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
1218, 1219, 1220, 1221, 1222, 1223, 1224, 1225, 1226, 1227, 1228, 1229, 1230, 1231, 1232, 1233, 1234, 1235, 1236, 1237

Newish user...I think that I've been deleted for not understanding how to create new article

Hi, I think I see what I did. I was trying to start two new articles, but didn't create them in my userspace. I tried following the wizard this time and must have put them not in my userspace as I intended. As a result the articles have been quick deleted and my user id has been deleted (sort of). These would be my 3rd and 4th articles and I'm still uncertain how to make my way around. That's ok the two articles are deleted. I would like to try again and get them in the right space. But my userid is in a strange state.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by WashTownHistory (talk • contribs) 00:25, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @WashTownHistory: Welcome to Teahouse. You two deleted article James Shinn and Draft:Ryozo Kado was nominated for deletion due to subject of no important and copyright infringement respectively. Please note that subject need to be pass the notability requirements and the content need to supported by independent, reliable secondary sources. Content added need to be based on the sources provided, however, it need to be written in your own words and not copy from the source and paste into the article. Please read WP:Your First Article and see here for the definition of notability, source types and examples for your reference - see message on "Request on 15:31:34, 22 June 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by SazidKabir". Do pop by again should need further assistance. Happy editing. cheers. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:50, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think that I understand that when i used the wizard that it didn't put my page into my userspace sandbox. I had intended to work on it for several weeks before submitting for review. But my userid was also deleted https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WashTownHistory. I'm not sure how I get it back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WashTownHistory (talk • contribs) 14:56, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@WashTownHistory: your registered username still works, but it may still be considered not "personal" enough.

Your userPAGE was deleted because it appeared to consist of writing that was not related to building an encyclopedia. I didn't see it before it was deleted, but if you remember what you wrote, try not to duplicate exactly what you had there before or it is liable be deleted again.

Pages that do not yet demonstrate notability are allowed to remain as drafts in either user space or draft space for six months or longer, as long as the contributor appears to be making efforts to improve the drafts towards becoming articles.

An actual article that does not meet notability requirements is subject to deletion.

Copyright violations are not allowed anywhere on Wikipedia.

You can use the instructions at userspace draft to start your draft, it is not required to use the Article Wizard.

I hope this helps. If you have more questions, please come back to the Teahouse! — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:04, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I just created a draft article in my sandbox. Will be ever so careful now. Thank you for the kind help.WashTownHistory (talk) 01:46, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@WashTownHistory: You could perhaps try creating articles on the articles for creation page. This page gives a certain amount of guidance, and also includes a link which automatically moves the article into article-space when you are ready to do so. On a separate but related topic, you should note that your userpage is meant only to contain details about yourself, and then only those details which relate to your Wikipedia involvement - skills, interests, expectations, editing history and so forth. The creation of a userpage, I should say, is not compulsory and many editors in good standing do not create one. Feel free to contact me on my talk page if I can help further. ----Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 14:36, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiable source query

Hello everyone,

I'm editing my first article and I chose a South African musician from the list of article requiring copy editing. The article about Elvis Blue requires copy editing to correct the tone, as well as citation of more reliable sources. The guidelines state that we should avoid referencing tabloid magazines/news. Could you please help me define a 'black and white' difference between between tabloid news and neutral, verifiable news?

Thank you in advance.

UsanaAngelou (talk) 12:26, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tabloid is a pretty well established definition when it comes to the British press, Template:Media in the United Kingdom lists them by type ~ a definition which has held true for many years (q:Yes, Minister#Episode Four: A Conflict of Interest).

For South African papers I'd start by checking the articles for the papers listed in List of newspapers in South Africa. Some are explicitly described as tabloids, such as the Daily Sun, "The Daily Sun is a tabloid daily newspaper in South Africa."

Failing that, a check of the paper's own website is often useful. If it leads with celebrity gossip or sport it's more likely to fall at the tabloid end of the spectrum than if its major stories revolve around politics, economics, diplomacy or business.

It's also helpful to check whether other articles cite the paper by using the "What links here" link at the left hand of the paper's article, e.g. Special:WhatLinksHere/The Sunday Times (South Africa).

Hope that helps, Cabayi (talk) 12:20, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Need help to improve On the Mode of Existence of Technical Objects

Hello,

I created the page On the Mode of Existence of Technical Objects from the french article. This book was translated in english recently, it's a very important book in the philosophy of technology (in top 5). Sadely, I realize now I need help from a native enlgish speaker. It's kind of hard to check philosophies in english for me. We need also more source. I put a really good source in the "see also" but they should be more.

It's a very interesting subject, yet complex. I think it's really a great addition to wikipedia as this book is a lot under rated outside Europe.

Gagarine (talk) 20:11, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gagerine and welcome to the Teahouse.

Your article was not an acceptable book article because it did nothing to establish the notability of the book through references or even making unsupported claims. I have redirected it back to Gilbert Simondon for now. You are welcome to draft a more completely fleshed out article, and to ask for help, but not to put a completely inadequate article in mainspace. It would also be acceptable to enlarge the Gilbert Simondon article with more information about his general approach covered in multiple publications. Once that section has become significant, it might be possible to spin it out a separate article about this book. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:43, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gagarine. It is sad when you receive such disappointing news after so much work. If any part of the meaning of the advice from jmcgnh is hard to understand because of the use of idiomatic English, tell us what part needs to be more clear. If you find more independent sources which discuss thoroughly the work of Simondon, then I will try to use my native English to help you write a summary of what they say, so the work of Gilbert Simondon may be understood more completely. I am no expert in philosophy but perhaps I can help. - Egmonster (talk) 22:48, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello jmcgnh thanks for your help!

Egmonster I will change my strategy about this article. I will improve the french article first where peoples know it's one of the most famous book in the field. Then I will ask for help to translate it. thanks you :). Gagarine (talk) 23:52, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gagarine, excellent! - Egmonster (talk) 14:10, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Avoiding unambiguous advertising

CaitHF (talk) 09:25, 1 August 2018 (UTC) Hi there - I wonder if anyone could please advise - the company I work for is not on Wikipedia so I tried to add them. I did my best to keep the language neutral and stick to facts using as many sources as I could. However it was speedily deleted because it was deemed to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company. Is it because I am working for them that this happened or is it worth trying another attempt? Could it be because I included a list of services which came across as self promotion. Are facts about people who work there acceptable? I did base the entry on the entries for other similar companies but then tried to make it even more neutral. Or is it best to request someone else creates the page? Many thanks! Cait[reply]

Cait, I assume you mean Wikipedia, not LinkedIn? Rojomoke (talk) 10:17, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rojomoke I absolutely did mean Wikipedia not Linkedin, thank you CaitHF (talk) 10:38, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First, you have done correctly be posting the PAID template on your user page. I conducted a hasty search on the company name and did not find independently written articles about the company. Sources that rest on what the company says about itself are not sufficient. List of services - No. People - No. If you/company request someone else tries, then they will have conflict of interest, and more to the point, will be stymied by the lack of independent content written about the company. Lastly, finding examples of entries for similar companies does not mean that your company deserves an article. More likely, it means those should be deleted. David notMD (talk) 11:35, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CaitHF. I can't see the deleted article, as I am not an administrator; but your plight illustrates why editing with a Conflict of interest is discouraged: it can be hard to see what is suitable and what is not. But generally speaking: Wikipedia has very little interest in anything that the subject of an article says about themselves, or that people associated with them say about them. It is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject have published about them. Somebody independent writing about the company might certainly discuss some particular products or services, or particular people; but they are unlikely to provide an exhaustive list of either of these, so neither should a Wikipedia article. and, as David not MD suggests, if there are no substantial independent published sources, then there cannot be an article, because there is literally nothing that can go in it. --ColinFine (talk) 23:52, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

as Author How long it takes to publish my page

Hi, How long it takes to publish my page, do I have to do any extra steps, I already created my account.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nehal El Defrawy (talk • contribs)

What do you mean by “my page”? ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 10:02, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nehal El Defrawy: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I assume this refers to your user page. I don't mean to disappoint you, but it is not appropriate for Wikipedia. You seem to have a common misunderstanding as to what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not social media for people to write about themselves or to publish their own research. Wikipedia highly discourages autobiographical edits per our policy at WP:AUTO. Wikipedia is only interested in what independent reliable sources state about a subject indicating how it is notable per guidelines. 331dot (talk) 10:03, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How i published page about Author— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nehal El Defrawy (talk • contribs)

@Nehal El Defrawy: Are you Nehal El Defrawy? To reply, please click the word "edit" next to the title of this section, instead of posting a new question. 331dot (talk) 10:21, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot :yes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nehal El Defrawy (talk • contribs) 06:28, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nehal El Defrawy: Wikipedia highly discourages people from writing about themselves. As I state above, this is an encyclopedia and not social media. If you truly merit a Wikipedia article, you should allow others who do not know you to write it. 331dot (talk) 10:30, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot how? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nehal El Defrawy (talk • contribs) 06:34, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nehal El Defrawy: The best thing to do is nothing; if you are sufficiently notable, someone will eventually take note of you and write about you. You can post at Requested articles, but it is severely backlogged and it may be some time before you are written about- assuming you are sufficiently notable. If you just want to tell the world about yourself and your work, you may wish to find an alternative outlet to do so. 331dot (talk) 11:20, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

adding a new section to "prostituion in laos" section

Hello, I am wanting to expand more on the prostitution of Laos page on Wikipedia. I am wanting to add a new section about the Khmu people who are a minority group in Laos. Moreover, my section will also discuss the Khmu people and their involvement in commercial sex in Laos. I just wanted to let everyone know. What do you guys think? It is already posted so let me know what you think? Thanks ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sally whataburger (talk • contribs) 07:53, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You added a section "The Khmu and Commercial Sex" to Prostitution in Laos. In my opinion it has a lot of not-relevant content, and is not encyclopedic in tone. Also, please sign your comments by typing four of ~ at the end. David notMD (talk) 14:45, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Need help with an article I made

I made another new article called Samsung Galaxy Tab S4 but I need an infobox. How do I get an infobox? HorsesARENice^{Ride me to my talk page} 16:37, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again HorsesAreNice, it's good to see you galloping into the Teahouse again.

As is usually the case for infoboxes, the easiest way to create a new one is to copy one from another similar page, in this case Samsung Galaxy Tab S3 and change the data to match the new subject. I see that someone has already staked out a redlink for Samsung Galaxy Tab S4 10.5 on the Samsung Galaxy page, so you may want to collaborate with whoever else is watching this topic. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:29, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@HorsesAreNice: One addendum: some infoboxes, such as this one, contain corporate logos. Corporate logos often appear on Wikipedia as non-free content and require fair-use justification. Non-free content is not allowed on Draft: pages, so copying an infobox with a non-free logo onto a draft would not be allowed. In this case, the Samsung Galaxy logo being used is pulled from Wikimedia Commons on a theory that it is too simply to be copyrighted. This means that there is, in this particular case, no reason not to copy the infobox – but the issue is one that you may need to be aware of in future. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:35, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Setting up a page for the artist Turkuaz

Hi All

One of the bands my company manages (turkuaz) is interested in having a wiki page set up. Could some one help guide me on how to do so.

