikipedia! Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:32, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Broken Link

Hello. I am new to editing broken links. I tried to fix a broken link on River Town Saints article. I replaced the link with the correct url, but a Check url=value message appeared. If you click on the link it takes you to the correct web page, so I'm not sure what I did wrong. Please advise. Thanks. I forgot to add my nameCalliopeMuse (talk) 17:21, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaned up that ref and a few others, using a different format. David notMD (talk) 18:58, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where to appeal an AFD discussion with merge outcome

Is Wikipedia:Deletion review, the right place to appeal an AFD discussion where the outcome was merge? Pratyush (talk) 17:15, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@PratyushSinha101: Welcomt to the Teahouse. The first step is to contact the closing administrator and ask if they will re-assess their close. If you still disagree then you can challenge the close at Deletion Review. Please note though that a deletion review is not to re-argue the case it is only to assess whether the AfD close was good ie that the closer properly read the consensus of the discussion and that there were significant and material errors in the AfD process. Jbh ^Talk 22:18, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jbhunley:, that helps. Thanks. Pratyush (talk) 08:31, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cannot create any page without an administrator

Hello. We have a problem in our national wikipedia, it seems that none of the titles I try in the national language are allowed. They are on the "black list" and require the administrator to create the page. We onle have 3 administrators and they seem to be very busy. At the same time, there is 350 articles to be published in the national language. What should I and my colleagues do? Is this restriction working for any national wikipedia, or we are the unlucky ones??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RashLightning (talk • contribs) 17:23, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RashLightning, welcome to the Teahouse. Your account has no edits at any other language. I don't know why you go out of your way to make formulations which conceal which language you want help with but please reveal it if you want to give us a chance to help you. Also give an example title. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:33, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Newbie who has just posted draft article and mangled the footnoting process

I have dialogued over the past 24 hours with Ian Thompspn, Orange Mike and DESiegel (and thank you all.)

I've made an attempt to draft an initial posting of an article about a TV show (now entering its 4th season), starting with my disclosure of a financial relationship to the production company. I've stuck to facts and externally published articles. It seems I've managed to mangle the footnoting process though:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tcampo123/sandbox/Matter_of_Fact_with_Soledad_O%27Brien#cite_note-4

Happy to make any changes as advised -- or better still for any other users to change/fix as they like.

Thanks.

Tom — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tcampo123 (talk • contribs) 17:32, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, Tom. Another user has fixed the immediate problem (look at the history of your draft to see what they did). I suggest you read referencing for beginners. --ColinFine (talk) 21:41, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Tom, I haven't looked at all your references, but the four or five I have looked at are all clearly based on interviews or press releases, and are therefore not independent. This doesn't mean you can't use them, but it does mean that they do not contribute in any way to establishing that the show meets Wikipedia's criteria for Notability. --ColinFine (talk) 22:02, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Colin, again for your ongoing help, guidance and especially patience. (I've also thanked Chiswick Chap for his extensive help.)

Re meeting the bar for Notability, I'm going by the following postings as examples of comparable television shows. If you check the references, most if not nearly all are articles resulting from news announcements/press releases about these shows if not directly from press releases themselves. Simply the nature of the beast when it comes to TV programs and the like. I'm hoping the governing criteria in cases of these types of article submissions revolve around the nature of the language used -- For example, I'm taking care to avoid any "hype" or heavily promotional language -- rather than the initial sourcing of the information about such shows, sourcing which almost inevitably originates with publicity about the show.

Examples (based on program genre/format):

Sinclair Broadcast Group's "Full Measure with Sharyl Attkisson": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_Measure_with_Sharyl_Attkisson

"Fox News Sunday": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Sunday

CNN's "State of the Union" with Jake Tapper: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_the_Union_(TV_series)

Again, if you check the sourcing, it's typically from news releases, articles derived from news releases, and/or the program's or network's own website.

Addressing the Notability criterion in terms of one aspect: "Matter of Fact with Soledad O'Brien" -- based on Nielsen data -- now has an audience reach comparable to that of "Fox News Sunday" and far surpassing those of "Full Measure" and "State of the Union."

I'm happy to answer any additional questions and to try to make any further additions/adjustments that would permit me to get my draft to a stage where it can be reviewed for full publication>

Thank you again!

Tcampo123 (talk) 19:01, 16 June 2018 (UTC) Tom[reply]

We have many articles which do not meet our standards - usually because they were created some time ago, when the standards were less rigorously applied. "Other stuff exists" is never accepted as a valid argument. If you find an existing article does not establish the notability of the subject you are encouraged to:

Tag it with a template such as {{notability}}
If you are willing to spend the time, look for suitable sources for it, and add them (or suggest them on its talk page)
If you can't find any, nominate the article for deletion on the grounds that if you can't find suitable sources, the subject probably doesn't meet out criteria for notability. See Deletion process.

Given what you have revealed about yourself, you may have a conflict of interest in involving yourself in those articles, but provided you are open about who you are, and you are seen to be trying to apply Wikipedia's standards, rather than attacking the competition, I don't see a problem. --ColinFine (talk) 23:57, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, as always, Colin.

I certainly don't mean to come across as attacking other TV shows; quite the opposite. I was merely addressing the notability question by comparing this particular TV show to others that have pages by citing the industry's governing criterion for measuring notability of TV shows -- namely, audience reach.

There is another consideration I neglected to include when addressing the notability question in my earlier response -- incomplete if not confusing information. When one searches "Matter of Fact" in association with a TV show, they find this page about an Australian TV show:

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

Again, this is in no way to suggest any de-legitimization of inclusion of the Australian show named "Matter of Fact" -- rather to argue it raises the merit of a page (of whatever length) clarifying that there is also a US TV show -- to "supplement the record," if you will.

Once again, I appreciate not only your time, patience and guidance, but your acknowledgement that (admittedly after a couple of fits & starts in terms of format/protocol) I've been forthright about my COI and tried to adhere generally to Wikipedia standards.

I would like to submit my article for consideration but I wanted to address the lingering concerns you raised before doing so. I'm happy to address any additional questions or concerns prior to submitting -- or, if you feel I should go ahead and submit, I will do so.

Thanks again.

Tcampo123 (talk) Tom —Preceding undated comment added 19:11, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Submission

Hello! Could Draft be reviewed? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kathrinelilholtnielsen (talk • contribs) 18:09, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Kathrinelilholtnielsen and welcome to the Teahouse.

I'm afraid we don't generally expedite reviews of drafts already in the queue, but your draft hasn't even been submitted. But don't submit it until you have provided some notability references that meet the requirements of WP:NACTOR. So far, none of your references comes close to establishing notability. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:09, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where to start and what do i need to know?

I finally decided to make an account for Wikipedia. I just wanted to maybe know from some experienced users out there for where did you start and how? And maybe what i NEED to know and where i should begin. Steeltree1 (talk) 19:32, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Steeltree1 ! I've left a bunch of links on your talk page, they're a great place to start! valereee (talk) 19:41, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Steeltree1 welcome to the weird and wacky world of Wikipedia! I suspect every editor has their own tale of how they began editing, but I suspect many, like me, looked up things they either were particularly interested or knowledgeable in and were surprised to discover obvious things missing. If they had access to good books or found online sources of information cite to support content they wanted to add they might have made that first, tentative step add editing. When they discovered this didn't actually break Wikipedia - but improved it a little bit - they may have started on a fantastic journey of contributing to the world's greatest encyclopaedia. I see you've already taken your first steps by removing inappropriate content from articles relating to your home town. Brilliant work - and well done for leaving an edit summary to explain what you've done. I'd suggest tempering your enthusiasm just a little bit, and avoid edits like this one. I'm not sure I'd know how to respond if you'd left it for me! (But we do have a system of Barnstars where one editors, impressed by the contributions of another editor, can leave them a supportive barnstar to show their appreciation. Anyway, good look. Give The Wikipedia Adventure a go - see if you can collect all 15 badges in its six Missions. Come back with questions on editing any time you get stuck. Regards from the English Midlands. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:03, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How do i report or point out a user?

