Wikipedia:Teahouse

Welcome to the Teahouse...                        

A friendly place to learn about editing Wikipedia.

Click here to
ask a question

Nick Moyes, a Teahouse host

Question forum

Host profiles

Guest profiles

Experienced editor? Become a host!

Learn more about the Teahouse

Articles to improve

Question archive

Guest archive

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

Help

Wikipedia

Revised my article once again after it got declined the first time- Will it pass this time?

Hey everyone,

My article got declined a few months ago for not having enough reliable sources and I have recently started working on it again, revising it to meet Wikipedia's standards and on the request of the reviewer who declined my article. My question is, how many reliable sources do I need really? When is enough enough? Here is a link to it, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Electronic_Lock_Bumping. Please let me know what you think,

Daniel — Preceding unsigned comment added by ASAP David (talk • contribs) 23:01, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Every statement should be accompanied by a quality source of fact even if what is stated in an article is an aside or obvious.2605:E000:1301:4462:904E:DC75:3814:4202 (talk) 23:20, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

This isn't true, Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue, or to cite other obvious facts. Iffy★Chat -- 09:58, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

But in this draft, very few of the factual statements, including many that are not obvious and undisputed, have references. Also rejection-worthy is that the writing style is completely unsuitable for an encyclopedia article. Instead, it reads like an essay. See the Wikilinked Lock picking article for an example of appropriate style. David notMD (talk) 10:32, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi ASAP David. David notMD is correct, it looks like an essay so edit out parts like "in conclusion" or a conclusion section itself. You should avoid making your own arguments or injecting your perspective. For instance, "It is apparent that criminals are using lock guns to gain unauthorized entry to residences..." Here, you are stating your own assumption. Also, attribute information to sources ("The field of Forensic Locksmithing aims to investigate these crimes" - where is the source?). However, your article is very comprehensive. Keep working on it. :) Darwin Naz (talk) 23:04, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

--ASAP David (talk) 21:08, 13 September 2018 (UTC)Thanks a lot guys, I have revised the article to make it less persuasive and convincing to one side since then, let me know what you think now and if it needs any more work. Cheers, Daniel--ASAP David (talk) 21:08, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

New article for Osmond Kelsick DFC

I wish to contribute an article regarding the late Osmond Kelsick DFC, a distinguished West Indian RAF fighter pilot during WW2 and later a successful hotelier in Antigua, West Indies. The article has been written by his son and me (his nephew) and is based on letters written by Osmond Kelsick and his original pilot's log, so the article is largely in his own words. I note the conflict of interest issue and Wikipedia's injunction against family members submitting an article. Should a non family member contribute the article instead?

Also, I note the importance of references. Osmond Kelsick is referred to in the Wikipedia entry for Blue Waters Hotel, this being a hotel in Antigua he built and managed for many years before selling it. The other independent references we have are found in 2 books that are mentioned on Wikipedia per Wikipedia articles about their authors, although the specific references to Osmond Kelsick in these books are not mentioned on Wikipedia. However, we are in possession of both books and can provide photocopies of the relevant extracts.

Any guidance on how to get the article accepted would be appreciated.

Thank you

Jean Kelsick — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jean Kelsick (talk • contribs) 23:36, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

@Jean Kelsick: Sounds rather interesting. However, articles are required to be primarily based on references that are reliable and independent. Material written by the article subject himself would fail the independence requirement. What you'll want to do is see if quality independent sources have written substantial amounts of reference material about him. If so, it's okay for people with a COI to submit articles, though we strongly recommend that they be submitted as a draft and have them reviewed by articles for creation. If the only available reference material is his own logs and letters, I'm afraid he's not an appropriate subject for an article at all. You did mention two books, so those would be a good place to start, though just name dropping or briefly mentioning him wouldn't be enough—the reference needs to cover the article subject to a reasonable degree of depth. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:50, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to draft it at Draft:Osmond Kelsick and submit it through Articles for Creation for review. The letters (which I assume stands for Distinguished Flying Cross) should not be part of the title. Note please that encyclopedias are tertiary and as such are not a particularly appropriate place to write an initial biograhy of a subject. A good bio would draw from both secondary sources and primary sources like his logbooks and interviews with family and associates. We simply cannot use those here. John from Idegon (talk) 23:26, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Seraphimblade - Thank you for your reply. I hope I am replying to you per the correct medium as I am finding navigating the article submission component of Wikipedia a bit challenging. Osmund Kelsick is referred to in the following books: Michael Bentine's "The Reluctant Jester" (who and which are both on Wikipedia), Norman LR Franks' “Typhoon Attack” (1984, William Kimber, London) and Caribbean Volunteers at War: The Forgotten Story of the RAF's 'Tuskegee Airmen' by Mark Johnson. Osmund Kelsick was a contemporary during the War of Dudley Thompson and Ulric Cross, both of whom are profiled on Wikipedia but without reference to Osmund Kelsick. I have in my possession his obituary in The Montserrat Reporter, a newspaper published in Montserrat, West Indies. Of course, none of these references go into the interesting details of his exploits during the War found in his pilot's log. Possibly his log can be independently verified by the RAF or affiliated association. Is there any point in my submitting for review the draft article we have written? TX. Jean Kelsick (I hope I have signed this post this time).