Thanks!

RJ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjl3rd (talk • contribs) 12:57, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, RJ. I'm afraid the answer is "Don't do it". As you will see by looking at some other questions and answers on this page, Wikipedia is not for promoting anything, no matter how worthy. "Setting up pages" is not what happens in Wikipedia: rather, we "write articles". Once the band has been written about, in some depth, by people who have no connection with the band or your company, then somebody may write an article about them: it should not be you, as you have a conflict of interest; and it should contain very little information which comes directly from the band. Wikipedia is not interested in what a subject says about themselves, and even less in what their agent or manager says about them: it is only interested in what people who have no connection with them have published about them. As well as the links I have inserted above in this paragraph, also please look at NBAND and PAID. --ColinFine (talk) 23:59, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for a "Third-eye" (other editor's advice)

Hello. I am a new editor on english Wikipedia (user of the french Wikipedia). Recently, I tried to rewrite a page, Honorary Aryan, that was stated to be a hoax on the talk-page (I discover it because we had the same hoax on french WP, before rewriting, as it was a translation of the english page). Of course, I added a reliable reference but... an other editor who agreed last year (on AfD request) with a rewriting seems to have change his mind, and is now opposed to it. His reasons are mainly that the reference is writen in German and that it must have an english-language reference, and thatthere is a lack of consensus because we are only two of us on the talk page, so nobody supports the change in the last discussion. I guess you have on english WP the same thing that we have on french WP, that is a page where to ask for others editors advices, but I cannot find it. Could you help, please ? Cheers. --Pa2chant. (talk) 17:25, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we have, Pa2chant.: it's called WP:Third opinion. Without entering into your discussion, I will point out that non-English sources are acceptable where there is no better English source, (see WP:NOENG) and I know of no rule that says there must be at least one English source. --ColinFine (talk) 00:06, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much ColinFine. --Pa2chant. (talk) 06:42, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, as nor my english neither my german level are good enough to be sure a translation from me would be reliable, do you know where I could find help to check such a translation ? --Pa2chant. (talk) 06:49, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Uploading my first article on Wikipedia

Hello Teahouse experts,

From what I have been able to find on the Internet is it true that I have to wait 4 days and 10 edits before I can move my page from Sandbox to the Wikipedia pages? Thanks for your help.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Scapizzi (talk • contribs)

@Scapizzi: That's how long it takes to become autoconfirmed, which would let you move a draft in your sandbox into article space. Another user could move the draft for you, but there are some major problems. We do not put hyperlinks in article text. See WP:CITE to learn how we cite sources (in short, you use <ref>reference tags like this</ref>, preferably using a {{cite}} template inside the ref tags). Because you have put in hyperlinks and no references, it's a little hard for me to tell if the subject meets our notability standards (which determine if we allow an article to exist).

Here's how to write an article that is almost guaranteed to not be deleted:

1) Choose a topic whose notability is attested by discussions of it in several reliable independent sources.

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

3) 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.

4) 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.

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

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

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

8) 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) 17:42, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Animals?

Hi, I've been browsing through peoples user pages and I found that some people identify themselves with a top icon as WikiGnomes, WikiGrffins, and other things. First of all, what is this, and secondly, is there a list of all these so what called Wiki Creatures? Yanjipy (talk) 17:46, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yanjipy. There is a list at Wikipedia:WikiFauna. Editors can choose to describe themselves with such terms. Most editors don't do it. It does not correspond to any rights or assigned tasks. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:47, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Need Help or Instructions on how to Update Image

I am trying to update our company logo on the following page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mastiff_(company), but cannot seem to find an area to do so. Any help would be appreciated!— Preceding unsigned comment added by MastiffAwareness (talk • contribs)

You should not edit the article directly but make edit requests at Talk:Mastiff (company). However, you should not take any further actions until you have requested a user name change and disclosed your employer on your user page, per the instructions on your talk page. If you do anything besides request a name change and disclose your employer, or if you edit the article, you can be blocked right away for failing to comply with our terms and conditions regarding paid editing. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:02, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MastiffAwareness: - fair use, or non-copyrighted images can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons using the Upload Wizard, and then included in the image slot of the infobox. However, as Ian.thomson has said, you should review our policy regarding conflicts of interest, and disclose your personal conflict with a disclaimer on your user page, before editing articles relating to your employer. Please also ensure that you are compliant with our paid editing rules if necessary. It is worth noting that, even after this, you should refrain from editing Mastiff (company) directly, given your connection to the subject. Moreover, even though you may be authorised to use the image by the firm, unless you personally own the copyright, you may encounter some issues with the upload. Hope this helps, Stormy clouds (talk) 20:06, 1 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]

How do i change my user name to not say “User: Diddaler”

I’m lost — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diddaler (talk • contribs)

@Diddaler: - hi, you can change your name via a request here. However, given your limited contributions, it may be more efficient to begin a new account with the name you want. However, it is worth noting that your username is not "User:Diddaler" - that is the name of your userpage. Your user name is Diddaler, just as mine is Stormy clouds.

On the subject of your user page, as pointed out by Drm310, you appear to have a misconception regarding user pages and their functionality on Wikipedia. A user page, particularly the main user page, is used to describe yourself as an editor, and add detail about yourself and your contributions to Wikipedia. See the excellent user page of User:Cullen328 to illustrate this more clearly. You appear to have written a draft article on your user page, and now wish to change the name to reflect the subject. The correct channel to use in doing so is at Articles for Creation, where more experienced editors can gauge the quality of the article, and the notability of the subject, before deciding whether or not to move the article to main space. You should likely address this issue before worrying about your user name, and I would further recommend that you review our policy on conflicts of interest, given your edits thus far. Hope this helps, and don't hesitate to ask any further questions, Stormy clouds (talk) 19:57, 1 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]

"Articles For Creation"

Hola! I submitted an article and for an unknown reason, it has not been selected for review. It has already been 2 weeks, and it still has not been reviewed. It is Draft:I.C. Woodward. Please help me. Much thanks, Huff slush7264 20:15, 1 August 2018 (UTC) User:Huff slush7264

It has been reviewed and rejected five times, by five different reviewers. The declines were for being improperly source, or for not showing notability. The most recent review was on July 27. You then modified the draft and resubmitted it (twice) the same day. As the submission template says, there is a backlog and may take seven weeks or more. Submitting it twice or claiming here that you have been waiting two weeks when it has actually been only five days is not going to help. Meters (talk) 20:40, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The draft still has the problem (which I have already pointed out to you) that all the references it cites are to web pages that do not even mention the subject of the article. By repeatedly resubmitting the draft without doing anything about that obvious defect, you are wasting your own and other people's time, and making the review backlog of which you complain even worse. Maproom (talk) 21:41, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, rejected six times. That ship has sailed (and sunk). David notMD (talk) 01:12, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Six times now that I have formally declined the draft. Same reasons as before (notability and sourcing) with the additional comment that the article may be a copyvio as an overly-close paraphrasing of https://dl.mospace.umsystem.edu/islandora/object/umsl%3A155076?solr_nav%5Bid%5D=6752e47bcdd21c72627c&solr_nav%5Bpage%5D=0&solr_nav%5Boffset%5D=0.

The user has now created a new ship article (in article space rather than as a draft) John Hulst (ship) that has many of the same problems. Meters (talk) 04:55, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image help needed

I need help. Can someone add my picture to this page ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Den10_Music ( https://drive.google.com/open?id=1ijNs7u7opOM0N35Bv4DrzU0J0xEb_BxG <—— what i want added. original https://instagram.com/p/BlwYcryAMxL/ photo credit @Still_chris_images from IMADEUFAMOUS RADIO here on this link below: http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/40064319 imadeufamous.com ) Thanks I need help. Can someone add my picture to this page ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Den10_Music ( https://drive.google.com/open?id=1ijNs7u7opOM0N35Bv4DrzU0J0xEb_BxG <—— what i want added. original https://instagram.com/p/BlwYcryAMxL/ photo credit @Still_chris_images from IMADEUFAMOUS RADIO here on this link below: http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/40064319 imadeufamous.com ) Thanks

@Den10 Music: - unfortunately, you don't own the copyright for the image, nor do I, so it cannot be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons at this point. Moreover, your user page appears to be copied directly from the former user page of Diddaler, which was speedily deleted (justifiably) by Anthony Bradbury. Once again, assuming you are the same editor (you have certainly edited regarding the same topic), you failed to heed my advice - user pages are not advertisements, not articles, and not web hosts for budding performers with no coverage in reliable sources, who fail the notability guidelines. Once again, you have failed to disclose an obvious conflict of interest - you should not edit articles about yourself or people you know personally. Once again, you appear to have failed to understand what Wikipedia is. Efforts to build a web presence for yourself, outside of editing, will not be entertained - that is not what Wikipedia is. Please reflect on what I have told you, and heed my advice above. Stormy clouds (talk) 22:50, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have created "The Ascetic of Love" by Nun Gavrilia in pdf format. I want to upload it but not sure of the copyright issues?

In 2013 I spent the summer scanning the book "The Ascetic of Love" by Nun Gavrilia. I produced 6 pdf files with complete images and searchable text. I want to have the work archived somewhere for those interested in the life of Mother Gavrilia. Does Wikipedia want the files and how do I upload them as long as there are no copyright issues with the original publisher.Torpilgrim1 (talk) 23:30, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Torpilgrim1: Wikipedia does not host copyrighted works. As Gerontissa Gavrielia died in 1992, the book is probably not in public domain.

Even if the work was in public domain, Wikisource is where we keep public domain works. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:46, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Den10

I am the artist Den10. I am all over Wikipedia but i do not have a personal page. Hence this is why i am creating one to link with Purple City Smoke Dza & other pages like Rolling Stoned — Preceding unsigned comment added by Den10 Music (talk • contribs) 00:06, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read what you were told at #Image help needed above and at User talk:Den10 Music, and also the advice against autobiography. --David Biddulph (talk) 01:15, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a good way to include the page from which I acquired data with the data so that it can be easily updated by another editor in the future?

On Franklin High_School (Portland, Oregon) a student population is listed, and a pdf is cited with no context to how the pdf was found, so in order to update the information I had to do a completely new search. Is there any way that I can add on to my citation a index style page, specifically this one, for future editors to use to find updated information? The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 23:35, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello The Editor's Apprentice and welcome to the Teahouse.

While there is no formal parameter from the citation template that would be suitable for this additional URL, you could certainly add an HTML comment  to the citation. This will be visible only to someone who opens the editing view of the page. That website, to me, seems improperly built, since it uses opaque internal page numbers in places where meaningful names could be supplied, but perhaps there is some technical explanation for why it is done this way - perhaps that's the only way the web developer could satisfy the requirement to support multiple languages. But one consequence of building the website this way is that there is no apparent commitment to the current structure that can be relied on by external sites when they link to its pages. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:15, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick response! The idea that you presented seems like a very good one, so I'll soon implement it as well as keep it in my back pocket for my future editing travels.

The structure is defiantly a mess, and continues be a mess throughout the website/domain. My best guess, just personal use is that the number is some sequential identifier which marks how many pages have come before it, though I may be wrong.