I have found a user who has made inappropriate edits to some articles, i have tried to get rid of it, and they were recent. Steeltree1 (talk) 19:54, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AIAV Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 20:23, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Steeltree1: welcome to the Teahouse. The first step should always be to communicate with the user on their talk page. The link provided by Thegooduser above leads to a noticeboard where repeat vandals can be reported to the administrators, but it is unusual that action will be taken if the user hasn't been warned about their behaviour, first. If you let us know which article(s) are affected you could perhaps get a better and more specific answer. :-) --bonadea contributions talk 20:55, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably The Kingswinford School. While I agree that it was appropriate to remove the sentence you did, Steeltree1, I think the editor who added it was editing in good faith - they evidently have strong opinions, and may not be aware that opinions are not appropriate in Wikipedia articles. You should certainly start by engaging with them on either the article's talk page or their User Talk page. --ColinFine (talk) 22:09, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Uploading an image from a site with granted permission

I wanted to inquire about uploading an image to Commons from a site that has provided other images on several Wikipedia articles. There is a box with permission details for each uploaded image from this site and to quote that partially, the following is written: "Wikimedia has received an e-mail confirming that the copyright holder has approved publication under the terms mentioned on this page. This correspondence has been reviewed by an OTRS member and stored in our permission archive." So in light of this, is it possible to upload another image from this site as long as the permission details (the box) are noted? Flyingspacecat (talk) 23:12, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Flyingspacecat Does the permission email recieved by OTRS specify each image individually or does it cover all images on the source site? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 23:20, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Roger (Dodger67) I don't have access to the email as it requires an OTRS login but the ticket number (ticket #2008012510003504) for every image uploaded to Wikipedia from this site is the same. So I've guessed it's one email correspondence concerning the entire site. Though I wanted to be sure which is why I've inquired. Flyingspacecat (talk) 01:54, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Archive Date

So I've been wondering this for a while, and I've been meaning to ask. On citation templates, there's an option for 'Archive Date'. I've always been putting the date when I archived it or the listed date if I wasn't the one to archive it, but if I archive it and the archive site, e.g. the Wayback Machine, gives a different date since it's on GMT, do I put that date or what the date was for me? E.g. it's June 15 where I am, but the Wayback Machine lists it as June 16. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheTechnician27 (talk • contribs) 01:34, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello TheTechnician27 and welcome to the Teahouse.

It's best to match the archivedate parameter with the date that is part of the timestamp in the archiveurl. You can put your current date or the UTC date in the accessdate, that's not as critical. Or you can put a date in the past that represents when you verified that the reference content. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:35, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello TheTechnician27. |archivedate = should give the date-stamp of the archived page, as recorded by the archive, to help in finding the page in the archive, and to provide context of what version of the page was archived. |accessdate= should give the date on which you (or someone) most recently verified that the page as it then stood supported the statements that it is being cited for. This is often the date on which you added the citation, but not always. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 13:59, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I want to for Mayor of Amritsar Karamjit Singh Rintu

Please guide me how I can create a Wikipedia article for current Mayor of Amritsar Sr.Karamjit Singh Rintu in office from Jan 2018 Karamjit Singh Rintu (http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/punjab/karamjit-singh-rintu-is-amritsar-mayor/532962.html)https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/amritsar/karamjit-singh-rintu-is-new-mayor-of-amritsar/articleshow/62617274.cms — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chunghwaace (talk • contribs) 08:04, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Chunghwaace, and welcome to the Teahouse. It's a rather broad question, but the most important thing to start with is to make sure there's enough information for you to create a Wikipedia article in reliable sources. A couple of in-depth texts focusing on the person would be good, or it's possible they can't really have a Wikipedia article either. Hopefully, you should be able to find this for the mayor of a large city. Pay attention to sourcing your statements. Apart from that, I think that reading Wikipedia:Your first article is probably the best advice I can give you. /Julle (talk) 09:19, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Chunghwaace. I might be misinterpreting, but your choice of words "establish a page for" makes me think that you might be making a very common mistake and thinking that Wikipedia is like social media, where people "have pages". It is not: it is an encyclopaedia, and what we do here is not "establish pages for" subjects, but "write articles about" them. An article about a person should summarise what people who have no connection with the subject have chosen to publish about them - including material critical of them, if that has been reliably published. Wikipedia has very little interest in what a subject, or people connected with the subject, have said about themselves; and no interest at all in how the subject wishes to be portrayed. If there is an article about a person, then far from that article being "for" that person, the person and their associates are strongly discouraged from editing the article directly. --ColinFine (talk) 10:25, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks --ColinFine (talk) /Julle (talk) This is about newly elected Mayor of Amritsar City, Punjab and lots of independent sources available for references like news paper and Election Commission of India links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chunghwaace (talk • contribs) 09:53, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected wikipedia pages

Dear Sir/ Madam,

I was wondering when an editor is allowed to protect/ semi-protect a page and with what authority. If the content in the page is unreliable/ untrue, is there anyone to cross-check that and edit the information? I understand that Wikipedia is not peer-reviewed, but when one sees information that is miss-leading, but at the same time protected, what is the way to go about removing it, if any?

Thank you very much in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.5.126.135 (talk • contribs) 04:59, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi anonymous editor, and welcome to the Teahouse! A Wikipedia administrator can protect or semi-protect the page if deemed necessary, usually because of vandalism or because of edit warring when the involved parties should really discuss the article instead of just changing it back and forth. If you want all the details, you can read Wikipedia:Protection policy. If you come across a protected article with errors, we recommend that you point them out on the talk page of that article. /Julle (talk) 09:13, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Editor with IP ending in 135. Requests for protection to be added or removed from pages can be made at Requests for page protection. Protection is normally added only because of persistent vandalism, or to deal with an edit war or other dispute that renders the page unstable. Protection is mos toften removed when the original reason for protection no longer applies. To suggest an edit on a protected page, use {{request edit}}, {{Edit semi-protected}}, or {{Edit fully-protected}} (as appropriate) on the talk page of the page to be edited. Provide a detailed description of the requested edit, usually the exact requested text. Also provide one or more citations to reliable sources that support statements in the requested edit. Without sources the edit may well be declined. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 13:54, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Help with naming an article

I want to create an article about the "Côté Gold Project" (website). How should I make the name of the article (what appears in the wikipedia URL):

Cote_Gold_project
Cote_Gold_mine
Cote_Gold_mining_project
same as above, but with the accents: Côté_Gold_project (or _mine, or _mining_project)
same as above again, with this variation: Cote_Gold_gold_mine (see Rosebel_gold_mine, where for a gold mine, "gold mine" is in the article name)

Considerations:

This is a mining project, not a mine yet. Still it will become a mine. Should I use #1 for now, and later, move the article to #2? Or use #2 right away?
If we don't use the accents, we still need to show the accents on the actual encyclopedia page. Could I use the "DISPLAYTITLE:Côté Gold project" tag (or Côté Gold mine, or Côté Gold mining project) within the article?mmorel 12:08, 16 June 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MMorel (talk • contribs) 08:16, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MMorel, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Before even considering what the name of such an article would be, consider whether it should exist at all. Is this project notable? Has it been written about in several independent published reliable sources in significant depth? That means sources not affiliated with the owners or promoters of this project, sources with a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking, such as mainstream journalists or academic sources. That means not press releases, not interviews with project spokespeople, not fan sites or one=-person sites or blogs, not sources with a poor reputation for accuracy, not "news stories" that are just rewrites of press releases, and not sources with any financial stake in the project. see WP:ORG and WP:CORPDEPTH for more details. Unless several such sources discuss the project in significant detail, there cannot be an article under any name. Also consider WP:CRYSTAL, since Wikipedia is not the place for speculation on things that have not yet occurred.

If, after considering all that, you think that an article is warranted, then please follow WP:COMMONNAME, This says that the name most commonly used to refer to the project in reliable English-language sources should usually be used. If the name has changed over time, recent sources are usually favored. Other names can be created as redirect pages, and included in the article, if supported by reliable sources.

If you decide to go ahead, MMorel, I strongly urge you to use the Article wizard to create a draft under the Articles for creation project, so that it can be reviewed by anj experienced editor before being moved to the main article space.

I hope this advice is helpful. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 14:19, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As DESiegel says, it's odd to be worrying about the name of the article (which can easily be modified later) without first checking whether the article is likely to be accepted. But, to answer your question, I suggest "Côté Gold mining project", with the accents and without the underlines. Maproom (talk) 07:43, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Samrat Reddy page!!

I created a celebrity page for my friend and actor from Indian Cinema Industry. He is currently also a contestant of Bigg Boss (Reality TV show similar to Big Brother) and has done more 22 movies in Indian Cinema industry but his page is rejected under notable profile.

Please help me how i can get his page up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amunnagkumar (talk • contribs) 14:10, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Amunnagkumar: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You were given the reason that the draft was declined- the sources offered do not adequately indicate how the subject is notable, as Wikipedia defines it. In this case, the relevant notability guidelines would be WP:NACTOR. What is needed are multiple independent reliable sources that offer in depth coverage of your friend and indicate he meets the notability guidelines.