Jean Kelsick (talk) 23:45, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Citation vs Verification

Hello all,

I have been editing for a few months now, mostly adding reliable sources or citations to articles and improving grammar or simply making the style of the article look more to what Wikipedia requests in their guidelines. Sometimes when doing a contribution I come across with the feature that says "verification needed" and other as "citation needed" and I would like to know what is the difference between those two is and also to better understand what is being asked for. I have found other situations where the paragraph or sentence have the citation, but next to it says "verification needed". I mostly look for reliable sources and just use it to replace the "verification" or "citation" needed. This would my query for now since I have more questions to ask. Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anon york (talk • contribs) 17:14, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Anon york. First off, thank you for your efforts! Adding citations isn't glamorous, but is an incredibly valuable contribution to Wikipedia. To answer your first question: {{Citation needed}} is used when there is no citation at all for a given statement. {{Verification needed}} is used when there is some sort of citation present, but there is some doubt as to whether it actually supports the statement it is attached to. Most often, it accompanies a difficult-to-access source, like a print-only book or something not in English. To address it, you need to consult the cited source and confirm that it says what it's supposed to say. Alternatively, if you can find a more easily-accessed source that verifies the material, you can go ahead and replace it with that. If it fails verification, in most cases you should remove the text. But there's also a third template, {{Failed verification}}, used when a source has been checked and doesn't support the material it's supposed to, but editors still think the material might be verifiable with another source. In that case, you can remove it if you find another source.

Feel free to ask as many questions as you like. That's what we're here for. – Joe (talk) 17:39, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Joe, that is helpful. Another thing I was confused about is when there is a message that says "clarification required", and "dubious". Is the first one used when the paragraph or sentence requires a better explanation about what is being written? The second one I don't know at all how to work on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anon york (talk • contribs) 22:33, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

@Anon york: Yes those ones refer to the actual statement rather than sourcing. {{Clarify}} is as you say. {{Dubious}} is for statements that are sourced but nevertheless don't seem correct. Both have a |reason= parameter and {{Dubious}} should link to a talk page section that explains what is being contested. If there's no explanation, and it's not clear to you why the tag is there, you can just remove them. – Joe (talk) 08:17, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Anon york, Wikipedia:Templates may be of help when you run into weird stuff like that, it has a search option. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:06, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I just ran into a tag that says "by whom?" in a sentence of an article about ACE inhibitor that goes like this: "The use of a maximum dose of ACE inhibitors in such patients (including for prevention of diabetic nephropathy, congestive heart failure, and prophylaxis of cardiovascular events) is justified,  [by whom?]". I was wondering what kind of research can one do to resolve that tag. Apologies for any hassle caused. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anon york (talk • contribs) 17:12, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

This is an interesting issue. I also have a question Joe. Suppose I found a more reliable source that corroborates the information. Instead of replacing the citation, can I just add it? I remember doing this in one of my edits. Please correct if this is wrong. Darwin Naz (talk) 23:21, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

@Anon york: Essentially the same as a {{citation needed}}. {{By whom}} is supposed to be used to mark missing in-text attribution, but I'm not sure it's been correctly placed in this case.

@Darwin Naz: I think that's fine. Some editors prefer to remove "redundant" sources, but I don't see the harm in listing a few that corroborate the same thing. It does help if one becomes a dead link in the future. – Joe (talk) 06:15, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

@Joe Roe: Noted. Thanks. – Darwin Naz (talk) 09:47, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm a vandalism stopper.

Vandalism stopper

—AE (talk • contributions)

How can I stop vandalism? Please tell me how to... — Preceding unsigned comment added by DabbleDabbleBabble (talk • contribs) 13:44, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi, DabbleDabbleBabble. If you have time and patience, you can monitor Special:RecentChanges. If you see some obvious vandalism, you can get rid of it on sight. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:00, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

First, understand what it is that you are doing and not doing it in an emotional manner. No institution benefits from zealots.2605:E000:1301:4462:B816:3E82:AC1B:A488 (talk) 17:35, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Me too [[User:Lflamel|🔥''flame''🔥]]^{[[User talk:Lflamel|''talk'']]} (talk) 12:47, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I put together some basics here, which may be of help. Yunshui ^雲_水 13:01, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

You may also request a trainer in WP:CVUA. However, the trainers are busy in real life and cannot be very active. Reading vandalism related policies, guidelines and essays such as WP:DENY, WP:RBI, WP:TROLLFOOD, WP:IDT, WP:ATWV, WP:IP!=VANDAL, WP:MOV, WP:VVT, WP:VOA is also a good way to be a great vandalism "stopper". —AE (talk • contributions) 13:05, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Is that for a perfume bottle or alcohol decanter?2605:E000:1301:4462:B816:3E82:AC1B:A488 (talk) 17:25, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Starting/Publishing a Wikipedia page

I created an account, input the info and couldn’t publish it properly. When I try to post content it would say it was posted but then I couldn’t find it when I searched for it and signed back in. I also couldn’t figure out how to input any pictures or info under where pictures should be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1:B10E:1AE6:CC9E:A3FC:A81B:BDE9 (talk) 17:17, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Hey anon. You may want to consider reading through our tutorial on writing your first article, or registering an account and taking our interactive tutorial at The Wikipedia Adventure. These can help answer a lot of your questions and help orient you to the way Wikipedia works. GMG^talk 17:26, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Also, you could try telling us what page you were trying to edit or create, or at least what account you were using so we can see what actions it took and make an educated guess. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:27, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Without knowing your account or what you were editing, it is difficult to help you- but it sounds like you created the article in Draft space, where it will not be visible to either an outside search engine or a standard Wikipedia search. I also suggest you do what GMG suggests above. 331dot (talk) 17:29, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Off-topic discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A person in order to take the tutorial must be a registered user? That seems rather exclusionary?2605:E000:1301:4462:B816:3E82:AC1B:A488 (talk) 17:31, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