On a side note, when it comes to the Teahouse, are non-hosts allowed to respond to questions, or is that forbidden because of how it would completely destroy the purpose of having the host role? The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 04:47, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The Editor's Apprentice: The "host" role is pretty notional. A lot of the people providing answers here (including me) never formally signed on as hosts. If someone provides poor quality answers, they'll usually be quickly corrected and asked to stop until they have learned more.

The site we're complaining about is built with Centricity, now owned by BlackBoard, and the overall operation looks like something that I suspect is built on top of SharePoint, but I may just not have seen enough of these content delivery systems to recognize the right earmarks. Page-number-based addressing allows you to separate content from structure, to a certain extent, so I can see it being justified on that basis. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:27, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sounds good. The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 22:33, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adding an article to a navigational box template

Hi, I recently created an article called Lejeune Hall and I wanted to know if I could add it to the Template: USNA navigational box in the campus secion. If not is there someone who can? Yanjipy (talk) 01:35, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Yanjipy and welcome to the Teahouse.

Templates are like a lot of other Wikipedia content - edited by the users. Some templates are protected, but you should be able to edit this one and add Lejeune Hall to the Campus section of the template. Just follow the example of campus locations that are already there. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:59, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How to reference Wikipedia activity as scholarly contributions

Hi again, sorry to bother you guys again... So I mentioned that I’m hoping to go to grad school and I want to be able to cite my work on Wikipedia in my applications, but I’m not sure if there’s a way to do this, or how I would. I have some serious work in mind for Chaucer and Beowulf - just waiting to see what would be the best way to make it presentable off Wikipedia.

Is there anyone here who has experience using their activity on Wikipedia to demonstrate scholarly contributions and/or research? I’m just looking for a little advice. Sorry to post here again, but it looks like a lot of people visit the teahouse and hopefully I can get connected to someone this way. Still excited to start the real work! Thanks everyone, Steph at AUM (talk) 04:15, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again {{u|Steph at AUM]], it's good to see you back at the Teahouse.

While there are a few editors who are designated as "Wikipedia Visiting Scholars", it is quite rare for Wikipedia editing to gain recognition as scholarship. A big part of the reason is that the research methodology and standards for writing are quite different. Scholarship generally involves doing WP:original research, something which cannot be directly published on Wikipedia. Instead, your scholarly research results need to be published in the appropriate field's professional journals or other outlets, satisfying their standards for scholarship – only then would it be possible for it to be cited here on WP and, even then, it should not be cited on WP by you. Citing ones own publications in Wikipedia articles is considered a conflict of interest and disallowed as self-promotion.

There is an essay on this question that may apply to you: WP:Expert editors.

BTW there is no need to apologize for posting questions in the Teahouse, as long as they are related to editing Wikipedia. The people who answer questions here do it because they want to: every single one of us is a volunteer. We are interested in helping as many people as possible to become contributing editors, joining in the project to build a better encyclopedia. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:56, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the article on Beowulf has had more than 5,000 edits by scores of editors, so be aware that it is unlikely that you can find "serious work" to perform on the article. And anything you do add or subtract is likely to be further modified by other editors, making it difficult for you to document your contributions. The article is not "perfect." It was nominated for Good Article classification in 2007 and 2017, failing both (currently B-class). People who succeed in raising an article to GA status often post a Userbox to that effect on their User page - in effect bragging rights - but that will not hold water on an application to graduate school. David notMD (talk) 09:13, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anyway to become better in editing?

I am currently learning how to edit sites.Is there anyway to improve my skills in editing.Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymous471364 (talk • contribs) 06:10, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Anonymous471364 and welcome to the Teahouse.

As with most tasks, improvement comes from practice and conscious attention to the areas you need to improve. You've asked a very general question, so I don't know how to give more than a very general answer. Perhaps if you could tell us about something you recently edited, we could give better advice. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:14, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Telvision episode pages

Right or wrong?: Just because a television series is a very well-known long runner does not mean every episode of the series warrants a standalone article. Take SpongeBob for example: he's a household name and the most famous cartoon behind the Simpsons, South Park and Family Guy yet only a few of the episodes for SpongeBob have their own pages. The rest just link to redirects of the series' season pages. SouthParkFan2009 (talk) 06:41, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello SouthParkFan2009 and welcome to the Teahouse.

Not every episode gets its own article. In fact, many single-episode articles may eventually be found to have insufficient justification for being separate and perhaps be turned back into redirects. A standalone episode article needs several references that give us a reason for there to be a distinct article. Episode summaries and other brief web reviews should not be sufficient. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:50, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

creating a new category - help!

I want to create an new category for alumni of Mercaz HaRav, but it's not working... I've never created a category page before. I thought you create the category page first, and then add the people? Does the order matter? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cm613 (talk • contribs) 04:55, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The category is Yeshivat Mercaz HaRav alumni. Does it make problems having the word "Yeshivat" when the institution name is just "Mercaz HaRav"? Thanks for the help, Cm613 (talk) 08:55, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeshivat Mercaz HaRav alumni is an (empty) article, not a category. The category would be Category:Yeshivat Mercaz HaRav alumni , which hasn't yet been created. You may want to read WP:Categorization#Creating category pages. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:58, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Right, thanks! OK, I created the category. Now, how do I delete the article Yeshivat Mercaz HaRav alumni? Cm613 (talk) 10:09, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cm613: Pages can only be deleted by administrators. It could have been requested with {{db-g7}}. I have deleted it. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:21, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discrimination among universities in terms of content

I think that some famous universities are immune to the rule of Wikipedia. An editor deleted the rankings of Nanyang Technological University, saying that "it is use of Wikipedia as a university prospectus." However, if I go to the Harvard university page, this page not only contains the ranking but also shows that this page is a semi-protected page. I think all the situations are the same except the name. Both have the same source too. I want to know why the rule of Wikipedia is being applied differently. Please, riddle me this.냥기리 (talk) 12:44, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

냥기리 the rankings of universities such as Harvard and other world famous universities are regularly discussed in the mainstream media, by people who have no connection to the institutions. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:50, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add that semi-protection is typically applied to highly visible pages that attract vandalism. A page with fewer visitors would normally attract less vandalism, though protection should still be requested if necessary. In the case of the article Harvard, it was indefinitely semi-protected after years of relatively persistent vandalism. This is entirely unrelated to the fact that frequent discussion in many sources is a higher level of significance than coming at the top of a nearly exhaustive list, albeit one considered authoritative. Also, I have reviewed the revision you are referring to, and while I agree the ranking merits mention, there seems to be considerable amount of brochure like material, which is most of what was removed. I don't believe that the removal was targeted towards the ranking information, but rather the sections with excessively advertorial tone, and a like of sources.— Alpha3031 (t·c) 16:11, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

So, if you get banned can you still use sandbox. I'm not planning to vandalise or anything like that, but my friend likes making fictional articles on sandbox and at the same time finds vandalism funny. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BionicMoose77 (talk • contribs) 10:03, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A site ban prohibits a user from editing anywhere at all within Wikipedia. In some circumstances editing of the banned user's personal talk page may be allowed; sandbox, no. Topic bans or page bans are limited bans applying to specified areas within the encyclopedia. Please tell your friend that his sandbox is visible to anyone who happens on it, and inappropriate sandbox edits may result in unforeseen consequences. And vandalism is never funny, and tends to lead to a block without undue delay. ----Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 14:16, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.

Hi. I'm GioWiki89. I've always wondered why you can only edit some articles and not all of them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.246.151.73 (talk • contribs) 12:07, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because some articles are protected (semi or 30/500) and your user right is not permitted to edit them. WP:PP ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 16:13, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oops I forgot full protection ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 00:11, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

INTERVIEWING A SOURCE

Please confirm the manual of style for writing on wikipedia for an interview with the source which will not be published in a book. Thank you Anonymous — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kajinka! (talk • contribs) 12:16, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The style is "Don't". Unpublished interviews are original research and so are not permitted as sources. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:01, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

Hello anonymous user and welcome to the Teahouse.

An unpublished interview cannot be used as a source on Wikipedia. You can do the interview, publish it in a source that is considered reliable, and then someone else, not you, can reference it in an article. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:04, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To : jmcgnh Thank you very much for your welcome and for letting me know. Do you have any other suggestion for a source asking me to edit and upload photos from them -as they have been written about in Wikipedia. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kajinka! (talk • contribs) 13:20, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 17:24, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you AE. I will look to contact you. I am waiting for some information, so I may be ok.

How do I create a new article that I have written?

If I first put it in a sandbox, and it's ready to go, them what buttons do I push to move it from the Sandbox to the encyclopedia? Is there a page or article that I can use to find this out? Thanks. Salstergropman (talk) 16:16, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Salstergropman: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. There are no buttons that you can push in order to move the article from sandbox to mainspace. If this is your first article, I recommend you to submit to AfC by creating a draft with title "Draft:(ARTICLE NAME)" (How to do: type this in the search bar, you will see a message at the top which looks like 'You may create the page "Draft:(ARTICLE NAME)"', click into the red link and paste your article in it) and wait for review. Then an AfC reviewer will notify you whether your draft is approved or not (within 2 months, there are too many AfC submissions currently). If you have any other questions or difficulties, feel free to ask here. Thanks. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 16:32, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I may take your recommendation, but my question is not about the AFC process, but simple the nuts-and-bolts of what an editor does to move an article from the sandbox to the encyclopedia. And I also wonder if there is a "how to" page that explains that process? The last "how to" page I was on recommended I come here to the teahouse to get questions answered. So, here I am. I understand there may be no buttons to push (and I suspect that there may be no tea in this tea room, either.) Thanks very much for any consideration. Salstergropman (talk) 16:55, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Salstergropman and welcome to the Teahouse.

Once your account reaches "autoconfirmed" status, you'll have the ability to MOVE a page. The dialog for moving a page allows you specify the new title, including a different namespace. This is how experienced editors move their work from sandbox or userspace draft to articlespace.

New articles are not immediately available to be searched by external search engines. New page patrollers have to mark the page, after checking that it's okay. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:10, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Salstergropman: The best way is to move the whole article from the sandbox to the mainspace. You may use your own sandbox here instead of WP:SANDBOX or Draft:Sandbox because the latter ones will be cleaned automatically. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 17:13, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AfC is an alternative for directly publishing an article. If you don't want your article to be tagged with a bunch of tags or even be nominated for deletion (and the worst is being speedy deleted), then submit it to AfC. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 17:16, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!Salstergropman (talk) 18:49, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page titles

I would like to create a BLP page about Glenn Perry, however there is already a page with that same name who is a different person. May I distinguish the Glenn Perry whom I wish to write about by using the prefix "Dr." or his profession such as, "Psychotherapist" or "Psychological astrologer"? He is mentioned and referenced on the page "Psychological astrology," but there is no link to a page of his own. Thank you, RA778T — Preceding unsigned comment added by RA778 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey RA778. We would generally disambiguate the two by adding a parenthetical description, such as Glenn Perry (psychotherapist). Since you seem to be new to Wikipedia, I'd recommend you review our tutorial on writing your first article, and consider submitting a draft to our Articles for Creation project, where it can be reviewed by an experienced volunteer, who can offer feedback prior to publishing. GMG ^talk 18:22, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BARI BACCO

Please inform me of why my page faces deletion. Is it because I mentioned my book The Power Behind the Pouch is available on Amazon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baracco (talk • contribs) 17:55, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please review WP:G11 and WP:NPOV. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 18:31, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Change a Redirect into an article

I'm trying to turn a Redirect into an article, or delete it so I replace it with a new one. The article I want to (turn it into/replace it with) has nothing to do with the targeted page at all. So I would like to know what I'm supposed to do in that case. Wikipedia:Redirect doesn't seem to explain that.