I would also note that any article about him would not be "his page", but a page about him. Wikipedia is not social media to merely tell about people. 331dot (talk) 14:29, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hello, Amunnagkumar, and welcome to the Teahouse. There is really only one answer: more and better cited sources. Currently the draft cites only two sources. One of them has only a single brief paragraph about Reddy. The other is entirely about a beauty award won by his sister, and not about him at all. That might be a start for an article about the sister, but is not relevant to an article about Reddy. Do not resubmit until you have found and cited in the article several independent published reliable sources about Reddy, that discuss him in significant detail. These should not be fan sites, purely local coverage, press releases, blogs or other one-person sites, interviews with Reddy, or things published by Reddy or his associates. The must not be mere routine or passing coverage, or inclusions in online directories or lists. Each such source should devote at least several paragraphs to Reddy or his work. They must together establish that he is notable in the special sense that Wikipedia gives to that term. See our guideline on the notability of actors. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 14:39, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that as Reddy is your friend, you have at least a mild Conflict of interest and must be particularly careful in writing about him here. Any article must be neutral and fact-based, not designed to praise or promote him. Read our guideline on conflict of interest and follow it, please. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 14:42, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Amunnagkumar. Judging from the words you use, I think part of your problem might be that, like many people, you have a misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is. There is no such thing as a "celebrity page" in Wikipedia: there are many articles and some of these are about celebrities. Articles are one kind of page in Wikipedia, so it is not wrong to refer to them as pages; but I think that doing so encourages people to think of them like pages on social media: they are not, they are fundamentally and crucially different. --ColinFine (talk) 16:40, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Someone hacked into my contributor account - what can I do?

Someone took over my contributor account ... do I have any options? I just registered a new one, but I would like to have access to my history. Please let me know if anyone has any ideas - thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronniebrown2 (talk • contribs) 17:52, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ronniebrown2: There have been no contributions from Ronniebrown in a year and a half. Why do you think that your previous account was taken over?

Do you have an email address connected to the previous account? If so, you should be able to recover your password. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:03, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian.thomson: My previous account was Ronnielbrown - the email associated with that account also has been hacked and taken over and Yahoo does not offer any human support for that, they just say to register a new account. The person that did this is just purely malicious - how do I add comments here? I just edited the source to add this in, is that how you are supposed to do it? ronniebrown2 (talk) 18:10, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That account has only made one edit in two years, and had only 163 other edits before that. The best course of action would just be to post a note on the user page for your current account that you used to edit under that prior account, and maybe leave a note on that page that the account was compromised and a link to your current account. There's really not much we can do beyond that because we don't have any means of verifying who you are. You might want to add a (filled-out) Committed identity template to your current account so that you can recover that one in case of any future incidents. Instructions for getting a hash for that template (do not put your raw, unencrypted personal information in the template) can be found here or here. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:20, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pro pic

How to upload profile pictures — Preceding unsigned comment added by G. YuvaKrishna (talk • contribs) 18:23, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, G. YuvaKrishna. The copyright holder, who is usually the photographer, should upload the image to Wikimedia Commons, using the easy upload wizard they have there. Please be careful about the use of the word "profile" because Wikipedia is not a social media site, and we do not have profiles. We have biographies of notable people and userpages for Wikipedia editors. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:46, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abusive Admin

I have just started editing mostly on the talk pages. I am getting threats from an administrator who seems to have an agenda. I made some suggestions and this person attacks me.KirinMagic (talk) 18:45, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would highly advise you to take their advice, or you will be blocked. 331dot (talk) 18:48, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But their advice is a threat. it is on the talk page and it is a suggestions. Are you saying an administrator can threaten. I thought that was against Wikipedia rules. Sounds like he is an Antifa facist himself You could block the administrator insteadKirinMagic (talk) 19:01, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have not been attached, KirinMagic, nor threatened. You have been editing on some rather controversial topics, including at least 2 which are subject to Discretionary sanctions. This is a general rule, not for you alone, and not only for those of a particular PoV. You have engaged in disruptive editing, adding negative content without citing a reliable source that supports the statement. You have added outright defamatory content to at least one article, which was reverted and revision deleted. You have been warned that continuing in this pattern will lead to a block. This is a proper warning, and not at all abusive. I advise you to heed it. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:05, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I will add that Sounds like he is an Antifa facist himself is a personal attack. Makign such attacks is in and of itself grounds for a block, KirinMagic. Comment on content, not on contributors, and do not engage in Casting aspersions. All you need to do is edit in accordance with Wikipedia policies, and there will be no blocks. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:10, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Des check my talk page. And I put one edit on a main page and it had two sources and had one poster agree. Calling Antifa a hate group is like calling the KKK a hate group. Since when is the ADL not considerate a legitimate source? I advise you three to respect the rules as well.KirinMagic (talk) 19:08, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked KirinMagic indefinitely. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:14, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) KirinMagic, I read your talk page fully before posting in this thread, and several of your recent edits as well. The merits of the edit(s) are for the article talk page, but it is my view that the ADL did not say that, at least not in the cited source, and your other "source" is nothing of the sort. You need to back off on this. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:16, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This account is a sockpuppet of User:MagicKirin, who was blocked indefinitely way back in 2006 for engaging in the same type of behavior. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:36, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Who is vandalizing Secretprojectrevolution, if anyone? I stand accused. What makes which edits vandalism?

Good thing I'm anonymous. This vandalism accusation seems to be a slander! --50.201.195.170 (talk) 02:28, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. Another IP editor incorrectly described your edits as vandalism. However, you twice tried to add a BitTorrent link that does not function properly. I tried the links without success. So, it was correct to revert your edits, although the reason given was not correct. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:47, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IP Editor ....170. vandalism is an edit intended to harm the project, intentionally introduce misinformation, intentionally remove valid sourced information, or the like. Classic blunt vandalism is the replacement of an entire article or section with profanity. subtle vandalism can be changing a few numbers in a table so that they are no longer what the source said. In short intention is important. Any change that is intended in good faith to improve the project is not vandalism.

However, as Cullen328 explained above, many edits that are not vandalism are nonetheless nor appropriate and should be reverted. Inserting non-working links is one such case. and as per WP:ELNO, most BitTorrent links are not appropriate even if they work.

Please be careful with terms like "slander". We have a poli9cy against making legal threats on Wikipedia. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:14, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The vandalism accusation still hasn't been retracted.

This bullshit accusation that I added a link that does nothing seems to be levied by people without a bittorent client. In a normal system with a normally-installed bittorrent client, the client starts; I tested it before saving. Again, if there's something wrong with this magnet link on wikipedia, show us one that does work and we can compare. Seems some other users are fighting over it now... 50.201.195.170 (talk) 16:53, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The other IP editor who accused you of vandalism has been blocked and experienced editors have acknowledged that your edits were not vandalism. What more do you want at this point? Have you read WP:ELNO? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:33, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was coming here to make note of it, but now I see the account of the person who accused me of vandalism has NOT been blocked, and is defending their telling me to fuck off and claiming I was, I kid you not, spamming! : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:IndianBio&diff=prev&oldid=846201311. I will. What more I want remains clear. In a normal system with a normally-installed bittorrent client, the client starts; I tested it before saving. Again, if there's something wrong with this magnet link on wikipedia, show us one that does work and we can compare. And deal with that account? 50.201.195.170 (talk) 18:48, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello? Again, the link works for me; what seems to be the problem? As I said when I added it, "Obviously the Officially released BitTorrent should be included"--50.201.195.170 (talk) 17:30, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How do I delete User:Ejey adroit?

How can I delete my user page article?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ejey adroit (talk • contribs) 05:13, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ejey adroit and welcome to the Teahouse! Only administrators can delete pages, so I have gone ahead and treated it as a U1 deletion request (meaning you requested it) in addition to the fact that it was a copyright violation (G12). If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to let us know. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:41, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Translation from 'Books' section of Japanese WP article - help wanted please.