And coercive!2605:E000:1301:4462:B816:3E82:AC1B:A488 (talk) 17:32, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I think you need an account to be able to use the tutorial because it makes use of your user talk page. You are free to edit without using an account, and there are introductory pages that don't require an account to read- but having an account provides benefits, including hiding your IP and the ability to participate in certain community decisions. 331dot (talk) 17:39, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Yep. The interactive tutorial makes use of your user talk page. For an unregistered user, your user page would change if you changed IP addresses. This could happen for lots of reasons. For example, on mobile, your IP will change by just driving far enough down the road. So it's not that you need to register per se, but that you need a single persistent user page, and the only way to do that is to register. GMG^talk 17:43, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

No amount of reasoning as to "benefit" can be made by "registered users" to those of us e that are not as invested in WP as others. A registered user name is in no way a guarantee that someone cannot gain access to your IP address and to suggest that it just might because you are a registered user is not an absolutely correct characterisation. Unfortunately for some at WP, use of an IP s=address identifier seems to be thought of as unsocial and the start of vandalistic activities. That is an unfortunate perception.2605:E000:1301:4462:B816:3E82:AC1B:A488 (talk) 18:45, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I would suggest that you take your IP/account battle elsewhere. 331dot (talk) 18:52, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Please stop stalking me or I will report you to the appropriate board.2605:E000:1301:4462:B816:3E82:AC1B:A488 (talk) 19:15, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Please assume good faith or we'll have to assume that your pointless bickering is just trolling. Your reasoning A registered user name is in no way a guarantee that someone cannot gain access to your IP address is frankly ridiculous when you are editing with an IP address. Only specific users, whose real life identities are known to the Wikimedia foundation, are allowed to see a registered user's IP address. Also, the first thing you said was that you created an account, which means you are a registered user. Your arguments are hypocritical paranoia and nothing more. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:54, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Assumption is not always a very good strategy. Your point is rather topsy turvey. After I had given it thought, use of a registered name is not necessary to have a talk page otherwise it would not have been possible for Ian to send a message to that page. Therefore just what does use of the tutorial have to do with having a registered user name. I have no qualms about others knowing my IP address and it seems that people within WP have access to that information since I have seen in the past that type of information being disclosed in order to identify alleged sock puppets. So use of an registered user name with WP does not eliminate people being able to determine that information therefore that is not a very well thought out strategy as a benefit promoted by some within WP especially as it seems to be a feature on the template that is sent out in the "welcome". When did I say I created an account? This is what leads me to find your statements and strategy confusing. I am certain that you do not mean to be confusing but just as people so freely send out communications that start off as " I do not think" they in fact believe that they think and have just fallen prey to lazy composition. I have not created an account and if the statement that have because my IP is being used as an identifier by WP I that is done by WP as an ordinary act of activity without an overt action on the part of the IP user. It is rather difficult to comment on specific details when it appears explanations need to be made. This is not an act of contentiousness but merely getting what is correct established. There is little need to have flying about misunderstandings.2605:E000:1301:4462:B816:3E82:AC1B:A488 (talk) 03:24, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Adding a logo to a page about an organization

Hi, I would like to add the organizations logo to a page about the organization (European Women in Mathematics). The Copyright belongs to the organization, so it's not free. I guess I have to add a page to explain the copyright situation that looks like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Mathematical_Union?wteswitched=1#/media/File:International_Mathematical_Union_(emblem).jpg

How do I do that? Thanks in advance for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laura Fainsilber (Chalmers) (talk • contribs) 20:56, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Hey Laura. Official logos are permitted under a claim of fair use. You can upload it using the Upload Wizard. Just fill out the questions in the form it provides, indicating that it is a non-free logo of an organization, what article it will be used on, etc. The Wizard will take care of most of the fancy formatting for you. Feel free to ask any follow up questions. Thanks for contributing, and welcome to Wikipedia! GMG^talk 21:04, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Laura. Adding a logo to the article is fairly simple to do if you use the Upload Wizard mentioned above by GreenMeansGo, but I think there are a couple of of other more important issues regarding European Women in Mathematics that need addressing first.

Your account is quite new and the first edit you made was to create this article; while such a thing is not unheard of, it's not really the norm for a new editor such as yourself, so it sort of gives the impression that you might be connected to the organization in some way. If you are, you would have a conflict of interest with respect to anything written about the organization on Wikipedia and would be expected to adhere to the guidelines the Wikipedia community expects COI editors to follow. I've added a little more about this to your user talk page.