Then I'm going to need step by step instructions because I'm very confused. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnRossior333 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey JohnRossior333. When you are redirected to an article, it leave a little link in the upper left showing the article you were redirected from. If you clink that link, you can view and edit the redirect itself (see image). However, since you are very new, you should probably consider reviewing our guidance on writing your first article, and consider submitting a draft to our Articles for Creation project, where it can be reviewed by an experienced volunteer, who can offer feedback prior to publishing. GMG ^talk 19:06, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding so quick GreenMeansGo. I see. So when I go to edit the redirect page, do I just delete the code that's there and act like I'm making a brand new article for submission? JohnRossior333 (talk) 19:24, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey JohnRossior333. Yes, you can do that. But again, for your first article it is a much better idea to submit a draft for review at Articles for Creation. Writing a new article is difficult, and there is a lot to understand in what is and is not acceptable. That makes it likely that anybody's first article may end up being deleted, whereas at Articles for Creation, others can have time to review your draft and offer advice as to how you can improve it. GMG ^talk 19:27, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is the technical means by which you would do so. Whether you should do so is a different question, please read Wikipedia:Your first article before diving off into doing this, however. Make sure you have all of your research and reliable sources lined up before writing a new article and be sure you cite the sources in your writing. But if you have all of that in order, yes, just go edit the redirect page itself. --Jayron 32 19:29, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll echo the excellent advice of GreenMeansGo --S Philbrick (Talk) 20:26, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys. I think I understand now. I'll read through guidance on writing your first article and Wikipedia:Your first article. I think my reliable sources are solid and I have plenty of things to cite as well. JohnRossior333 (talk) 00:38, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question

I am not able to get my view my page on Google,it doesn't appear in the search engine, what could be the problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mach Kapduel Buol (talk • contribs) 18:58, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mach Kapduel Buol: - this is normal, and nothing to worry about. Given how search engines like Google work, new Wikipedia articles take time to rise to the top of Google's algorithm; this is not indicative of issues with the article, or with Wikipedia - it is simply how Google works. It will ascend towards the top of the results in a matter of time. Patience is a virtue, et al. Hope this helps, Stormy clouds (talk) 19:20, 2 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]

@Stormy clouds: You may want to add to your reply the fact that a new article is NOINDEXed until it has either been reviewed through new page patrol or 90 days have elapsed. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:43, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@David Biddulph: - absolutely true. However, as GreenMeansGo has alluded to, this page was never destined to be indexed. Thanks for the catch nonetheless. Stormy clouds (talk) 19:50, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It appears the "article" you've made is on your user page at User:Mach Kapduel Buol. User pages should normally never be indexed by search engines. Furthermore, it is a very bad idea to try to write an autobiography on Wikipedia, and if you published that page as an article now, it would likely be deleted, for being both unsourced and self-promotional. GMG ^talk 19:23, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bird Photography in World

I want to write about "Bird Photography". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Didarul Basher (talk • contribs) 16:09, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome @Didarul Basher:, I hope you will. Do you have specific questions?--S Philbrick (Talk) 20:22, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:User pages, your User page is supposed to be for a brief description of you and what you intend to edit at Wikipedia. It is not a place to create an article. You do have your own Sandbox to do that. Alas, what you have written (on your User page) in no way resembles a Wikipedia article. My recommendation is to delete all of it. David notMD (talk) 21:12, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User page deleted. David notMD (talk) 13:51, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template problem

Would someone please look at Template:Florida and tell me why the counties at the bottom don’t show. Thanks. deisenbe (talk) 21:03, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey deisenbe. It looks like Template:US state navigation box only supports eight groups. An admin or someone with template editor needs to add this to the core template:

|group9 = {{{title9|{{{group9<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}} }}} |list9 = {{{list9|{{{body9<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}}}}}

GMG ^talk 21:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to do so :) Galobtter (pingó mió) 21:30, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An oddity

I today created Caprera (disambiguation), a routine, everyday DAB page. I looked in Italian Wiki for a DAB page to InterWiki link to it, but didn't find one.

However, User:PLbot has added a perfectly good InterWiki link to my new DAB page. The oddity is that User:PLbot has been WP:BLOCKed since 18 March 2013. Narky Blert (talk) 21:45, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where did they add the InterWiki link? Are you on about this edit on WikiData? -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:54, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Narky Blert. I'm not sure why PLbot added that link, because the ceb.wiki page was an article, and the Wikidata item was for a dab page specifically. I have removed it. For context, Wikidata is a stand alone project, and the inter-wiki links are added at Wikidata, and displayed on other projects like the English Wikipedia. So blocking a user or a bot on the English Wikipedia, doesn't affect their ability to edit Wikidata, or any other sister project like Wikiquote or Wikimedia Commons. GMG ^talk 22:37, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also ping User:Pasleim, who is the bot operator and a sysop on Wikidata. GMG ^talk 22:39, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ceb:Caprera is a disambiguation page and belongs in Caprera (Q29980596). I have restored it there. PLbot was only blocked at the English Wikipedia for having "bot" in the name without having a bot flag here. But it has no edits here so there is no need to apply for a bot flag. It's a bot at Wikidata. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:21, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oooh. Thanks PrimeHunter. You are correct. My mistake. GMG ^talk 23:50, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I half-suspected: a bad link to Wikipedia from Wikidata. (Wikidata is a site which I do not trust in any way whatsoever. I have seen too many bad links from Wikidata into Wikipedia. They often/usually create problems for WP:DPL. They are often also damdifficult to fix - I today came across a Wikidata-generated problem in English Wikipedia which took me something like 30 minutes to identify and to fix. What a waste of time and effort!) Narky Blert (talk) 20:24, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article about Productech Corporation (the company I work for)

HI, thanks for the warm and welcome approach to newbies

I'm trying to create an article about the company I work for - Productech Corporation. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Productech_Corporation) I was trying to make it "third-party" and objective - but look like I failed. When creating it I was checking in with JBL wikipedia article, trying to make mine somewhat similar.

Would you please advise, what are the best strategy for improving my draft article?

Thank you to the moon and back! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dariyka (talk • contribs) 18:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dariyka: - unfortunately, it is ill-advised for you to create such an article. You have a conflict of interest in editing regions involving your employer, and are possibly in violation of our paid editing policy. Your draft suffers from a litany of issues, many of which are unfortunate hallmarks of COI edits. As Theroadislong has said in their thorough rationale for rejection of your draft, it is promotional in tone, poorly sourced, and likely falls short of the notability guideline. All of these issues severely hamper the draft, and mean that it is impossible for it to transition to main space in its current state. However, the ultimate advice is to refrain from creating an article about your company, and move onto other pursuits. This may be disappointing, but given your COI and the obstacles ahead, it is likely the best course of action. If you are set on its creation, address the issues raised above, and see what state the draft is in then - draft, rejection, and rewrite is a frequent path at Articles for Creation. Hope this helps, Stormy clouds (talk) 22:34, 2 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]

@Stormy clouds: - Thank you so much for the explanation and advises. Will do my best to work on it. Have a nice day! Dariyka — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dariyka (talk • contribs) 18:41, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dariyka - our responses crossed paths. Sorry your first experience wasn't a better one. The main problem is that the company doesn't have enough media coverage to demonstrate notability. Here's a link to Wikipedia's company notability guidelines. Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Primary_criteria I did a search and couldn't find any independent coverage that wasn't promotional. The current sources you used are all paid placements, considered primary sources, similar to a company's own web site or social media feed. A secondary issue is that site policy is to prohibit people from editing where they might have a conflict of interest (COI). This can be summed up here: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest. This is intended to limited bias and promotional articles, as you inadvertently demonstrated. Your best bet is to wait until your company has more reliable coverage in independent sources, and then request an article at Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation. Cheers. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:47, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the JBL article you mentioned as an example is not up to Wikipedia standards, and should either be massively rewritten and referenced, or else deleted. David notMD (talk) 01:02, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Everyone!!

i wrote an article on this singer ive been following since 2015, her career has really been growing and since i know a lot about her and im kind of a big fan, i figured i might as well write her a wiki. i edited a bunch of other wiki's for some artists i also really like ((got in trouble for not citing them lol) and i uploaded a public photo from her website that is also the first photo on google when you search her up. i assumed since it was available on google and her site it would be considered creative commons?

is this incorrect?

what are the requirements for a photo to be considered creative commons? i wanna upload a photo of her to the wiki page because without it the page feels kinda empty/incomplete.

Thanks, Liora — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lovelyliora123 (talk • contribs) 02:50, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Lovelyliora123. There are two ways an image can be used on Wikipedia. The much preferred one is when a free image is uploaded to Wikimedia Commons; the other is when a non-free image is uploaded to English Wikipedia directly. Non free images are allowed only when all the criteria at WP:NFCC are met: in particular, the requirement that there be no reasonable possibility of finding a free image means that this is almost never relevant for a living person.

A free image, suitable for Wikimedia Commons, must be demonstrably free for anybody to reuse in any way for any purpose. It is up to the uploader to demonstrate either that the image is in the public domain by reason of its age (dates vary by country, but anything published before 1923 will pass0; or that the copyright holder has explicitly placed it in the public domain (as the US government does for many images produced in the course of government work); or that the copyright holder has explicitly licensed the image under a suitable licence such s WP:CC-BY-SA. If you find an image on the web, you need to look at its copyright status. It may have an explicit licence which is compatible with Wikipedia. But any other statement, or no copyright statement at all means that it cannot be uploaded to Commons.

So unless the picture you want to use is explicitly stated to be released under CC-BY-SA or something compatible, the only way to use it would be to contact the copyright owner (who is probably the photographer or the agency, not the subject) and ask them to release it - they can follow the procedure at WP:DCM if they are willing. --ColinFine (talk) 06:26, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I want a musician artist page

I want a musician artist page. can you help me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asshishroyin (talk • contribs) 04:21, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Asshishroyin: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm not entirely clear, but I'm assuming that you are a musician and want a page about yourself. First, such an idea would reflect a common misunderstanding as to what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not social media for people to write about and promote themselves. In other words, it is not a place for people to "have pages" about themselves, it is a place that has articles about people. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is only interested in what independent reliable sources have to say about an article subject, that indicates how it meets notability guidelines, in the case of musicians, WP:BAND. If as a musician you did not meet one of the listed criteria there, you would not merit an article here at this time. Not every person in a field merits an article here.

It is also highly discouraged, though not forbidden, for any person to write about themselves here per the autobiography policy. This is mostly because people naturally write favorably about themselves. It is possible for someone to successfully write about themselves, but it is rare and difficult. The vast majority of people cannot do so. If a person interested in writing about themselves is truly notable, someone else will eventually take note of them and write about them. 331dot (talk) 07:12, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

Hello there,

Can i give a reference of Wikipedia page while editing another article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shashank10490 (talk • contribs) 06:22, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Shashank10490 and welcome to the Teahouse.