I have done my best to translate the titles of Hideo Haga's many books from his Japanese WP entry into English using Google Translate. I am not certain how accurate the result is, or whether I should simply have transcribed the original titles using the original Japanese text instead. What is the usual procedure? Can other editors fluent in Japanese assist please? Jamesmcardle^(talk) 08:00, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go the extra mile, Jamesmcardle, and first:

Check if some of these books have actually been translated. I.e. 『日本の祭』 is probably Japanese Festivals. 『ラ・フィエスタ世界の祭りにこがれて芳賀日出男作品集』 may (or may not) be La Fiesta: All the World Loves a Festival.
Next, check if secondary sources have already translated the titles of Japanese works. I.e. Sons of God, Worshippers of God is given, probably for『神の子神の民』.
Then, give the rest in the original Japanese and, optionally, romanization and/or your translation. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:07, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your advice Finnusertop. I'll check his titles on Worldcat and hope the dates and my rough translations line up. Good to know you think it ok to use original Japanese for those for which I'm unable to track down a reliable translation.Jamesmcardle^(talk) 10:12, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suspicious deletions (twice) of my contribution

I've twice had the same contribution deleted without explanation from "OKEx" since April 22, 2018.[1][2] My contribution is half a sentence that cites a study critical of the article's subject, a cryptocurrency exchange. For various reasons, I suspect the deletions were made not to improve Wikipedia but to improve that company's public relations, foremost among them my discovery that the first time my contribution was deleted, the entire article had been overwritten by copying directly from the company website's "About Us" page, and without identifying the company as its source.

Any recommendations for how I should pursue this? It's possible that the company is perpetrating a fraud and covering it up, but it's also possible that my seemingly credible source is wrong and being unfairly critical of the company, or at worst deliberately seeking to harm the company. No one will discuss it with me.[3][4] I refuse to engage in an editing war, but I also want to help protect Wikipedia from abuse. Adelphious (talk) 18:24, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When someone deletes referenced content, with the edit summary "Made minor introduction changes", it certainly looks suspicious. I see you have started a discussion on the talk page, as is recommended. I suggest you wait a few days, then if you get no response, restore what was removed. Maproom (talk) 19:56, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Maproom: Thanks for responding, Maproom. The second deletion ended the sentence (and paragraph) with a comma, suggesting the deletion was accidental. Furthermore, my latest talk page comments date May 23, whereas the second deletion occurred later, on June 7. I therefore have no reason to think that editor will see my talk page comments, and some reason to think the edit was accidental. Does that make a good case for reinstating my contribution now, or would you still suggest that I wait a few more days? Adelphious (talk) 20:14, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I gave it some more thought. The comma ending suggests an accidental deletion, and the "Made minor introduction changes" confirms that deleting it was not the editor's intent. Assuming good faith on the editor's part, the deletion was most likely accidental, and correcting it would therefore not be edit-warring. I'll reinstate the deleted reference now. Adelphious (talk) 21:44, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

forgot both username and password

Does anyone know what can be done if one forgets one's username and password. I have tried everything and it rejects me every time. There must be a way to retrieve one's username so one can create a new password. Thanks so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:4048:BA00:DD2B:8FC:95E1:D505 (talk) 19:00, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you assigned an email address to the account, no.

Do you remember any of the pages or articles you edited with that account? If so, you might be able to figure out what the user name was.

But again, if you did not assign an email address to the account, it's lost. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:11, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One practical approach is to click the "View history" tab of an article you contributed to in the past and find the name associated with your contribution. More general advice offered by many security experts is to use a password program like KeePassXC that stores all your passwords in an encrypted form accessible by one master password. So long as you keep a backup (e.g. via email) of your tiny password database (a few dozen kilobytes in size) and keep a written copy of your master password someplace safe, you'll never lose another credential pair again. Adelphious (talk) 19:13, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

I have made several references/citations, etc. throughout a draft article. Is there a way that this can automatically populate or do I need to create a specific reference section typing up each reference one-by-one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattketchen (talk • contribs) 19:30, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mattketchen: You can repeat a single reference throughout the article by naming it.

For example, <ref name="somethingsomething">{{cite book|title=Book Name|last=Surname|first=Author|publisher=Company}}</ref> could be repeated in the article as <refname="somethingsomething" />. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:52, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Mattketchen. Reference sections are automatically created and populated when you use the inline syntax <ref>{{...}}</ref>. See the Examples and Variations sections of Wikipedia:Citation templates for inline and other approaches to citation. Adelphious (talk) 19:55, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dori Monson

Is what is going on, on this page enough to report the user OnceASpy for edit warring? They are trying to downplay a controversy by saying the show is a comedy one but its political and what they keep adding is unsourced. I'm not the only user to revert them and have warned them for warring on their talk page and tried discussing on the articles talk page but they just keep adding it back in. I don't really want to get myself in any more trouble by reverting it again as unsourced. NZFC^(talk) 20:07, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Wiki Pages Offline

I plan to create approx. 40 pages for the architect C. N. Otis

I plan to clone the following pages from Frank Lloyd Wright as a starting point and then edit that structure to apply the content for Otis and his 36 buildings

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Lloyd_Wright (edited for Otis content)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Frank_Lloyd_Wright_works (edited to link to Otis's 36 buildings

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_D._Martin_House (cloned/edited for 36 buildings)

What is the best working environment to clone the source code for the above pages and then revise for the Otis content ?

This working environment should allow for linking among the 40 pages to test everything before submitting the 40 new pages for inclusion in wikipedia

I have tried Wikidpad and Zim but they don't seem to allow the source code as a starting point

Any advice would be appreciated

But no, I do not have any need or interest in starting "small" by editing existing pages my sole goal is to create these pages for Otis

Thanks

Lew Lewis buttery (talk) 21:30, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lewis buttery and welcome to the Teahouse. I would suggest not doing what you propose. Instead write the articles on Wikipedia one at a time, maybe just as stubs to begin with. Use your sandbox - you can create multiple sandboxes with any names you choose in your user space and link to them if you wish. See Help:Sandbox tutorial. You will need to show first that Otis meets Wikipedia's standards for notability, that is already well known as shown by multiple published references in reliable sources. See WP:CREATIVE for the standards. StarryGrandma (talk) 03:42, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As a former systems analyst/programmer I don't see the need to re-invent the wheel when the entire structure is already there for me to use by cloning the FLW pages. I will find a way to do this .... Lewis buttery (talk) 04:56, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By "clone the source code" you presumably mean "copy the Wikified text" (where "Wikified" means "using Wikipedia formatting of links and styles".) That is a very different thing from simply using the same structure as the previous articles; emulating the structure is fine, and you can easily do that by copying the table of contents, changing the headings, and using that as a skeleton for your text. Basing a new article on the text of a previous article is extremely inefficient. You must "reinvent the wheel" as far as the textual content goes. You cannot copy someone else's sentences verbatim to a new article, even if they should fit the content of the new article. You also cannot copy sentences and change a few words to fit that content. The text has to be written in your own words (except for direct, attributed quotes - but that does not apply here) and rewriting a text based on existing sentences is much more time consuming than simply starting with the information and writing in your own words. Even paraphrasing a single sentence can be frustratingly slow compared to writing a sentence from scratch, because it is an extra effort to completely disregard the phrasing and structure of the original sentence. This is not computer code, it is human language, and so different principles apply. (In addition, Frank Lloyd Wright is rather a long article and so would be impractical to use as a model for that reason.) More information here. --bonadea contributions talk 06:30, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, @Lewis buttery: the article Calvin N. Otis exists (as mentioned on your talk page, another editor created it as a well-sourced start article to help you out) and you will not be able to replace/overwrite that entirely with something you have created offline. --bonadea contributions talk 08:45, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well that is not good news at all - I know David was trying to help by creating that stub but if I do create the complete set of pages for Otis then there needs to be a merge as I will have reams of content for Otis's bio than that stub provides

am I to understand that each time pages for a "New" architect (for example) are to be created they must be done from scratch ? I find that seriously hard to believe :( Lewis buttery (talk) 12:34, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Lewis buttery: The vast majority of any Wikipedia article is continuous prose. There is very little markup or "code" (templates etc.) and so it doesn't make much sense to begin by copying an existing article. Some people do—and you are free to—we're just saying it's not very efficient.

As to your original question, you can write wikitext offline in any text editor, but again it doesn't make much sense to do so. Wikipedia is designed to be an iterative and collaborative project. Don't think that you have to upload finished articles or test things beforehand. You can just start writing the articles "live". Mistakes are easily fixed by you or others. That's how it works. – Joe (talk) 12:51, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I give up on Wikipedia I will plan on creating the Otis pages as webpages

I do NOT want to reinvent the wheel (structure) of these pages

Lewis buttery (talk) 13:51, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article on Emanuel Rubin

Hi,

I have been trying to create an article about Dr. Emanuel Rubin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Emanuel_Rubin), a pathologist who made an impact in the field of pathology research and education. I wrote the article using the existing article about James Watson (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Watson) as a template. I have added all the sources from the internet I could find. Also, I asked Dr. Rubin to photograph some of the evidences, so to support the article with proofs.