Another issue with the article is that it's not clear if the organization meets Wikipedia:Notability (companies and organizations) to justify a stand-alone Wikipedia article be written. While I have no doubt the organization exists and most likely does some pretty good/improtant things, existence and doing good work are not really how Wikipedia assesses whether a subject is suffciently Wikipedia notable to support a stand-alone article. What you're going to need to show is that the organization has received the kind of significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources required per WP:CORPDEPTH. If you or someone else is unable to do such a thing, then the article is probably at risk of eventually being deleted. Basically, Wikipedia wants to know what independent secondary sources are saying in depth about a subject and not what the subject or those connected to the subject or those only mentioning the subject in passing are saying. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:52, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Pharmacy management page

Hello everyone,

please take a look at the page I created: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Pharmacy_management_system

I never had drafts but this one. It was declined. So you know what that means? Wikipedia will not have any pages involving "Pharmacy management software" which is one of the most used software in the world. The reason: because there isn't any non-commercial/academic source that names most referred pharmacy management systems existing in the market. For your information, nowadays (from a few years ago), every pharmacy on the globe is completely depended on one pharmacy management software to function, no matter which one it is. I gave up already. If anyone interested, please go ahead.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Behzad Azarmju M.D. (talk • contribs) 04:49, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I can understand your frustration. What has to be recognized with at least the English WP is that it is not in the tradition of 19th and 20th efforts to be the all-in-one source for everything and instead concentrate on those areas that are within its view worthy of being preserved based somewhat on demand of the public. The weight of popular culture versus what is needed to restart the world should civilization as we would like it to be crumbles. That is an over simplification but when you side-by-side the number of lists of characters from episodic television or film series against the breakthrough of medical science or DNA or even practical things such the components and interactions of machinery etc. the only overall plausible explanation is what demand is there for it, who is around to write it, and can be be presented in a clever manner.

As applicable to the content of your article, this software is known to much fewer than other types that many more people use or come into contact with. But that does not mean that at some point in time it too will be recognized for what it is. That is such the case with the "A Beautiful Mind" or Turing's work on decifering. Some things have to be around long enough to reach their time. I have not read your draft so unaware of its content but if the issue of significance is involved and there being a great reliance on popular use of that technology weighing in that "anecdotes" from those propounding on the significance of its use in popular society be found and maybe that will tilt the windmill in the draft's favor.2605:E000:1301:4462:B816:3E82:AC1B:A488 (talk) 10:09, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

At a Wikipedia-practicable level, lists with articles are not appropriate unless the items in the list have their own Wikipedia articles (yes, this is an oversimplification). I suggest you delete the list from the draft and work on writing content - with references (!) - about the history and function of pharmacy management software. Good luck. David notMD (talk) 13:46, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I can't publish translations !

Hello everybody,

I am writing to you because I am a new contributor to Wikipedia.

I am trying desperately to publish a translation of a page into English. I know this feature is not allowed for brand new contributor like me as I receive this error message when I try to publish ?

An error occurred while publishing the translation. Please try to publish the page again. Error: Hit AbuseFilter: Content Translation Edits

The original page is here : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institut_fran%C3%A7ais_d%27Estonie My translation is here : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:French_Institute_of_Estonia

Can anyone help me to publish it or give me hint ? Thanks in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sleroux56 (talk • contribs) 06:23, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Sleroux56. It looks like you're trying to use the Wikipedia:Content translation tool to add the article to Wikipedia, but use of that tool has been suspended for new editors suchj as yourself. This is probably because machine translations are not really considered to be reliable enough for Wikipedia's purposes per WP:MACHINETRANSLATION. So, if you're trying to translate an article from another language Wikipedia into English Wikipedia, you should probably carefully read through WP:TRANSLATE. Bascially, you are going to be expected to to translate the article yourself and then add it to Wikipedia. You need to be careful though since not every Wikipedia project follows the same policies and guidelines when it comes to Wikipedia notability, reliable sources, etc. and English Wikipedia's standards tend to be higher than other language Wikipedias. In other words, an article about the French Institute of Estonia on French Wikipedia does not also automatically mean there should be one also about it on English Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:27, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

The translation is really not the issue here because there are many other means of translating than WP apps, or any newness of your interaction with the English WP. It would be difficult to believe that anyone would determine that such an article subject has its merits but the intended article is already bearing the insufficient sources advisory. It could be used in translation for the base of an English WP article but a mere translation would not meet the standard for sources in the English WP. The sources are the work of the institution without any other review of sources to independently verify any statement. So regardless what means are used to translate it would still result in a substandard article proposal. What have you in mind about improving the quality of the sources which then could applied to the article as well?2605:E000:1301:4462:B816:3E82:AC1B:A488 (talk) 08:32, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion Needed

Hi, can this a reliable source? saisumanth Javvaji (talk) 07:00, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

The website's about us page states that it is the website for a travel magazine and lists people who serve as editors who appear to exercise oversight and control of what's written. I would suggest asking the reliable sources noticeboard for further clarification. Vycl1994 (talk) 07:44, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

@Vycl1994: Thanks for the suggestion.

(edit conflict) Hello, Sumanth699, and welcome to our Teahouse. I think I would be quite happy to use that source as a reference, although I'd have to qualify that by saying it always depends upon the precise context in which you plan to use it. It looks to be an online travel magazine with a named editorial team, and presumably therefore some editorial control. It has the potential to be over-promotional when talking about place to visit, but looks OK to use. Nick Moyes (talk) 07:55, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Thanks for the suggestion.