An article can contain "wikilinks" to other articles on Wikipedia. These are done with double-square-brackets and are used to point to other articles that a reader my find helpful in understanding the current article. They are not considered references. Wikipedia cannot be used as a source; it contains user generated content and is therefore not considered reliable. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:38, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Colour

How do you on airline destinations put colour on future destinations. Fly High in the Sky (talk) 08:03, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fly High in the Sky Welcome to Teahouse. I am not sure if you are looking to change the text colour or the colour of the cell of the table or maybe both. Please see here how to adjust text colour Coloring and highlighting text|Coloring and highlighting text, and cell colour hereColor; scope of parameters. Thank you.

However, Please note you and Jetstreamer are on dispute of of the content of Air Sénégal International, please bring the disagreement to the article talk page and seek a consensus agreement. Do note more than three revert on the same article within the 24 hours time frame would be considered as edit warring (at the moment both you have yet to violate the guidelines) . All content added/ changed should be supported by independent reliable secondary source, and if both of you can not reach an agreement, then bring it to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:19, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@CASSIOPEIA: I'm well aware of WP:3RR. Thank you.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 22:07, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New Record in Swimming

Just letting you know guys that a 10 year old named Clark Kent beats Michael Phelps in swimming record, I think we need to have article of this kid.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.148.186.251 (talk)

@49.148.186.251: We already have an article titled Clark Kent. If you're referring to a different Clark Kent, you can request it be created at Wikipedia:Requested articles, or create it yourself and add it to the list of Clark Kent articles.— Alpha3031 (t·c) 08:16, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I Googled it and there are many news stories about 10-year old Clark Kent breaking a 23-year old record by Michael Phelps. Most stories don't say which record or are vague about it but it's the long course record for 100m butterfly for under-10 year old boys at a specific competition the Far Western Long Course Championships in California. Kent's time was 1:09:38. The girl's under-10 record for the same competition is 1:07:42.[1] The American under-10 boys record is 1:05.98 by Andrew Rogers.[2] So Kent was 5% above the national record for his age. 5% is a lot in elite sport and doesn't sound notable to me, and the record holder has no article. Kent Clark got a lot of news reports, probably because of the Michael Phelps angle and his name being Superman's alias, but per WP:BLP1E I don't think he should get an article. The World record without age restrictions is 49.82 by Michael Phelps. Kent was 39% slower. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:50, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I should maybe add that the girl's record at the competition is also the national record, and there are events where the girl's national record is better than the boy's. He is a good swimmer and shouldn't be dismissed as slower than a girl. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:57, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How is that dismissive? The point you made was surely that other individuals have swum the distance faster. --bonadea contributions talk 11:00, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but "beaten by a girl" is a common way to make fun of boys/men in many cultures. And for adults, men's swimming records are much faster than women's, e.g. 49.82 versus 55.48 for the World record in this event. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:15, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I am aware of that. So? Sexists gonna be sexist, we have no reason to speak their lame language here when none of them has even tried to make that point - it is disrespectful towards much more than half the population (including all the men who are offended by the verbiage). Since this is not an adult record, and as you point out girls' records are often faster at this distance, it is a contradiction in terms to imply that it's a disgrace to be slower than the girl(s?) who swam faster, solely based on the gender of the male swimmer. --bonadea contributions talk 12:24, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't dismissive and my formulation was poor. I just meant that my own comparison to the girl's record shouldn't be interpreted as me being dismissive. Nobody had commented on it but I imagined my first post could be read like that. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:15, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did not mean to imply that you yourself are sexist, I just don't think it's a good idea to use their language, pre-emptively, on the off-chance that some sexist might interpret it in a certain way. Your first post was entirely factual and uncontroversial, IMO, with no extra explanation needed. But this discussion has probably run its course :-) --bonadea contributions talk 13:35, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IMO. notability for one event not sufficient. Wikipedia is not about news David notMD (talk) 13:22, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance needed when publishing a new page

Hello, I have tried to publish a new page on Wikipedia, but am finding difficulty. Could you please assist me in this? Many thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommaso Calabro Art Gallery (talk • contribs) 09:40, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

your draft doesn't have any references Indicating the topic and the draft js written like a promotion/advertisement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.148.186.251 (talk • contribs) 10:09, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tommaso Calabro Art Gallery: Hi there, the recommended way to start a new article is to submit a draft at Articles for Creation, and it looks like you've already figured this out. Remember that the subject of the article has to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines to be published. I see that The Anome has already asked you to change your username on your talk page, so be sure to choose a new username before you continue your draft. Please take a look at Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines as well. — Newslinger talk 19:19, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Momo (game)

we have a new trend today about this game named momo and also it is a challenge, that made bunch of kids suicide (someone already died in this) and its spreading on WhatsApp. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.148.186.251 (talk • contribs) 06:27, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So... how can we help you? ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 10:20, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

im letting editors know so they could create the article if they wanted

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.148.186.251 (talk • contribs) 06:27, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can go to WP:Requested articles. However there’s a huge backlog there. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 11:06, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and welcome to the Teahouse! Basically, there is WP:Requested articles, but to be honest - it doesn't seem like editors very often check it and create the articles. If you want the article to be created, your best bet is probably to create the article as a draft and submit it for review via WP:Articles for creation. The easiest way to do this is using the Article Wizard. Do note that unless the article meets the notability guideline for video games, it probably won't be accepted. Generally, articles require significant coverage in multiple reliable sources in order to be considered notable, but there are exceptions. If you have any more questions about this, don't hesitate to ask!--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 18:45, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, all. I saw an article about Momo within the last day or so. It may have been on a mainstream news site, or I might have been diverted off into Outbrain-Taboola-promoted content (it's hard not to click on those links at the end of "real" articles sometimes). What I saw suggests that it's not a video game but an activity like planking or the ice bucket challenge. Except it involves grooming vulnerable people for self-harm. If the story was not a beat-up or hoax, the subject could become significant. But it might be a while before it warrants a dedicated article (or it might die out before it becomes that important). See if you can find an article that covers the general topic (harmful viral social trends? I don't know where to start looking) where Momo would work as a subsection. If the section expands enough then it can be later split off into a separate article. Of course, the topic needs to be notable and covered by reliable sources, as others have said. But it's a lot easier to add to an existing article than to create one from scratch. Pelagic (talk) 09:25, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Found the article, it is mainstream: Fernando, Gavin (2018-08-03). "'Momo' is the latest terrifying game to sweep the web". news.com.au. The author compares it to Blue Whale (game) and, more tenuously, to a Slenderman-related murder. [Google gives me a few other hits from Australian media (incl. Mama Mia [3] and TV networks 9 [4] and 10 [5]) but not overseas. Probably just filter bubble in action, as the Mama Mia piece links to UK's The Mirror and Buenos Aires Times.]

Bye Bye

Bye Bye Wikipedia! Jetstreamer keeps changing and following every edit i do and I'm fed up so Bye. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fly High in the Sky (talk • contribs) 11:05, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Fly High in the Sky and welcome to the Teahouse.

And good bye! It looks like you needed to stick around a while longer to learn how Wikipedia works. It's too bad that you found it intolerable and felt you had to leave. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:03, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Xtools: Pages Created. Count is incorrect for my pages

I include an infobox on my user page that shows a count of all new articles. I ran across the Xtool: Pages Created recently and submitted my user name. I noticed the Xtools page count was lower than my own page count. There are four pages that I created that are not included in the Xtools count. I reviewed the edit history of these articles. The missing pages were moved from Draft to Article by another editor when I was new to writing articles on Wikipedia. How can I get those articles attributed to me so I can have an accurate total article count? Sharon Stocker, Helen Waterhouse, Hannah Morris (anthropologist) and Marina Elliott. thnx MauraWen (talk) 11:09, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MauraWen. It happened because you reused User:MauraWen/sandbox. If you had created separate pages like User:MauraWen/Sharon Stocker or Draft:Sharon Stocker then it wouldn't have mattered who moved them. You are allowed to reuse your sandbox but it can have this effect. I don't know whether it could be changed with revision deletion, history splitting or other shenanigans but I don't think we do that for this purpose. The page history is attribution for who did what. Xtools is not "official" attribution and isn't linked by default in the MediaWiki software. It's just one of the links the English Wikipedia adds at the bottom of user contributions with {{Sp-contributions-footer}}. You are free to list the articles as your creations on your userpage. (talk) 11:56, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PrimeHunter Thanks for explaining how that occurred. Good to know that the Xtools count is not official, I am not going to worry about having the count changed. MauraWen (talk) 12:03, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Muscle pages, especially eccentric contraction

I would like to update and expand some of the muscle references in wikipedia. I am a retired muscle researcher who made highly cited contributions to understanding the behaviour of muscle stretched while active. Examples include the top two articles on https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=rx0CAFQAAAAJ&pagesize=100&view_op=list_works. In my opinion at least some aspects of the work are significant to the general public, especially DOMS, hamstring tears and the mechanism of training to prevent them. I also believe that I am capable of adopting a neutral point of view, but would like to ask whether the editors would judge that I have too much personal involvement to undertake this.

In 1990 I proposed that, under appropriate conditions where isometric tension decreased as length increased, lengthening of active muscle occurred primarily in a small number of sarcomeres. This leads to sarcomere non-uniformity, and hence to the micro damage referred to in the existing articles. The repeated bout effect is accounted for by an increase in the number of sarcomeres in series, so that the action no longer involves long sarcomere lengths. Hamstring tears are also prevented by eccentric training; predicted by me and shown by others, particularly in Norway.

I have been looking at the existing pages, and find that they are largely written from a sports perspective rather than a physiology perspective. The page "Muscle contraction" has an eccentric contraction subheading, with examples, and a mention of strength training, but no mechanism of lengthening, of damage, nor of repeated bout effect. There is also a brief mention of sarcomere length instability under the subheading "Sliding filament theory", but no exploration of its consequences. The page "Delayed onset muscle soreness" has phrases "The mechanism of delayed onset muscle soreness is not completely understood" and "The reason for the protective effect is not yet understood." that reflect pre 1990 thinking. We do have very good hypotheses to explain these, and extensive support for them. The page "Leg curl" or Hamstring curl only deals with strength training, not prevention of muscle tears. The page "Pulled hamstring" does not recognise the importance of optimum length, even though its reference 13 deals with this. Yes, I am an author on that reference. It also misses the work from Norway showing that leg curls prevent pulled hamstrings. It recognises that tears occur during eccentric contractions, but does not link to Eccentric contraction or Eccentric Training. The page "Muscle" has a two sentence mention of eccentric exercise, with no explanation but a link to "Eccentric contraction", the subheading in "Muscle contraction". The page "Eccentric training" deals mainly with strength training, not prevention of muscle tears, but has quite a lot of background on eccentric contractions. It mentions the repeated bout effect, but only in terms of strength, not sarcomere count. It does not clearly distinguish the microscopic damage of DOMS from the gross injury of a pulled hamstring, using "injury" for both.