Nevertheless, the article did not pass the review, and at this point I need some help to correct it. I am not sure how to make a neutral point of view and other requests by the reviewer. Please see the comments I got: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Emanuel_Rubin

Thank you for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pranggio (talk • contribs) 21:36, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Pranggio. Welcome to the Teahouse. It's late here, so I'l keep this short. No doubt others will comment, too. This article is far too long. Too long for me to read through, to be frank. "Less is more" - so please cut out all the waffle. The lead paragraph only needs to be about three lines long, explaining who this person is and why they're notable. Give citations to support every key fact like awards and honours. i.e. prove they meet our notability guidelines for living people. There's lots of detailed biographical stuff which is uncited. Why is that? Please don't write from personal knowledge. Use only what published sources say - and these must be independent of the subject, not based his own words inside a book cover. I hope this helps - I suspect he may well meet our notability guidelines, but right now, yes, this article seems to much like an advert or a eulogy. Focus on the world-wide impact of his textbook, and supply sources to demonstrate this, if you can. Regards Nick Moyes (talk) 02:00, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pranggio. As an acomplished academic Rubin should have an article, but everything in it needs to have been published elsewhere in a reliable source. I have a guide to writing articles about professors here that might help. I've added a link to Rubin's curriculum vitae and a link to his faculty web page at the end of the draft. StarryGrandma (talk) 03:30, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion regarding Creative Commons

Hello, I recently uploaded many pictures on Wikimedia Commons, but some of them have been nominated for deletion. Those pictures are all screenshots from a Youtube video which shows that it is under Creative Commons 3.0. The video says "Do Not Re-upload" but it is released under CC 3.0 so I'm confused now. Didn't the uploader simply mean that the video shouldn't be re-uploaded anywhere? Because I've always uploaded screenshots from videos released under CC 3.0 and they've all been approved in the past. Can somebody please clear up this confusion? Jesstan01 (talk) 22:32, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, Jesstan01, great to have you back at the Teahouse. Good question, too! I'm afraid we can't resolve or formally advise on issues that relate to Wikimedia, as this has it's own separate rules, and copyright is a complex issue we can't offer advice on. You should really raise your concerns on the deletion discussion pages or, better still, seek broader input on the principle of YouTube's licencing at Commons:Village pump/Copyright. (You could also search their archives for past discussions on this topic (like this one, and no doibt there are others).

However, I can certainly see your confusion. The YouTube video description under 'Show More' clearly indicates a Creative Commons licence (though it is unclear to me whether YT distinguishes between commercial and non-commercial use - their link takes you to this CC licence explanation), whilst the video itself contains scrolling text saying please don't re-upload to any other website, as its copyright. Of course, even under a CC licence, the creator always retains the copyright - the CC licence doesn't give that away...it just requires attribution to be made whenever it's reused. I have had my own YouTube videos downloaded and re-uploaded, which is quite annoying, so I can see why they ask this not to be done. I wonder whether they made a mistake in the licence they uploaded it under? But, there again, other videos on the Bugaboo.TV channel also show the same Creative Commons licencing. Whether screen shots from a Creative Commons upload should be deleted because of that scrolling text is a matter for discussion at Wikimedia, not here. But do feel free to raise the points I've outlined above on Wikimedia, taking care to provide the link to show which Creative Commons licence YouTube is referring to. They will be able to interpret and advise. Sorry we can't. Regards from a K-Pop-rich household. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:25, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, Jesstan01, but Commons is a separate project, and you need to take the question up there, not here. FWIW, I agree that the source appears to be labelled inconsistently, and I do not know how to resolve it. I suggest you ask at commons:COM:VPC. You might also add a comment at one of the relevant sections in commons:Commons:Deletion requests/2018/06/15 explaining that the source claims CC-BY-SA, and that you have asked at COM:VPC. --ColinFine (talk) 23:42, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick Moyes and ColinFine: I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that Wikimedia-related questions couldn't be asked here. I'll do as the both of you have advised. Thank you for your help! Jesstan01 (talk) 23:47, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jesstan01: Don't worry at all - best way to learn. There's now a question on that YouTube video asking the same question. Doubt it'll get a response though. Can't imagine who put it there! Nick Moyes (talk) 23:51, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick Moyes: Hahaha, who could that possibly be? ;) Jesstan01 (talk) 00:18, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

So, and yes this is a newbie question. I've been using VisualEditor to create my first Wikipedia article. I've been putting in reference citations at the end of sentences, paragraphs, specific quotes from authors/experts, etc. I've been inserting the pieces I'm referencing to as I've gone along. However, how do I populate these references sources in the reference field using VisualEditor? I'm not sure if I have to create a Reference list and populate the references one by one, or if there's a way to auto-populate this field. Any advice? Thanks again, from the super newbie.

p.s. I appreciate the welcomes, the advice I've received so far, the patience, and your continued help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattketchen (talk • contribs) 22:45, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mattketchen Welcome to Teahouse, I could not find any article which you mentioned you have added the references as above besides you work on a few TWA exerices - see here [5]. If you have done so using an IP address prior you signed up, then kindly provide the article name. To show the references cited under the "References" section in an article after inline citations are provided in the body text, what you could do is to add {{reflist}} under the "References" section. Once the edit is saved, then you would able to view them. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 01:23, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Remove speedy deletion template on Kwao Lezzes-Tyt

I recently had a tag on one of my articles I wrote on a person to be deleted. The Wikipedian said there is a form of advertisement in the writings which indicates some violations in the Wikipedia rules. Changes have been made to the page Kwao Lezzes-Tyt. Can someone here help me with going through the page and getting the template removed?? Shammahamoah (talk) 23:42, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You work for FFHypeTeam. This article has been spammed and deleted multiple times. Are you trying to add the article as part of your work? Guy (Help!) 23:47, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Revdel

Is edit summary deleted in a deleted page?Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 01:48, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Thegooduser and welcome once again to the Teahouse.

Deletion and RevDel hide the deleted material from ordinary users and editors, but the material remains on WP's servers and can be viewed by administrators. Some things, removed under OVERSIGHT are removed even deeper; I don't know for certain if that material can still be found by oversighters or if it's really, really gone. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:38, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I read Thegooduser's question as asking whether the edit summary of revdel'd edits can be accessed. Per WP:REVDEL: RevisionDelete can hide the text of a revision, the username that made the edit or action, or the edit summary or log summary. However for 95% of revdels the edit summary does not need to be hidden, since only the edit itself contains a copyvio or doxing or grossly disruptive material. On the other hand, sometimes, only the edit summary is revdel'd. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:54, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Help would be appreciated

Hi everyone. Really trying to be patient and do everything I can to get Jamie Tate , a very well known and notable producer and mixer in Nashville over the last 20 years ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jamie_Tate ) . It was declined under the pretense that the Grammy claim could not be substantiated ( at least by Wiki standards). So the changes were made. Now I was just advised that a Wiki or Discogs ref is not a " reliable source " . Discogs and All music not reliable? Aside from that, many if not most of album credits are not officially documented by the industry online. And moreover, this guy has received many many official plaques and recognition from the RIAA; one of the few real and legit sources that officially recognize producers and mixers but the RIAA do not keep on online record. So we can't use allmusic or discogs, we can't show documents and awards that are on in his possession and letters from the Grammys or RIAA mean nothing. And what really confuses us here is if you look at many of his peers who have been accepted ( if you need examples there are plenty ) and who have had less success are published without much being referenced , and many being wiki links. So what do we do here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.80.186.39 (talk) 02:34, 18 June 2018‎ (UTC)[reply]

Hello IP user and welcome to the Teahouse.