Hello, Sumanth699, as mentioned, WP:RSN is specialized for such questions. But to offer 2 quick cents: an established magazine would seem fine for occasional uncontroversial information. I would not use such a source for any kind of more complex historical, cultural or religious information though. Per the site's own About page they focus on "quirky, stylish and elegant" writing. "Honest" is only mentioned in passing as 5th qualifier ("accurate" and "well-researched" are completely missing) --> information on more complex details and academic topics should be verified by acknowledged experts. GermanJoe (talk) 08:59, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

@GermanJoe: Thanks for the suggestion.

Merging of pages

Can I merge one user page with another? If not, how do I redirect a user page to another one? The Mathlete (talk) 10:03, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I do not know about merging but you certainly can provide a link from one to the other just as you would do for any other "linking". Or does this have anything to do with redirecting capabilities at WP since there are those that have multiple take pages created overtime used for various functions by registered users?2605:E000:1301:4462:B816:3E82:AC1B:A488 (talk) 10:12, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh, these are not the sock puppet people.2605:E000:1301:4462:B816:3E82:AC1B:A488 (talk) 10:14, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh. Well, then, thanks for the reply. The Mathlete (talk) 10:20, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

• @The Mathlete: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. There usually isn't a need to merge two user pages, as you can simply copy and paste the content from your prior user page to your new one. Articles would need to be merged to preserve the edit history, but that is not as important with user pages. You can change one user page into a redirect by adding #redirect [[Target page name here]] to it and removing all other content. 331dot (talk) 10:22, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
• @331dot: Thanks for the reply. By the way, do you know how to create custom Userboxes? If yes, how? The Mathlete (talk) 10:27, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

On the left of the screen is a "help" section that depending on how you can navigate through it will provide answers.The following is a direct link to what you may want: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Userboxes 2605:E000:1301:4462:B816:3E82:AC1B:A488 (talk) 10:32, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Redirects

How do I make a redirect? I want to redirect "List of Ig Noble Prize winners" to "List of Ig Nobel Prize winners". 🔥flame🔥^talk 12:54, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Type "List of Ig Noble Prize winners" in the search box and press ↵ Enter. If the page is not created, you will see the message "You may create the page "Whatever whatever"." Click into the red link and type #REDIRECT [[Article you wanna redirect to]]. Publish changes. I have created List of Ig Noble Prize winners for you. —AE (talk • contributions) 13:35, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Have you searched to see if another article(s) of the general type that you wish exists or a section in another article. That way there can be some coordination of what gets created and not create more duplication of content which then may have to be resolved later.2605:E000:1301:4462:B816:3E82:AC1B:A488 (talk) 16:46, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Attempt in Creating an Article About My High School

My high school, with its name of "the High School Attached to Northwest Normal University(HNNH)", is the most famous high school in the northestern region in China. With its great facility and effort in education, has been granted with numerous certification and recieved lofty reputation in Gansu, China.

I am hoping to present my school to everyone who use wikipedia, with an attempt to help my almamater recieve more authority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edward Ted Chen (talk • contribs) 13:31, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

• @Edward Ted Chen:, attempt[ing] to help my almamater [receive] more authority is not a valid reason to have an article on Wikipedia. See WP:NOTPROMO. Topics may have a Wikipedia page only if they are "notable", which means roughly "has been talked about by numerous reliable, independent sources". We have multitude of topic-specific guidelines for what this means in practice; for schools, it's... complicated. Up until recently they were considered notable by default, but that changed, and the resulting guideline is not exactly clear.

In any case, such an article would need to reference at least one reliable source (so that a reader can verify that the school exists) and be written with a neutral point of view (which means that loaded language such as great facility, lofty reputation, etc. should not be found in the article). Finally, you are encouraged to review our policy about conflicts of interest before editing yourself on that topic. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 13:47, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to create a section in the article on the university the school is associated with rather than an independent article. Even the name of the school itself suggests that there is little in the way of what we term notability for this subject. John from Idegon (talk) 20:22, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Copyright violation

My first Wikipedia article (Multi-tip scanning tunneling microscope) was deleted overnight by someone due to possible copyright violation.

1) How can I know which parts text or images may violate copyright? The guy who deleted my article did not make ans specific comments.

2) If I obtain the permission from the copyright owner to incude this information in the wikipedia page: Do I have to publish the permission somehow? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bert Voigtlaender (talk • contribs) 14:02, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Courtesy link, Courtesy ping. GMG^talk 14:04, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

It is not deleted. It was moved from your Sandbox to Draft:Multi-tip scanning tunneling microscopy so it can be reviewed via Articles for Creation. David notMD (talk) 16:07, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

A copyright checking program indicated that there is direct copying and close paraphrasing from this website. http://www.fz-juelich.de/pgi/pgi-3/EN/Forschung/Nanostructures/Multi_tip_STM_development/Multi_tipSTMdevelopment_node.html General advice is to write the content in your own words rather than seeking copyright permission. David notMD (talk) 16:13, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

The Gavel and the obvious typo

I havnt and really have no interest in editing Wikipedia. However, if you go to to wiki page for: Gavel. You will notice that Richard Nixon broke it in the 1700s trying to deal with nukes.

If anybody knows how I guess the world may be a slightly more typo free place.