My preference would be to create a new page on the Sarcomere nonuniformity hypothesis, and link it extensively to all the above pages, using minor edits like "For an hypothesis to explain this see ..." Hopefully this would minimise upsetting other contributors to these pages. However I would see merit in the argument that there are already too many overlapping pages, and it would be better to merge than create another. What would you advise?

I realise that this question is more about content than process, and would welcome a better forum for asking. Drdrdlm (talk) 11:29, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Complex situation. You have a non-financial conflict-of-interest in the topic. Part of the problem is attaining a neutral point of view (NPOV) when you have an opinion on the topic and will want to cite your own journal article in support. This does not preclude you editing existing articles or creating a new one, but it is the sort of thing that will need to be stated at Talk for those articles. You should be aware that for health and medicine topics, Wikipedia has a special standard for references, strongly preferring reviews, systematic reviews and meta-analyses over primary research such as a report on a clinical trial. See WP:MEDRS. My suggestion is to start with editing existing articles, and at each, create a new section in Talk, stating that you have conducted research and have published in this field (no need to give your true name or identify those articles). This is in the interests of transparency. If at all possible, try to limit your citations to references other than those you have authored. Of course, if other editors cite your work, fine! As a PhD researcher, I know this may be difficult. To date, I have made thousands of health/medical edits, but none citing my own work. David notMD (talk) 13:45, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Red flagging

One of the editors has red tagged a page citing issues of it appearing like paid content Template:COI UPI tags. Please help on how to resolve. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.196.9.88 (talk) 13:01, 3 August 2018‎ (UTC)[reply]

Please name the article and sign your posts (latter, by typing four of ~ at the end). David notMD (talk) 13:31, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reference from Facebook

Can I take reference from Facebook and use it for citation in the articles? Bayernfan2003 (talk) 17:03, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bayernfan2003 and welcome to the Teahouse.

Facebook entries are user generated content and therefore can almost never be used on Wikipedia. The one exception is that it can be used as a primary source to show that the account's owner said something on Facebook, but only if there is good reason to believe the account's owner is properly identified. This is subject to all of the restrictions associated with using primary sources. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:47, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

dance article

Hello - I wanted to add something about a particular, unusual kind of folk dance - and reference another wiki page. As a newish user, can I edit a semi protected page?Leyla Katz (talk) 19:08, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Leyla Katz: - semi-protected articles can only be edited by confirmed users. Most users are autoconfirmed - this occurs once two criteria are met; the user created the account four or more days ago, and has made ten or more edits. Once you are autoconfirmed, you can edit semi-protected articles. If not, you must wait the prerequisite amount of time and build up edit counts. Looking at your contributions, you should be good to go. Hope this helps, Stormy clouds (talk) 19:19, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I need assistance concerning a REDIRECT

Iyalode is presently being treated as a redirect, which I consider not appropriate due to the context of its host article. I plan to write an article this month as part of a Wikipedia contest. The issue here is if I just replace the redirect text with the article, it wouldn't be listed as one of my created articles. I will really love this article to be counted as one of my created articles, and considering that the redirect was not appropriate in the first place, I don't think it is out of place. I have an overview of the topic in my sandbox, which I intend to improve upon once the space is empty for a copy/paste. How can I still be the creator of the article? HandsomeBoy (talk) 00:06, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Any article created under the same title will show the original editor as the creator. It really does not matter who is listed as having first created the title. It will be obvious from the edit history who contributed content to the article. By the way, Wikipedia is probably not the right place for you if you are interested in getting credit for your contributions.. I believe there is an essay on this subject, but I can't find it, if anyone else knows the link... Meters (talk) 06:03, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

Hello HandsomeBoy and welcome to the Teahouse.

I'm afraid I don't see, from comparison with your sandbox draft, why you think the redirect target is not appropriate. But that's a matter that can be worked out later if anyone is concerned about your replacment....

Undue concern about whether you will be credited with the creation, rather than just the improvement, of an article is unlikely to seen favorably by your fellow editors.
When you are ready to MOVE your sandbox draft into the Iyalode title, you may request that an administrator remove the current redirect to make the move possible. To copy-paste the sandbox content would lose all of the editing history and, if other editors have contributed to your sandbox, would require a histmerge by an admin. They would much rather delete the redirect in advance of your move.
Please ask for a review of your article before you move it, even if you don't want to use the articles for creation process. If you are participating in a contest, I expect the people running the contest to be offering competent content reviews. Your current draft has some distance to cover before it would be considered ready. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:13, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's technically possible to do what yHandsomeBoy wants, but I doubt any admin is going to think it is worth bothering to delete a viable redirect just because there is a more general topic and someone wants to get his name on the first edit.. Meters (talk) 06:16, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why I didn't get a notification on these replies. Thanks for your reply Meters, but I think some of your interpretation of my comment does not represent my reasoning. There is a reason Wikipedia:Barnstars exists, and for the record I really love being appreciated by wikipedians. Aside from the personal joy I get from bridging content gap for my country, that is the next greatest motivation for me here. I don't think that is a sign of WP:NOTHERE as you suggested. I have contributed significantly to numerous articles that I didn't create, and I do not have any history of COI in any of my created articles. There is a Wikipedia page that talks about proper attribution of content to their creators, which was what I intended this post to be about.

The reason I felt the redirect was not appropriate was because the subject, which is about a person was redirecting to a town, whose only link to the subject is that it is a Yoruba town, a not-so-important one at that, lacking the historical richness of Iyalodes in other towns. If this was a redirect to Egba, Lagos, Ibadan, etc it would have been better suited. The redirect seem to me like making "King" link redirect to one not-so-important village in Somalia (no disrespect to the country). But if there is nothing I can do to change that, I am definitely 100% fine with it, I just said I should get an opinion here first. It does not mean It would not change my contribution to the article.

I agree with you that the sandbox needs work, as I stated in my inital post, it is not a finished job. I even made some improvements this morning. But I was led by completely by the sources I could find. And I didn't want to generalize viewpoints that could be contradicted. For a moment i thought I was writing an academic project. Anyone is free to make the article better , because it is going to mainspace very soon. I created a similar article last month, Iyaloja, which had better tone and structure, which was due to the manner of sources I could get.

The reason why I stated "copy/paste" is because the way I use my sandbox, there are so many articles in its history. HandsomeBoy (talk) 12:50, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say anything at all about WP:NOTHERE. Neither did user:jmcgnh. Both of us simply pointed out that trying to get credit for your contributions is not what Wikipedia is about. As I said, the edit history of the article will clearly show who contributed the content, regardless of who first created the article. And this has nothing to do with Barnstars.

As for your suggestion that the current redirect is inappropriate, both jmcgnh and I seem to agree that it is a valid redirect. It may not be the best target for it, but it is not an inappropriate target. And it is not redirecting to a town as you claim. It is redirecting to a an article about traditional chiefs in Ota, and more specifically, to the section of the article discussing the Iyalode position.in Ota. That's a reasonable redirect. Meters (talk) 02:14, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Use of "U.S." after city and state

This question is probably answered in Wikipedia's Manual of Style, but I can't find it. Should "U.S." be used after a city and state (for example, "Inglewood, California, U.S.") in an article's text or infobox or both? I see it used just enough to make me wonder. Eddie Blick (talk) 00:42, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Teblick and welcome to the Teahouse.

I don't think it is answered in the MOS, at least, I couldn't find it either. While MOS:INTRO says that we should give the location where appropriate and MOS:LINKSTYLE gives an example using Riverside, California, nothing seems to be explicitly said about leaving out the U.S.

Here's my rule of thumb: you should have at most two linkable items in a location. When you have a place that is considered very well known, such as New York City, there is no need to add the name of the state or country and no need to link. For all U.S. states, except possibly for Georgia, where there is some possibility of confusion with the country Georgia, no link is needed, but if the article for the city has the name of the state as part of its name, you link it as [[Riverside, California]]. I would also do this when a redirect exists that includes the state or country, so I would say Santiago, Chile with one link rather than Santiago, Chile with two.

My reasoning for leaving out the U.S. on such locations is that it is just clutter for the vast majority of readers. For the readers who are not as familiar with U.S. states, the additional information is always just a click away. Particularly in infoboxes, where you want to treat space as at a premium.

So, what do you choose to do? I would not suggest removing these extra U.S. insertions unless you were already making nearby changes in the article. My recommendation is not nearly strong enough to justify widespread removals. But I hope you are persuaded to not add to the clutter. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:28, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Teblick and jmcgnh The guide you're looking for is at WP:USPLACE, which says that "US" or "U.S." is never used after placenames, so please feel free to take it out wherever you find it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:02, 4 August 2018 (UTC)j[reply]

@Dodger67: thanks for finding that. I searched high and low, but didn't get there. I don't see specific guidance in there about linking conventions, but I note that all of its examples just use a single link, as I advocated. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:11, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Dodger67 and jmcgnh. I appreciate your help. I thought the inclusion of "U.S." was unnecessary, but I'm glad to see some documentation for that feeling. I also agree with the rule of thumb about unnecessary linking; that's pretty much my policy, too. Eddie Blick (talk) 12:44, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Making a new heading

How to make new headings in an article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markethan24 (talk • contribs) 03:23, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

=level 1 heading=, ==level 2 heading==, ===level 3 heading=== etc. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 03:25, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, MOS:HEAD discusses how headings should be used. Level 1 headings are never used in articles. Chris857 (talk) 03:29, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 03:29, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When is it OK for a Wikipedia article to disparage Wikipedia? Something doesn't feel right about this...

I have been editing the social media article to clean up sources, and something doesn't feel right about one of the paragraphs. The paragraph in question is in the section about criticisms of social media.

In an abbreviated format, the paragraph reads like this:

User-generated content is sometimes viewed with skepticism; readers do not trust it as a reliable source of information. ... Reasons for distrusting collaborative systems with user-generated content, such as Wikipedia, include a lack of information regarding accuracy of contents, motives and expertise of editors, stability of content, coverage of topics and the absence of sources.

The full paragraph is the second one under this section here. The paragraph has two citations.

On the one hand, I think WP's policies state that if a criticism of Wikipedia is generally accepted and is well-sourced, it should be included in the appropriate article. Not having criticism of Wikipedia on Wikipedia would be a form of censorship, right?

On the other hand, here are the red flags I am seeing:

The sources are 10-13 years old. Is that too old for being a reference to prevailing public opinion?
The source called "Can you ever trust a wiki?" by Aniket Kittur et al. seems questionable.
- It seems non-neutral to me, but I may be in the wrong. The authors say that WP's mutability "leads many to distrust it" and it cites a nameless Wikipedian as saying "Wikipedia, just by its nature, is impossible to trust completely. I don't think this can necessarily be changed." Why is a nameless user cited in a scholarly article?
- It is a primary source; these authors conducted the research themselves and then drew conclusions about it. This alone should disqualify it, right?
- The objective of the article was to make (passive?) recommendations to Wikipedia for enhancements.
The other source called "Wikipedia Risks", by Peter Denning et al., is cited by the first source. Does this give it credibility? But, it too seems questionable for the following reasons.
- The point of the article is that "relying on Wikipedia presents numerous risks", which they believe relate to accuracy, motives, uncertain expertise, volatility, coverage, and sources. It concludes, "The Wikipedia is an interesting social experiment in knowledge compilation and codification. However, it cannot attain the status of a true encyclopedia without more formal content-inclusion and expert review procedures." What is a "true" encyclopedia? This seems value-laden and judgmental, and therefore non-neutral.
- These authors cite nothing. It cannot be anything other than an opinion piece, right?
Almost all of the sources in these two articles are published in ACM Press. Isn't it undue weight to cite content from only one publisher? Is ACM Press the most highly regarded source for this information?
Last but not least, why is a discussion of Wikipedia in the social media article?