Producers are often unsung heroes and one consequence of that is there is very little published about them on which to base an encyclopedia article. In order to meet notability requirements, it's not sufficient to point to their work, credited, award-winning, or important. Without published references, no WP article is possible. A photo of the award, listings of his contributions to Grammy-winning recordings, personal testimonials - all of this falls short of what is needed for an article. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:50, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kensei Taba

I would like to know the basics of setting up a profile for my instructor Kensei Taba

i am up for deletion of the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peelsan (talk • contribs) 04:29, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Peelsan. The article in question, Kensei Taba, is an unreferenced biography of a living person. This is contrary to policy and so it must be deleted unless you fix it promptly. An acceptable Wikipedia biography summarizes what published, independent, reliable sources say about the person. Your personal knowledge is not acceptable for the encyclopedia. Also, your article has obvious errors. You wrote that the war in the Pacific started in 1944 and ended in 1948. The correct dates are 1941 to 1945. If you make such obvious mistakes, how can we trust the rest of the claims you make? Please read and study Your first article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:51, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Peelsan. Your choice of words "setting up a profile for" makes me think that you have a (very common) misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is. That phrase is appropriate to social media, or a directory. Wikipedia is neither: it is an encyclopaedia. What we do here is not "set up profiles for": instead, we write articles about. An article should be based almost entirely on what people who have no connection with the subject have published about them - Wikipedia has very little interest in what a subject says about themselves, or what their friends or associates say about them. If there is little or no material published about them by people unconnected with them, then it is impossible to write an acceptable Wikipedia article about them - the jargon for this is that they are in that case not notable. --ColinFine (talk) 09:28, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

thank you I will work to make it as yo have asked and did not mean any disrespect, and am thankful of this opportunity of your help and guidence — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peelsan (talk • contribs) 19:59, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nicky Summer

Hello, please can you let me know how I amend the page in question so that it is not deleted? Although I had saved it, I had not even formatted it yet :-) thanks for your help. Iona — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iona Lewis (talk • contribs) 08:30, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that this is about User:Iona Lewis/sandbox? If this is intended to be a draft for a new article, you need to read the useful links provided to you on your user talk page, including WP:Your first article. The important thing is that an article must be referenced to published reliable sources. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:55, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Heinz Nigg

Hi, someone form the help desk suggested to me that I could move the page Heinz Nigg from draft space to article space myself. I did so. Here the linkk: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinz_Nigg. Would someone please check if I did that correctly, because I am not very familar with Wiki editing. Best, visualstudies Visualstudies (talk) 08:52, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Visualstudies. Yes, you moved it correctly. There were just some AfC templates at the top to remove, which I've just done. – Joe (talk) 08:58, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever suggested that you to move it was mistaken or confused. The most recent review declined approval of the draft. You need to address the matters raised in the review, then resubmit for further review. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:03, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@David Biddulph: That is not true. AfC is an optional process and Visualstudies is entitled to create articles in mainspace just like any other autoconfirmed editor. Worldbruce correctly advised them of this at the AfC help desk. – Joe (talk) 09:11, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. There is one problem left. One of the pictures of the draft did not move to the article space. Here the link to the photo: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Zürich_Opernhaus-Krawall.tif The photo should be added right after the citation (11) together with the following caption: Still from the video about the Opera-House-Riots. Could you do that? That would be great. Best, Visualstudies (talk) 09:25, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Visualstudies, you removed that image from the draft yourself, in this edit. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:32, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I could sort this out. The photo is back now. Thank you! Visualstudies (talk) 10:17, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After I edited the photo I had to redo the changes I did before. And now this text has come back as well: "This article, Heinz Nigg, has recently been created via the Articles for creation process. The reviewer is in the process of closing the request, and this tag should be removed soon. WARNING: Draft:Heinz Nigg is 14,608 bytes. If it is not a redirect with only 1 edit in its edit history, this may be a "copy and paste" move. To avoid losing the edit history, administrators should consider merging the history of the AfC draft into this article. Non-administrators should consider placing {{Histmerge|Draft:Heinz Nigg}} at the top of this article before removing this AFC submission template." What to do? Visualstudies (talk) 10:31, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Visualstudies: You re-added the AfC templates that I had previously removed. I'm not sure how. Perhaps you made your changes to an old version of the page (thereby restoring it), instead of the most recent one? In future please use the "show preview" and "show changes" functions to make sure that you're making the changes you intended and no others. – Joe (talk) 10:41, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, I added the photo to the new version, but it was a photo that I had used in an older version. So maybe that was the reason for the drawback. Anyway, without your help it would have been difficult to get things moving. Thanks to the TEAHOUSE EDIT WINDOW! Best, Visualstudies (talk) 11:00, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Roe is techically correct, you can move a draft to mainspace yourself. But by doing so, you run the risk of its being deleted. I've tried to check the references in Heinz Nigg, and not found any that are clearly of reliable independent sources; so deletion is not implausible. Maproom (talk) 12:16, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stuck creating a basic wikipedia article on Ballerina (programming language)

Looks like I need help creating Draft:Ballerina (programming language) article.

While I have created and edited some wikipedia articles in the past - I am stuck with that one. :)

I believe that this programming language has enough traction to deserve an article of its own:

It is an open source project that already has 224 contributors,
IDG listed it as number one in their "Top programming languages you should try".
There is an upcoming BallerinaCon conference in July,
There are articles in The New Stack and InfoQ - these are well-known and well-regarded in the tech community - just see the number of wikipedia articles already using InfoQ as a source.
It is supported in Microsoft developer tools,
Already referenced in some other wikipedia articles, e.g. Comparison of programming languages.

Thanks in advance! Dmitry — Preceding unsigned comment added by DSotnikov (talk • contribs) 09:45, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot to declare your conflict of interest. Guy (Help!) 09:50, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DSotnikov. Notability is the concept we use to determine whether a subject should have a Wikipedia article, and is concerned purely with the availability of reliable sources on that subject. So most of your points are not something we would take into consideration. However, I'm inclined to agree that the articles in Techworld, The New Stack, and InfoQ, establish notability. I'll publish your draft for you now.

However, if you do have a conflict of interest as Guy suggests, please refrain from editing the article further. – Joe (talk) 09:55, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Calling some experienced editors to prevent edit war

As you can see here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dennis_Prager, there is a conflict wherein an editor is forbidding the use of The Atlantic as a source. Since The Atlantic is very reputable and used as a source throughout Wikipedia, I think the editor is wrong. But I don't want to edit-war. So can someone else weigh in? You can also see the issues in the page's history of changes https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dennis_Prager&action=history Localemediamonitor (talk) 10:18, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Localemediamonitor. The Dennis Prager talk page warns about attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints, and you're recruiting editors who think The Atlantic is a reputable source. I have my own opinion about the back and forth. I'll start a Dennis Prager section on your talk page. Adelphious (talk) 00:37, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Review and Publish Robert_Miller_Gallery Page

Would it be possible to have more detailed feedback regarding the creation of this page? Any immediate tips on how to improve it?

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

Thanks and Regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tns0321 (talk • contribs) 12:01, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tns0321: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The draft currently does little more than state that the Gallery exists and is associated with notable people. Unfortunately, notability by association generally is not sufficient to merit an article. The subject itself must have in depth coverage in independent reliable sources, indicating how it is notable on its own, in order to merit an article here. 331dot (talk) 12:18, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clear Genius

Has anyone heard of Clear Genius? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roy Mayo (talk • contribs) 13:54, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. At least, not until I Googled it. Please don't think about trying to create a Wikipedia page for it unless the product clearly meets our Notability criteria. See also WP:PRODUCT. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:30, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References and categories.

For some reason, I creating Draft:Ultra-Ever Dry sees a number 2 and 3 whenever I am calling {{reflist}}, even if the same content is put in the <ref></ref> tags. How do I call reference number 2 twice? And, what exactly is a "hidden category" and what qualifies it as a hidden category? Is it even a category? What makes it so hidden? It is hidden? Like, really? 154.5.169.5 (talk) 14:27, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, IP user. It looks like you've gone and got yourself blocked. But anyway, it's an interesting question which others might like the answer to, and you can use when your block expires. The trick is to give the reference a name, and then call up that name each and every time you want to use the reference. There's a short explanation of the process here. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:25, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Organization Name Change

I am working on editing the Wikipedia page for The Children's Center for Communication/Beverly School for the Deaf. Unfortunately, the overall page is under the old name of the school, Beverly School for the Deaf. I have been unable to find out how I can do this because the current displayed name is no longer correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by William Swett (talk • contribs)

Hi, William Swett. You're very welcome to ask questions at the Teahouse, but please don't ask the same question in more than one forum, as you did two minutes later at the Help Desk. You're are paid to promote your school - but we're all volunteers here, so duplicating answers is not something we wish to encourage. Sometimes it can take a day for a user to receive an answer. That's not an unreasonable time to wait for help, though we normally respond a lot quicker than that. Please also note that you have a clear Conflict of Interest in editing for your school, which you should declare in accordance with the policy I've just linked to. Not only that, we do require you to declare that you are remunerated under our WP:PAID policy. Non declaration can lead to editors being blocked, but it's a simple process to ensure you stay within our guidelines. Finally, in future, please would you also remember to sign every post you make with four tildes, like this: ~~~~. It adds your username, the date and time. That way we know who said what, and when. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:07, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why does my article not meet notability requirements?