Cheers

The section indicates that it was broken in 1954, but that the item itself had been in use since 1780. GMG^talk 14:35, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

PSG.LGD <-> LGD Gaming pages division

Hey everyone, I'm new here. I'd like to help (but don't know how) to separate the pages: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSG.LGD https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LGD_Gaming&redirect=no

Basically LGD Gaming and PSG partnered over 1 (out of many) team in Dota2, however someone changed the whole LGD Gaming page to redirrect to PSG.LGD, making it look like PSG acquired the whole lGD organization, which is very far from the truth. It's simply a means of partnerships over 1 team. The moderator in there quoted "no sources" for lack of activity and action over many months (it would appear this has been a problem since the PSG.LGD deal was signed in Spring of 2018. LGD continue to have teams in other game titles, and so do PSG-Esports. The only one they share is PSG.LGD, the Dota2 team so the pages should be distinguished. Liquipedia, which is a wiki-style encyclopedia for esports & gaming has most of the information right and up to date, so it's a shame that the biggest and the best wiki (from which the name comes) isn't. If there's anything I can do to speed up the process, let me know. I'm not part of either organization, if that's a disclaimer I must add, I just wish esports be taken more seriously and reflected more precise in all media. Worldless0 (talk) 17:33, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Your best bet is to share these concerns on the PSG.LGD talk page, where there's already a discussion going. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:51, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

having some clarification regarding Wikipedia

Hello there,

Good Evening!

1. I am new user and I have a quick question about how to create a new page. 2. I have created a page Manish Kumar (not sure) but there is something showing with my username "Manprerana". Kindly guide — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manprerana (talk • contribs) 18:11, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello Manprerana and welcome to the Teahouse.

So far, you've created a user page at User:Manprerana. This is formatted as a fake article and will need to be redone if it is to stay.

You've also expanded the Meena Singh article.

As for the page Manish Kumar, that does not appear to have been created by you using this current username. There is a draft at Draft:Manish Kumar but there are no signs that you ever touched it - unless you are not so new and earlier edited under the name Mrugeshsingh. If that's the case, then you should not be here at all. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:42, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Lets see if I can untangle this. Looks as if there was an old article Manish Kumar, currently a draft. And now you, who have a User name Manprerana and filled it with information that looks like an article about you - your name being Manish Kumar. Wrong idea. Your User page is for a bit about how you intend to edit Wikipedia. It is NOT for a self-biography, photo of you, etc. What you should do is delete everything on your User page and start over. And ignore the fact that there is a draft about a different person named Manish Kumar. If I am wrong, ignore this. David notMD (talk) 20:52, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Now, you have removed the article-like content from your User page (good), but used it to create Draft:Manish Kumar (2) (bad). There are no references in the draft that would speak to Kumar's notability in the Wikipedia sense of the word, and hence no chance it will become an article. Wikipedia is not a social media, where people create profiles. It is an encyclopedia for articles about people who are already notable. David notMD (talk) 17:31, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Images in the Public Domain

Hello everyone. I was just wondering were to find images that are in the public domain to use in Wikipedia articles other that Wikimedia Commons? Thank you and have a great day.Frogger48 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frogger48 (talk • contribs) 19:42, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Frogger48. It's possible to search Google images by license type, but my experience is that the vast majority of them are already on Commons. Better advice might be possible with more specifics. What subject are you looking for an image of? Also, please remember to sign messages on talk and project pages by typing four tildes at the end. This will leave your signature, a link to your talk page and a timestamp. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 20:17, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello. I am looking for images of famous actors. Frogger48 (talk) 20:50, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Eh...famous actors are some of the worst to find images for. First thing to do is search Wikimedia Commons. All those files should be free, and there's about 50 million of them. Second is Google image search. Click "tools" and then click "licensed for reuse with modification". Other than that, your best bet is often to search site:.gov, to look at US government websites, because works of the US federal government are public domain. It's a long shot for actors, but I've found them before. If you reach that point and found nothing, usually I give up and go do something else. But you can always try to email their agent or something and ask them to release an image by following the instructions at WP:CONSENT. They have an incentive to do so, because they have an incentive to help us improve their Wikipedia article. GMG^talk 20:57, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Frogger48 (talk) 20:58, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

User sub-pages vs. sandbox pages

Is there a functional difference between a user sub-page and a sandbox page? Is a user sub-page with {{User sandbox}} on it a sandbox, regardless of its name?

Singing choc ice (talk) 21:37, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

@Singing choc ice: - technically there is a distinction between the two. The sandbox is an area where one can practice editing, refine techniques, and prototype major changes with minimal fear of reversion or conflicting edits. Rather than being a destination, a sandbox is merely a workshop; a pitstop on the way to another edit. A user sub-page is intended to be permanent, and have a variety of uses, from essays to personal writings regarding Wikipedia. As such, sandboxes are for practice, sub-pages are for permanent issues outside of main space. A user sub-page with the sandbox template is also available for use as a sandbox, but is more flexible as it can be converted to a sub-page with removal of the template. Hope this helps, Stormy clouds (talk) 21:47, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

@Stormy clouds: So a full-blown sandbox has the name "SandboxNN" and the {{User sandbox}} template, while a sub-page can be switched between a plain sub-page and a sandbox by the addition or removal of the template, depending on what the task in hand is? Although I can imagine that adding the template to an existing sub-page won't have the desired effect of removing it from a search engine index, so creating the sub-page with the {{User sandbox}} template gives more flexibility; possibly reducing the need to resort to page deletion or renaming. Singing choc ice (talk) 22:17, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry to interject, but basically no, there is no functional difference. User:GreenMeansGo/sandbox is a sub page of User:GreenMeansGo. User:GreenMeansGo/RandomPageNameHere would also be a sub page of User:GreenMeansGo. Your sandbox is just a user sub page that is linked to automatically in the software, to introduce users into user space sub pages. Your user space as a whole is an area where you are generally more safe to experiment and store works in progress. Although the work there is still overall expected to be productive and related to Wikipedia. GMG^talk 22:23, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Type of English when writing articles

Hi,

What type of English should be used when writing country-neutral articles? American or British? Why should it (blank) type of English when writing articles?