What is the best course of action in this case? Is it appropriate to delete the paragraph because it is based on questionable sources and because it is better to have nothing at all than have bad sources? Or, do we keep or edit the paragraph because maybe the material is true and deserves a citation-needed flag?

Thank you for helping out a new editor--Romhilde (talk) 05:09, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Romhilde and welcome to the Teahouse.

Wikipedia is quite explicit that it is not itself to be considered a reliable source. There is a List of hoaxes on Wikipedia that shows just how vulnerable Wikipedia is. Our goal, therefore, is not to get readers to trust what they read on Wikipedia, but to realize that what appears on Wikipedia is only as reliable as the sources we cite.

Also, whether we like it or not, Wikipedia is viewed as a sort of social media by many people, our protestations of NOTSOCIAL notwithstanding.

After that preamble, here's my response.

Criticism of Wikipedia is definitely allowed
As with everything else on Wikipedia, criticism of Wikipedia should be properly sourced
Updating a section with newer references is always a good idea, even if it means the overall tone of the section must be changed to follow the more comprehensive set of sources
As ACM is a relatively diverse organization, having references predominantly to ACM press publications is not necessarily a red flag. More diverse sources would be good, but if we are to prefer scholarly articles to journalistic coverage and prefer journalistic coverage to random blog writings, ACM and IEEE Computer Society are the top dogs on this topic.
Age of sources is seldom a good reason to delete a section. If you think the state of things has changed materially from what the old sources say, you would need newer sources to say it.
As for quoting anonymous sources, we should not do it, but some publications allow it and we, if we consider the publication generally reliable, are allowed to reference it.

So, I suggest raising your concerns on the talk page of the article in question where you and other interested editors can hammer out a consensus on what should be deleted and what should be updated. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:52, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response, jmcgnh. Your points made are very helpful, and I had not seen or read NOTSOCIAL before, so I appreciate the link to that. Romhilde (talk) 16:31, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this: It is a primary source; these authors conducted the research themselves and then drew conclusions about it. This alone should disqualify it, right? Primary sources published in independent scholarly sources, such as peer reviewed conference proceedings, are allowed in most Wikipedia articles, as long as they are cited properly and not interpreted - more about that here. They are disqualified in articles about biomedical subjects though, per this guideline. --bonadea contributions talk 10:04, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you as well, Bonadea. It makes sense that a field like biomedical would have different, more stringent standards. Romhilde (talk) 16:31, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am wondering about the "10-13 year old sources" however. There are many topics that are, for the most part, done changing, i.e.: articles about composers, oil paintings, topics concerning historical subjects like wars and battles that took place ages ago, and geographical locations. Many of these topics don't require updated sources as there are few current changes that concern them so that would skew the statistics if the total age of WP's sources lists a percentage of sources as being old sources. Just a thought. Coryphantha Talk 03:13, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How does WP handle senior WP constibutors that threaten other editors that use an IP address as their user identification?

WP endorses the use of an IP address as a form of identification on WP. I have basically been threatened by another editor that appears to be a senior editor about my use of an IP address: "I have also advised you three times now to register." What do i get to do to address this matter formally? Just how is it that my editing skills are to improve because I register a user name instead of using what WP endorsres--anIP address? I think that this editor has over stepped the bounds of community spirit with this alluded threat?2605:E000:9149:A600:34D8:EC05:8EC2:B095 (talk) 10:50, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Nford24. Please don't excessively add {{cn}} or clarification tags as it is regarded as disruptive editing. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 12:10, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And to both of you be WP:CIVIL David notMD (talk) 14:47, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous IP, doesn't Wikipedia endorse creating an account? CoolSkittle (talk) 17:13, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse not same as require. David notMD (talk) 17:30, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In no way was a threat made or intended. The ANON-IP made several edits that came up on my watch list, those edits were evaluated by me and reverted. Another User also reverted one of the questionable edits by the IP.

With regards to the “threat” specifically. The correct context (which has been left out by the complainant) can be found on my talk page. I was responding to the IP’s assumed question (or rant, but I assumed it was a question about me suggesting the IP NOT register an account). As far as I am aware, and for atleast the past 11 years I’ve been on here, WP endorses people creating an account.

Every User here will agree with me when I say that it’s easier to use WP with an account, having the tools at our disposal. Also some articles can only be edited by confirmed users. The IP user has already identified as bring a 17 year ‘veteran’ editor of WP. Wether the IP chooses to create an account is neither here or there for me.

From the start the IP user was on the offensive, making it difficult, but I certainly kept it civil, even after the IP user attempted to bait me. The welcome message for disruptive editing was used first, then after more disruptive edits were made, I used the level 3 warning for disruptive editing (see IP Users talk page). Both templates include an element suggesting the IP User creates an account. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 21:21, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So far as I know, there is just one editor out there who both chooses to edit without registering an account and gets upset whenever someone suggests that editing with an account might have some benefits, whether it's a direct suggestion or indirectly via some warning script. For the record, they object to being addressed "anonymous user" or "IP user". And it's true that edits by users editing without an account or while logged out often come under a little extra scrutiny, so their claim of being discriminated against is partially valid. All I can suggest is that we ignore these intemperate rants when we see them, just as the supposedly veteran editor should by now be able to ignore the small indignities, if we can call them that, that the community imposes. No editor in good faith reverts edits merely because they were made by an IP address editor. Suggesting that as a motivation, as opposed to recognizing a difference in opinion about the appropriateness of particular edit, is also a violation of AGF. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:07, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nford24? No, not every participant here agrees with you. Remember if you can, I am part of this discussion and to say that everyone does agree with your statement says that you are speaking for me and you are not. Not everyone participating in WP wants to do so with the intensity that do you. I do not ask you to participate using your IP address therefore why should you take it upon yourself on behalf of WP to then tell me to do so in regards to the IP issue? You and no one else with WP are here to tell spmeone just how is it that as long as they function in regards to identification just what is it that they can use in accordance with the WP endorsement. Those of you (see, i did not say everyone with WP, or even here) that seem to have some issue with IP identification users need to understand that when you ask someone that is not required of WP even if it is merely on a "naive" whim to do so is being rude. Now the way that you have been raised it may not seem rude but you have to remember that you are not the center of the universe. There are standards that people have that you just do not cross. I do not know your weltanschauung but maybe you need to learn about that of others. What concerns me about the "all" statement is that by saying so it automatically shuts down the discussion because you are making a judgment for the whole group; not just yourself--THE WHOLE GROUP. That is not the point of discussion. That is not the point of the tea house. You taut yourself as a senior participant at WP yet you seem to have underlying tentacles that counter WP tenets.Again, i have to remind the situation that my statements are not an act of hostility but that is what i see happen time and again in discussions on the board when it seems that the influences at WP cannot handle reflection. "disruptive" seems to be a very universal and wonderfully inclusive way to shut down discussion. If your statements are so pristine concerning WP tenets then just when was it necessary to register a user name to take part in the tea house? I am not making this up. Okay, I understand your explanation as yet not given that you did not intend this point--but do you realise the intent of what was expressed? If that is not possible then the discussion shut down a long time ago, I am a disruptive contributor and someone takes the situation to the boards. It does not take much review of the boards or the archives to show this out. The use of the term disruptive has already been disclosed and many of you already know this because it really is very common considering the "community" aspect of WP. It can almost be said (well, if it is done here then it is said) that the mere mention of it is of and unto itself uneasy for the WP environment. And despite the use of "registered" user names and what people post to the non-article talk pages the internet is a wonderful environment for aninimity.

When did I say i was a 17 year veteran? You have to understand that what you call something just may be an unfortunate summation. WP today is not what WP was when it foirst started. My "participation" with WP is not the same today as it was years ago. I would find it unfortunate to characterise what was "participation" years ago with an occasional read and an occasional edit the same as what I may do on occasion now? You have to pay attention to the details and not what are prejudices. That statement to some is being disruptive. I do not have aspirations of being an administrator. OH! he doesn't have aspirations ....... This is how i characterise some things. I do not go to the same type of "cocktail" parties as you might. SThis statement to some will cause them to think that some this person is not WP material. I have already said that i do not have the same administrative aspirations as so many others.I am not on a witch hunt.2605:E000:9149:A600:7D56:CC3:EA51:5FBF (talk) 00:48, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello IP users 2605:E000:9149:A600:34D8:EC05:8EC2:B095 and 2605:E000:9149:A600:7D56:CC3:EA51:5FBF, welcome to the Teahouse. It seems that there was a welcome template left on 2605:E000:9149:A600:34D8:EC05:8EC2:B095's page which that user took exception to. Just so that you're fully aware, the template was not written by NFord24 and is a welcome template used to both welcome and notify a user that their edit has been reverted and was left on the talk page as a matter of courtesy. No editor has threatened you in any way. I would suggest that you read WP:Civil and WP:AGF however. We're here to work together and build an encyclopedia. Best wishes. Coryphantha Talk 03:04, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

do you know how to make an episode template, if a show has multiple seasons?

Yesterday, I made a few pages/ articles that were pre WP:SPLIT but the info is still on List of My Hero Academia episodes, then I split it apart by season at here, here, and here. But since there is 3 seasons of this show, I think there has to be an episode template? As advised from someone at my talk page. But for the article/ page title, the "year" might sound irrelevant, by WP:COMMONNAME, maybe? And I mention this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga#heads up for this one. too. Tainted-wingsz (talk) 13:51, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My post was removed

My post is being removed by prolog admin in Finland under Mensa Members, for the reason not notable. The word notable also defined under the dictionary as a Businessman, also the word notable is subjective meaning that the removal by the admin in Finland (Prolog) is HIS opinion which is not a VALID reason to remove, Thank you for your reply, Robert Kayian page reference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Mensans — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:5c7:200:452:b847:dd59:5c40:f979 (talk • contribs) 10:14, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello anon. With regard to this edit, "notable" generally means that they already have a Wikipedia article of their own, or that they clearly meet our standards for notable biographies, but only that article hasn't been written yet. Unfortunately, you do not appear to have received sufficient coverage in reliable secondary sources to yet qualify for an article, and so you should not be included on the list. GMG ^talk 14:19, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreeing with G. In Wikipedia, notable, with few exceptions, means that there is an existing Wikipedia biography about the person on such a list. David notMD (talk) 14:45, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jazz musician

I am looking for a secondary source for a very contemporary artist.The artist is a reggae jazz musician which has peaked in popularity yet a real secondary source should be an established critical magazine or book on contemporary jazz not just a newsfeed. As you can imagine finding this secondary source is really difficult especially since the artist is so brand new and just beginning to be noticed.How can I catch the moment? — Preceding unsigned comment added by James farr 2 (talk • contribs) 2018-08-04T16:42:32 (UTC)

Hello, James farr 2, and welcome to the Teahouse. "Catching the moment" is very definitely not what Wikipedia does. If there aren't the sources yet, then there aren't the sources. Please see WP:TOOSOON. --ColinFine (talk) 16:26, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay to condense?