Hello all. I recently submitted an article Draft:Chele Farley which was declined on "notability" grounds. According to the guidelines, "Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject". I provided the editor who declined me exactly that- coverage in mainstream published and reliable sources like Politico, NY Post, NYDN, and multiple local papers across the state - Here are a few examples. She is the *only* other major party nominee in an upcoming election for United States Senate. I understand the basis for the rule of notability when it comes to politicians - not every city council member or county legislator needs an article. However, Farley is running for United States Senate, and thus is an important topic for millions of New Yorkers trying to decide where to cast their ballots in November, and Wikipedia is one of the first places that many of them will look to. She has been covered in numerous publications, both national and local. What else do I need to change to this article to get it published? YankeesFan85 (talk) 15:04, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi YankeesFan85 -- based on your description and the draft, I agree that it appears Farley is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. While it may help administratively, I think the drafts process is unnecessarily harsh to newcomers sometimes. In general, I think a good strategy for addressing topic-specific criteria is to acknowledge if they are or aren't met, but then always make a clear case for WP:BASIC which overrides any topic-specific notability criteria like WP:NPOL anyways. I'm not too familiar with the drafts process as I never wrote one, but maybe you could edit the article to more clearly point out and use the big name sources you mentioned, add some others you can find, and then resubmit with a note for the reviewer noting what changed but also anticipating what wiki policies apply with a good reason if you think they shouldn't. Best, Habst (talk) 15:25, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the word of support. I am more than willing to make whatever edits necessary to increase the quality of the article, but I am concerned that the exact same editor will simply decline my draft again (see their talk page), as they have stated that they will not change their mind. What am I supposed to be doing here? YankeesFan85 (talk) 15:52, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would respectfully disagree with Habst. It is well established that merely seeking a political office does not merit someone an article, which would mean that Farley would need to be notable for something else in order to merit an article, and I'm not really seeing what else would merit her an article. If she beats Sen. Gillibrand(which from what I know is probably unlikely) she would merit an article as a sitting US Senator, but she doesn't as a mere candidate. I understand that Wikipedia is often used as a source of information for current events like campaigns and elections, but it is not a voter guide just as it is not a business guide. 331dot (talk) 18:02, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the article to mainspace based on my and Habst's assessment. If someone disagrees with notability, proceed with WP:DEL. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:17, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think deletion should yet be considered necessarily, but the article should remain in draft space until the outcome of the election is determined. I've seen this done for other similar articles, and I've suggested this on the article talk page. 331dot (talk) 19:55, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is now being discussed at Talk:Chele Farley, and further discussion should probably occur there, or at a deletion discussion. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}

How do I begin

Hello Teahouse friends. Matt the newbie again. So, I'm ready to start my article. I would like to use VisualEditor. I've got my content written and edited in Word. I've cited several noticeable references. But, now what? Do I draft my article in the sandbox and move it over once I'm satisfied? And if so, how do I move it over and publish, or request to publish? Thanks again for your help. Hopefully I'll be providing the help once I learn what I'm doing. I guess you have to start somewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattketchen (talk • contribs) 15:07, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Mattketchen, welcome back. No need to rush - take your time (you've still got 14 more badges in Te Wikipedia Adventure to collect yet!) Whilst you can go straight to create a draft through this Articles for Creation wizard, you might find it just as easy to copy the preliminary text into your own sandbox page. You can save those edits (it's called Publish changes - but it's not publishing it into the main encyclopaedia yet). Work on it there, looking at how other people have written similar articles, ad how they're laid out. When you think it's near to ready, you could pop back here for some friendly feedback. If you go down the AFC route, you'll see a special 'submit review' button. One difference is that drafts get deleted after 6 months if they've not been edited, whereas you can keep your sandbox for as long as you like. And yes, you're absolutely right, you have to start somewhere. Most people take the cautious route and start learning how Wikipedia works by making small edits to other existing articles. Creating a new article from scratch is the hardest thing for a new editor to achieve. So, without that little bit of practice and experience, it can be a bit disheartening to be told you're nice new article fails to meet a critical guideline here. Hope this helps - and good luck! Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:17, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note also, Mattketchen, that under recently changed rules, if an AfC draft is declined and resubmitted multiple times without "significant progress" towards a finished article, it may subject to deletion if it is judged to have little chance of success. Under the circumstances, I must now advise all new users not to use the AfC process at all. Note that you can make a userspace draft, similar to a sandbox, but with a specific name at a page such as User:Mattketchen/Topic Name (Replace "Topic Name" with an appropriate name for the prospective article). This makes it easier to work on several different prospective articles and keep them straight, in my view. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:29, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright ok from heirs: how to clear with Wikipedia?

Help. Back in March, I uploaded my article from my sandbox for comment. I also inadvertently uploaded images of Martha Simpson Eastlake's paintings and sculpture without clear copyright approval. I finally tracked down her niece, Dr. Joan Simpson Burns. Martha had no children. She left her estate to her brother, George Simpson Eastlake (who is on Wikipedia) who in turn left it to his children. His daughter was quite unaware of the copyright issues. See text below. How/where do we do this? I've been away from Wikipedia for some months and having to relearn a lot, so any clear directions are much appreciated! Thanks in advance, Carolyn Leigh

Dear Carolyn, That's great. Marty did some fine art and she was a remarkably wonderful person. I will try to send you some images of her work that I have hanging in my house and that I am very fond of and that I believe are truly art. I'm assuming that whoever has some of her works owns the copyrights to them. You can use whatever I send. You may be interested to know, if you didn't already, that she gave up her art in order to help Bill Eastlake and always said if she would have any claim to fame it would be because of him. Typical thinking of a woman and infuriates me. Ran in our family -- Anne Roe and GGS, Joan and James MacGregor Burns. Bill divorced Marty when she got too old for him; Anne never managed the career she could have had if she had been able to devote herself to it instead of helping GGS, I, Joan, have been working hard to achieve what I should have much earlier, having divorced JMB after helping him for twenty years. Marty thoroughly deserves her own Wikipedia article. Joan Burns — Preceding unsigned comment added by CarolynLeigh (talk • contribs) 17:49, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CarolynLeigh, and welcome to the Teahouse. I am sorry, but You can use whatever I send. is not a sufficient release of the copyright. To be eligible for Wikimedia commons (the preferred location for free images) The image must be released under a free license, such as CC-BY-SA. The license must run to anyone in the world, permititng anyone to reuse the content for any purpose, including commercial uses, without royalty or other fee, and permit anyone to create derivative works. The only restrictions are that th work must be attributed properly, and reusers must release under the same license.

Furthermore, i am informed by an editor who works with the OTRS team (the group of volunteers that confirm such licnese grants) that forwarded emails are no longer accepted in most cases, as they have been faked in too many cases in the past. The copyright owner should send an email directly to the permissions address "permissions-commons AT wikimedia DOT org". See Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries for a sample release email, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for the process]], and see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the process whn started by the copyright holder. Be aware that some of these pages speak of forwarding an email to the permissions address -- my understanding is that this is out-of-date.

I hope this is helpful. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:41, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sparkle hard (album) link mis-redirecting

Hi! I noticed that the entry for Sparkle Hard, the latest album by Steve Malkmus & the Jicks, redirects to the wiki page of the band instead of going towards info about the album. Is this because there's no wiki entry for the album yet or because of the hyperlink itself? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.211.99.143 (talk) 18:32, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse! The link you are referring to is a redirect at the moment that someone created because, while it may be a useful search term for the artist, there was not enough reliable sources to include it as a full blown article. That said, the sources appear to exist now so it could be turned into one. You are welcome to start work on it if you wish. I will probably turn it into a shorter article in a bit. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 19:27, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Natasha Bharadwaj (2)

I previously reviewed the sandbox of User:Nusratrah98 and declined it as duplicating Draft:Natasha Bharadwaj, and asked the author please not to work with multiple copies of drafts. The author had already been advised by User:TheSandDoctor to include better references to reliable sources. The author resubmitted the sandbox today without improvement. This time I moved the sandbox to Draft:Natasha Bharadwaj (2). It appears that the author doesn’t understand the advice that they are being given. (That is the good faith assumption.) Can someone else besides the two reviewers so far try to provide friendly advice to this editor? It seems that for the two reviewers so far, trying to advise this editor hasn’t helped.

Robert McClenon (talk) 19:23, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The author has just tagged both copies of their draft for speedy deletion as G7. That is more likely a misunderstanding of what they are requesting than what they intend. Since both copies now will be speedily deleted, if they are really trying to create an article on the subject actress, it might be appropriate to give them advice starting with the Request for Undeletion, and then with adding better references, and then with how to submit a draft to AFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:29, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How do I transfer my article

I wrote an article in my sandbox. And I think it's really looking good. I went through all the tutorials and learned a lot, but the real help came from the teahouse. I'm still a newbie and feel out of place.