Thanks

Saltn'Pepper (talk) 00:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Saltn'Pepper. Wikipedia does not really have a particular type of English that it prefers over all others. Please read WP:ENGVAR for more specific details. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:26, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

If you're starting an article, choose whichever English type you want. If you're editing an article that is already using US or British English, then you'll need to use that. Joseph2302 (talk) 06:30, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Draft

How do I create a draft if there is already something in my sandbox?Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 01:03, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

@Thegooduser: You could do Draft:put some other title here. Or create User:Thegooduser/sandbox2. Neither option has the nice "sandbox" button but you should be able to find it by typing "User:Thegooduser/" into the search bar. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:08, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello again, Thegooduser. Fancy meeting you here at the Teahouse!

I thought you had the hang of this already, but one easy way to a new place for a draft in your userspace is to go to the page Help:userspace draft where you can type the name of the page you want to create. If you can't think of a better name, you can always call it "sandbox2" or something like that, but I think it's good to name the page just like you think the article should eventually be named.

You can also simply re-use your existing sandbox. Just open it for editing and clear away all the old stuff and add new stuff. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:36, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

How could I creat a new article successfully?

I created a new account on September 11th, and I am still very confused on how to create an new article that could be searched by all. I saw an information said that before creating a new article, a newly registered user should edit 10 articles, is that mean I should edit 10 articles first , and then I can create a new article? Thanks a lot for answering! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daisy Kong (talk • contribs) 01:33, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

• @Daisy Kong: If you're going to write an article about anyone or anything, here are the steps you should follow:

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 left after step 3, 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. Make sure this summary is just bare statement of facts, phrased in a way that even someone who hates the subject can agree with.

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) 01:41, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Hello Daisy Kong and welcome to the Teahouse.

For some reason, new editors think that what they want to do when they first get on Wikipedia is create a new article. Creating a new article is hard - there are so many policies and guidelines to learn and if you get something close but not quite good enough, it often gets immediately deleted. That can be very discouraging.

If, instead, you sat down and went through the various tutorials, learned how to do Wiki markup and citations and worked for a while on improving other articles, it would be much, much easier to write a new article of your own because you will have "learned the ropes". Although it may not sound like it at first, editing other articles for a month or more will likely get you to your first published article in less time overall.

Ready to start? Try the Wikipedia Adventure first, then head over to the WP:Community portal to look for things you can do. Get stumped? Ask here at the Teahouse, you already know how that works! — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:49, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I imagine part of the problem is, articles having many readers have few glaring grammar errors, lies, and other easily visible faults anymore. This gives the impression of perfection. We old-timers of course know Wikipedia still has plentiful crap, and more added every day, but we can see it because we've increased our sensitivity over the years. Jim.henderson (talk) 01:59, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Looks like you created a draft and submitted it for review (Draft:Hangzhou Great Star Industrial Co.,Ltd). Drafts do not show up in searches. When it is reviewed, it will be rejected, as it has no references. If this company is of sufficient notability that it has been written about, add those publications as references.

If you first has been a member for at least four days and did at least ten edits, you could have avoiding submitting a draft and instead directly created an article in Wikipedia. However, if you created Hangzhou as an article, it would be quickly deleted, for reason described above, and other reasons, such as promoting a company.

Lastly, do you have any connection to this company? If so need to declare. See WP:PAID David notMD (talk) 11:41, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Hurrying up

The process of creating an article is tiresome and needs improving.How can u help me with my submissions? Harwn733 (talk) 04:21, 13 September 2018 (UTC) Whatever happened to creating a wiki entry anyway? You took it away? Harwn733 (talk) 04:21, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

You'll find advice at WP:Your first article, and in the messages on your user talk page. --David Biddulph (talk) 05:20, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Why nobody is reviewing my new article?

Hello community, I have created around ten article in Wikipedia so far and all were reviewed in a timely manner and tagged accordingly, But my recent article which I created few days back has not been reviewed by any new page reviewer, I want someone to review, tag and pass this article..Here is the article -->> Rafale Deal Controversy (India) thank you. ----Adamstraw99 (talk) 06:28, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

There are 2590 articles at Special:NewPagesFeed awaiting review, some of which have been waiting for 4 weeks as there is a limited number of reviewers. Is there any reason why your article should be reviewed ahead of the others? There is no deadline. --David Biddulph (talk) 06:39, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

No specific reasons, just curious and impatient because this is going to be a very popular and heavy traffic article, thanks...i can wait for the review --Adamstraw99 (talk) 06:50, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Well Adamstraw99, you're certainly impatient, as I see you've now decided to submit this article for Peer Review instead. I have to say I don't understand why you didn't simply make this a new section in the article on Indian MRCA competition. It almost feels as though Wikipedia is being used to further some political agenda, and that a stand-alone article on this is not necessary at this juncture. Nick Moyes (talk) 07:46, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