There's a page with a couple paragraphs that have been noted to have an 'ad-like' tone. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_Device_Interface) I'm considering condensing the wording in them so they are less so, but still keeping the same general information. Is this an appropriate action? I'm generally new to this and want to be sure I'm acting appropriately.

Thanks! Mmmancact (talk) 17:03, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mmmancact: Yes, it's always a good idea to tone-down or even remove ad-like verbage. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:05, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New + Confused

Hi! Grateful for some help. I just want a simple addition made to this semi-protected page. Not getting a response when I submit the request. What am I doing wrong (or could you post it for me)? Not sure what/how to get 'consensus' (even though I've read about consensus, I don't understand what I'm supposed to do.

Want to add the below 12-Step Group and hyperlink to this Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_twelve-step_groups

CAFAA - Caffeine Addicts Anonymous Caffeine Addicts Anonymous

Thank you very much for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MsSB1 (talk • contribs) 18:51, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MsSB1 The list contains only links to Wikipedia articles about relevant organizations. There is no article about Caffeine Addicts Anonymous here so there is nothing to add to List of twelve-step groups. If you are interested you can write an article about CAFAA provided that it will at the very least comply with Wikipedia's notability standard for organizations. See the Your first article guide. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:07, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, MsSB1. Edit requests, like everything else on Wikipedia, are dealt with by volunteers, and so you have to be a little patient and be prepared to wait a while for a response when making one. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:41, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing articles

What are the steps to begin working reviewing articles? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lu Brito (talk • contribs) 18:10, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lu Brito Hi, welcome to the Teahouse. I'm guessing you are asking how you can get started reviewing articles since you haven't created any articles yet. A lot goes into article review, first of all a user has to be gain some experience. You have to have had a WP account for at least 90, which you've achieved, and have at least 500 uncontested edits. At this writing, you have 13 live edits, 60% of which are on your user pages and 15% have been at the Teahouse. After you've gained some experience, then you can apply for new page reviewer rights which you can read about here: here.

Incidentally, what was the reason you added the code <includeonly> on your talk page? I left you a welcome template and it didn't show up, I had to use "edit page" and post the template above your code. That makes it very difficult for WP users to communicate with you. It might be more helpful if you removed it.

When posting on talk pages and at the Teahouse, please sign your posts with four tildes: ~~~~. I signed your post for you. Coryphantha Talk 02:37, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What editor police decided this wasn't verifiable?

The article on San Francisco History has NOTHING on the Presidio. The Presidio was a post in the Spanish-American War and the Philippine American War. It was home to Buffalo Soldiers.^[1]

I edited the article and the source cited was a government website.

This is verifiable.

Whomever is the Editorial Police around here perhaps should brush up on their San Francisco history. It's a gross oversight to have nothing on the Presido and its involvement as a Post during war.

The post referenced the National Park Service information on the Presidio.

As someone who volunteered an hour today to update this, I don't appreciate it being deleted.

Here's the link: https://www.nps.gov/prsf/learn/historyculture/spanish-american-war-a-splendid-little-war.htm

Writercal (talk) 23:04, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.nps.gov/prsf/learn/historyculture/spanish-american-war-a-splendid-little-war.htm

Hello Writercal and welcome to the Teahouse.

You and another editor have a content dispute. This is very common on Wikipedia. Your work is not lost, it is not entirely deleted, it is retained in the history of the article.

For content disputes, the first step is to open a discussion on the talk page of the article in question. The Teahouse will not help solve content disputes. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:17, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Writercal and welcome to the Teahouse. One important sidenote though: you should not simply copypaste content from external sources into Wikipedia. If the content is in the Public Domain, you might re-use such content, but you must still properly attribute the original source. Please see WP:FREECOPYING for more information. If the source content is not in the Public Domain, you should never copypaste it into Wikipedia (aside from short quotations in relevant context), but should re-phrase the information in your own words. I'll revert your second edit (the given date is disputed among different sources in the article, and would need a more detailed explanation and possibly additional sources). Please make sure to read the linked guideline about this aspect. Thank you for your consideration. GermanJoe (talk) 23:34, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At History of San Francisco, clicking on View history at top, then Prev next to your edit will show your addition. Clicking on the date next to your edit will show a past version of the article, with your edit. David notMD (talk) 01:20, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Flaky watchlist operation

Sometimes after I get notified of an edit to a page on my watchlist and I visit the page, I don’t receive subsequent notifications even though the page remains on my watchlist. What might cause that? Thx, Humanengr (talk) 00:00, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How do I revert vandalism efficiently?

Hey guys, I just joined hoping to fight vandalism on my spare time but I haven’t seen any vandalism in my favorite areas (I am an art professor). Can someone direct me towards how to find and fix vandalism? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by FeArtProf (talk • contribs) 22:53, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FeArtProf, welcome to the Teahouse, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that you created your account today and the above edit is your first edit. I would recommend having some more edits under your belt before your begin the daunting talk of reverting vandalism, as there are many steps to learn. I suggest you read through the links that were left on your talk page in your welcome section to become more familiar with editing. After that you could check out the Counter-Vandalism Unit/Academy and check to see if there are any available trainers who can mentor you. At this writing there are no slots open, but that may change. Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages and at the Teahouse with four tildes: ~~~~. Coryphantha Talk 03:27, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Coryphantha (did I do that right?). I checked out recent change and I noticed that another editor reverting vandalism, CataracticPlanets. It seems like CataracticPlanets has a natural talent for patrolling recent changes and other things - the first thing they did was make a blank user page and talk page and didn’t edit for several months. Then in one day they started reverting vandalism and even working on deleting pages. Looks like this is the person to go to for advice. FeArtProf (talk) 03:55, 5 August 2018 (UTC) did that work?[reply]

[1] ttps://www.nps.gov/prsf/learn/historyculture/spanish-american-war-a-splendid-little-war.htm

[1]

Revision as of 03:55, 5 August 2018 edit FeArtProf (talk \| contribs) 5 edits →How do I revert vandalism efficiently? ← Previous edit		Revision as of 03:56, 5 August 2018 edit undo FeArtProf (talk \| contribs) 5 edits →How do I revert vandalism efficiently?: fixing Next edit →
Line 733:		Line 733:

	:Hi {{u\|FeArtProf}}, welcome to the Teahouse, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that you created your account today and the above edit is your first edit. I would recommend having some more edits under your belt before your begin the daunting talk of reverting vandalism, as there are many steps to learn. I suggest you read through the links that were left on your talk page in your welcome section to become more familiar with editing. After that you could check out the [[Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Academy\|Counter-Vandalism Unit/Academy]] and check to see if there are any available trainers who can mentor you. At this writing there are no slots open, but that may change. Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages and at the Teahouse with four tildes: <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>. [[User:Coryphantha\|<span style="font-family:middle class script;color:#9e0000;text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">Coryphantha</span>]] [[User talk:Coryphantha\|<span style="font-family: middle class script;color:#17063d;">Talk</span>]] 03:27, 5 August 2018 (UTC)		:Hi {{u\|FeArtProf}}, welcome to the Teahouse, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that you created your account today and the above edit is your first edit. I would recommend having some more edits under your belt before your begin the daunting talk of reverting vandalism, as there are many steps to learn. I suggest you read through the links that were left on your talk page in your welcome section to become more familiar with editing. After that you could check out the [[Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Academy\|Counter-Vandalism Unit/Academy]] and check to see if there are any available trainers who can mentor you. At this writing there are no slots open, but that may change. Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages and at the Teahouse with four tildes: <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>. [[User:Coryphantha\|<span style="font-family:middle class script;color:#9e0000;text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">Coryphantha</span>]] [[User talk:Coryphantha\|<span style="font-family: middle class script;color:#17063d;">Talk</span>]] 03:27, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
	:: Hi {{u\|Coryphantha}} (did I do that right?). I checked out recent change and I noticed that another editor reverting vandalism, CataracticPlanets. It seems like CataracticPlanets has a natural talent for patrolling recent changes and other things - ~~they~~ first thing they did was make a blank user page and talk page and didn’t edit for several months. Then in one day they started reverting vandalism and even working on deleting pages. Looks like this is the person to go to for advice. [[User:FeArtProf\|FeArtProf]] ([[User talk:FeArtProf\|talk]]) 03:55, 5 August 2018 (UTC) did that work?		:: Hi {{u\|Coryphantha}} (did I do that right?). I checked out recent change and I noticed that another editor reverting vandalism, {{u\|CataracticPlanets}}. It seems like {{u\|CataracticPlanets}} has a natural talent for patrolling recent changes and other things - the first thing they did was make a blank user page and talk page and didn’t edit for several months. Then in one day they started reverting vandalism and even working on deleting pages. Looks like this is the person to go to for advice. [[User:FeArtProf\|FeArtProf]] ([[User talk:FeArtProf\|talk]]) 03:55, 5 August 2018 (UTC) did that work?

Revision as of 03:56, 5 August 2018

Newish user...I think that I've been deleted for not understanding how to create new article

Verifiable source query

Need help to improve On the Mode of Existence of Technical Objects

Avoiding unambiguous advertising

as Author How long it takes to publish my page

adding a new section to "prostituion in laos" section

Need help with an article I made

Setting up a page for the artist Turkuaz

Looking for a "Third-eye" (other editor's advice)

Uploading my first article on Wikipedia

Wiki Animals?

Need Help or Instructions on how to Update Image

How do i change my user name to not say “User: Diddaler”

"Articles For Creation"

Image help needed

I have created "The Ascetic of Love" by Nun Gavrilia in pdf format. I want to upload it but not sure of the copyright issues?

Den10

Is there a good way to include the page from which I acquired data with the data so that it can be easily updated by another editor in the future?

Adding an article to a navigational box template

How to reference Wikipedia activity as scholarly contributions

Is there anyway to become better in editing?

Telvision episode pages

creating a new category - help!

The discrimination among universities in terms of content

Hey

Hello.

INTERVIEWING A SOURCE

How do I create a new article that I have written?

Page titles

BARI BACCO

Change a Redirect into an article

Question

Bird Photography in World

Template problem

An oddity

Article about Productech Corporation (the company I work for)

Hey Everyone!!

I want a musician artist page

References

Colour

New Record in Swimming

Assistance needed when publishing a new page

Momo (game)

Bye Bye

Xtools: Pages Created. Count is incorrect for my pages

Muscle pages, especially eccentric contraction

Red flagging

Reference from Facebook

dance article

I need assistance concerning a REDIRECT

Use of "U.S." after city and state

Making a new heading

When is it OK for a Wikipedia article to disparage Wikipedia? Something doesn't feel right about this...

How does WP handle senior WP constibutors that threaten other editors that use an IP address as their user identification?

do you know how to make an episode template, if a show has multiple seasons?

My post was removed

Jazz musician

Okay to condense?

New + Confused

Reviewing articles

What editor police decided this *wasn't* verifiable?

Flaky watchlist operation

How do I revert vandalism efficiently?

What editor police decided this wasn't verifiable?