My question is, if I am happy with an article in my sandbox, how can I transfer it to a real page? Thanks again, Matt — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattketchen (talk • contribs) 20:25, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mattketchen: A few problems:

Wikipedia articles are never sources for Wikipedia articles. This is an extension of our general prohibition against user-generated sources (which is why that source from a Forbes contributor is also not useful, as that's a blog hosted by Forbes and not actual Forbes content). We generally favor professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources.
The only source that mentions Canfield CyberDefense Group at all is their website. The rest of the references do not mention Canfield at all. You need to cite at least three reliable sources that are specifically about the subject but not dependent upon or affiliated with them.
As a result of the previous point, almost nothing in the article tells us anything about Canfield. The approach of raising serious problems (possibly even over-hyping them) to draw "awareness" to the company and what they do is advertising, which we do not want or allow.
YOU PLAGIARIZED FROM YOUR SOURCES. This is why I deleted the page. If you do this again, you can be blocked.

Honestly, you'd be better off starting over, following these steps:

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) 20:43, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mattketchen: Read the explanation above to understand what went wrong and why a recovery copy would not help you. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:26, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently I did something wrong with my article

So another editor deleted it in completely and I can't recover it. Is there a way editors can point out the changes without completely deleting the article? I spent a lot of time on this. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattketchen (talk • contribs) 20:59, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Read the message above this one. Fixing the old material would require a re-write from the ground up, for the reasons explained above. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:24, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting gone wrong yet again

I've had another formatting hiccup in Cultural Action Party (Canada), could someone tell me what I did wrong? Thanks! The Verified Cactus 100% 21:56, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi VerifiedCactus You simply forgot to close the wikitable with a |} command. Plus I think you might have had four double brackets, not two, at the end of the 'eliminated' template. This has caused the references to become part of the table, which is clearly undesirable. I'll leave you to fix it, which I'm sure you can do. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:26, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The usual thing: malformatted table. A table ends with |}, as described at Help:Table. Corrected in this edit. --David Biddulph (talk) 22:23, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys The Verified Cactus 100% 23:38, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a new article

If an article is already published in a foreign language Wikipedia, for example Japanese and want to publish the same article in English, should a user translate the already existing article? Or should a user create his/her own article in English and cite the Japanese article? Here is the Japanese Wikipedia Article: https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/全日空機高知空港胴体着陸事故 [The article is about All Nippon Airways Flight 1603] — Preceding unsigned comment added by OkayKenji (talk • contribs) 22:05, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can't cite the Japanese Wikipedia article, as Wikipedia is not a reliable source. For advice on translating, see WP:Translation. --David Biddulph (talk) 22:18, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, OkayKenji, and thanks for the excellent question. You can translate the existing article, if you think it's of sufficient quality. But you could also start the article from scratch. It depends on which you find a more suiting way of working, and which produces the better end result. But whatever you do, don't cite the Japanese Wikipedia article. Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources. Find and cite actual reliable sources, or cite the ones cited by the Japanese article. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:21, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Localemediamonitor

Does the userpage Imply paid editing?Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 22:54, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not in my book, Thegooduser. I just call that healthy sarcasm... albeit from someone with apparently strong opinions, based on recent edits and discussions. Regards Nick Moyes (talk) 23:35, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I thoroughly agree with Nick Moyes. This is obvious sarcasm, Thegooduser. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:22, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

.svg upload gone wrong

I uploaded File:Town of Richmond Hill, Ontario logo.svg, and the image turned all black. Here is the original image: https://www.richmondhill.ca/en/images/structure/logo.svg

Could someone tell me why this happened? If it's irreversible, I could probably just find a .png version. Thanks! The Verified Cactus 100% 00:55, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, VerifiedCactus, it's good to see you back at the Teahouse.

I'm not sure what you are seeing. That logo, as uploaded to Wikipedia, renders just fine for me. Just remember that, as a non-free image, this logo cannot be used in user space or draft space. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:39, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing With A Book

Trying to find exactly what's needed in referencing with a book & formatting. Thank You! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2PacKidada (talk • contribs) 03:55, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:CITE and Template:Cite_book. A reference with a book usually looks something like <ref name="putatitlehere">{{cite book|title=Book Name|first=Author|last=Surname|publisher=Company|page=42}}</ref> when you are editing the article's source (I have no idea about visual editor or mobile, though). Ian.thomson (talk) 03:59, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are excerpts in Italic acceptable?

Let us say I am going to include a certian quote from a certian person, can I write them in Italic? Is that acceptable? Or where should we use italic format? --Ruhubelent (talk) 04:22, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Ruhubelent. Specific guidance on use of italics can be found in the Manual of Style. The shortcut to that section is MOS:ITALICS. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:19, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ruhubelent, I think the more direct answer to your question is "no, don't use italics for quotations", per MOS:ITALQUOTE. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:34, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Phone article

I think Wikipedia sufferered lack of articles about phone, as I don't see much of them here, can someone make an article about Razor Phone, it is notable thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.55.51.147 (talk) 06:41, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. We have an article about the Motorola Razr. Is that what you are talking about? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:45, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cullen, Ummm the phone structure is very different, the Razor Phone is used more like a gaming phone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.55.51.147 (talk) 06:56, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Google sends one to Razer Phone. Perhaps we need a redirect from a common misspelling? — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:25, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thx for fixing did you redirected it?, hope Wikipedia has more article about phone as I see bunch of them hasn't created on Meizu phone type. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.55.51.147 (talk) 07:54, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Creating taskforces of WikiProject, getting assessment stats etc

Hi all, I've started setting up taskforces for WikiProject Computational Biology, for regulatory and systems genomics and computational biology education so far: I've added a single article to each taskforce just to check that my modifications to the WCB template were successful, more articles will be added in due course.

The WP:USMIL task force cited in the taskforce examples suggests that it should be possible to get separate assessment statistics for each taskforce, I assume as a subset of the assessment statistics for the parent WikiProject - is this correct? And if so, what do I need to do in order to create the assessment statistics tables? I've attempted to update the project data for RegSys as a test, but the assessment tool says that RegSys is not in the database. I get the feeling I'm missing something quite basic, any help appreciated. Thanks! Amkilpatrick (talk) 08:45, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 745: / Line 745: @@
 :::: Google sends one to [[Razer Phone]]. Perhaps we need a redirect from a common misspelling? '''[[user:jmcgnh|<span style="color:#2eb85c">—&nbsp;jmcgnh</span>]]<sup><small>[[user talk:jmcgnh|<span style="color:#0eff1a">(talk)</span>]]&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/jmcgnh|<span style="color:#196633">(contribs)</span>]]</small></sup>''' 07:25, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 :::::Thx for fixing did you redirected it?, hope Wikipedia has more article about phone as I see bunch of them hasn't created on [[Meizu]] phone type.  <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/122.55.51.147|122.55.51.147]] ([[User talk:122.55.51.147#top|talk]]) 07:54, 19 June 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
+== Creating taskforces of WikiProject, getting assessment stats etc ==
+Hi all,
+I've started setting up taskforces for [[WP:WikiProject Computational Biology|WikiProject Computational Biology]], for [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Computational Biology/RegSys task force|regulatory and systems genomics]] and [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Computational_Biology/Education_task_force|computational biology education]] so far: I've added a single article to each taskforce just to check that my modifications to the [[Template:WikiProject Computational Biology|WCB template]] were successful, more articles will be added in due course.
+The [[WP:USMIL]] task force cited in the taskforce examples suggests that it should be possible to get separate [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/United_States_military_history_task_force#Article_statistics|assessment statistics]] for each taskforce, I assume as a subset of the assessment statistics for the parent WikiProject - is this correct? And if so, what do I need to do in order to create the assessment statistics tables? I've [https://tools.wmflabs.org/enwp10/cgi-bin/update.fcgi?projectselect=&project=RegSys attempted to update the project data for RegSys] as a test, but the assessment tool says that [https://tools.wmflabs.org/enwp10/cgi-bin/list2.fcgi?run=yes&projecta=RegSys&namespace=&pagename=&quality=&importance=&score=&limit=250&offset=1&sorta=Importance&sortb=Quality RegSys is not in the database]. I get the feeling I'm missing something quite basic, any help appreciated. Thanks! [[User:Amkilpatrick|Amkilpatrick]] ([[User talk:Amkilpatrick|talk]]) 08:45, 19 June 2018 (UTC)