No Sir, there is no political agenda, topic is getting regular nationwide coverage in National media and certainly notable enough for a standalone article... thank you --Adamstraw99 (talk) 07:56, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I'l take a look at your article but I do not know what influence doing so will have it it being approved. What has to be understood is that WP may not be the best avenue of "breaking" news but it is a great place to start to get an overall understanding of something.2605:E000:1301:4462:D536:EE8E:34DE:CDA3 (talk) 09:57, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

@Adamstraw99: OK. I am disappointed you have described my above response as an "attack" on you (see here). That is certainly very far from the case. I am not interested in you or in the subject at all; but do want to help Wikipedia and support its editors to improve in the best way possible, and I'm sorry if you choose to interpret my reply here in that rather unusual way. If you find you happen to have a free moment, you might like to consider striking out that word from your post. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:14, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I am very concerned that this string has taken on an air of confrontation. Referring the article to review really should not be thought of as an attack--it is just another part of the process. He has already said that he is impatient so within that millieu ......2605:E000:1301:4462:D536:EE8E:34DE:CDA3 (talk) 10:54, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I Like it when people choose to be anonymous while making observations ... Since past 10 years I have received many invites to visit this "Teahuse" and I was told it was a "A friendly place" (I think its still written on top of this page :-) ... I just wanted to make a "friendly" request to the community to review my article.. Nick Moyes, I Am really sorry if my request here sounded like seeking comment on the quality or content of the article, to which you probably responded in first comment... However, Somebody has reviewed the article now so I Want to close this thread...Thanks Adamstraw99 (talk) 11:09, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Adam--understand that the internet is not always the best place for discussion because unlike face to face there is not the personal interaction to take plavce to see and gear just how people pose their statement. And you never know what context the person replying is in as they just might have been involved in a stressful situation that can reflect on what is said. It is unfortunate but it is part of the environment that may come to fore.2605:E000:1301:4462:D536:EE8E:34DE:CDA3 (talk) 11:34, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Article creation

Young birdwatchers
(COI declaration: these are my own kids)

Can i create a article about a birds field guide? Written by Deepal Warakagoda. It is already listed in the publication section of his article. B.N. Dehigaspage (talk) 08:06, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

The article Deepal Warakagoda cites only one source, moreover a source which currently gives a "404" message. It would be more constructive to improve that article by adding some references to reliable published sources that discuss him, so that it is not at risk of deletion for lack of notability. Maproom (talk) 08:44, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Not a 404 if you click the archive link for the source, but it is written by the subject, rather than written about him. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:41, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

@B.N. Dehigaspage: I remember doing some superb birdwatching in Sri Lanka some 20 years ago, and would have loved to have had a good field guide with me. That said, you can only write an article about a book if the book itself is regarded as 'notable'. Otherwise it would just be using Wikipedia as advertising, and there are other platforms for that. Normally, books need to have had at least one depth review written about it in mainstream media, and meet WP:NBOOKS. But note that WP:TEXTBOOKS gives details for academic books, and how those criteria may be met. You would certainly need to link to specialist reviews to 'verify' the book exists and to demonstrate that it is regarded as of importance. There's a reasonable independent review here. As the title 'birds of Sri Lanka' has been used by a number of major publications like like Warakagoda et al's field guide over the years, it's possible that one article describing the development of publications and field guies on the avifauna of Ceylon/Sri Lanka could be merited, rather than just on one particular work? So maybe it's worth starting a draft or a sandbox mockup to see how you can develop things. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:38, 13 September 2018 (UTC) 

Due diligence always helps with what may best serve being made content either as a section of or an entire article within WP but it seems that sometimes people will create an article on a subject that might in parts be found throughout WP if a subject search review were conducted. That way "errant' parts might better find inclusion in WP within a more overall expression of content and these bits and pieces not be taken as the need for an article where sufficient is to be existing.2605:E000:1301:4462:D536:EE8E:34DE:CDA3 (talk) 11:02, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

About my page

I have to create my page and how i can publish in the external search engines? Like google,Yahoo etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunil Singh (Noapara politician) (talk • contribs) 15:42, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Sunil Singh(Noapara Politician)

this isn't the place for a draft

Teahouse Member of the West Bengal Legislative Assembly In office 2018–Incumbent Constituency Noapara (Vidhan Sabha constituency) Personal details Born 15/1/1967 Nationality Indian Political party All India Trinamool Congress Occupation Politician Sunil Singh is an Indian politician from the state of West Bengal. He is a member of the West Bengal Legislative Assembly& Chairman of Garulia Municipality. .He is also Chairman of Garulia municipality. References

This isn't the place for a draft, so I have collapsed its display. To see how to submit a draft for review, read WP:Your first article, but also read WP:Autobiography. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:18, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Link to old version in Talk

Greetings. I've been sidetracked in WP (How could that happen?) by a physics / math article with a poor lede. I wrote up a message in the article's Talk section, but need help formating a link.

In my post I tried to place a link to an old (very old) version for discussion's sake. However, clicking that link brings up the current version. The link URL is correct, leads to the page if I paste it into the address bar. The clunky alternative is for me to post the address w/o a bracketed link, but I'm sure there is some fine point I'm missing. Thanks, GeeBee60 (talk) 15:57, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

You can link something like special:diff/859367690, using the revision number you want. Chris857 (talk) 16:01, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

@GeeBee60: Possibly you can just use the {{Oldid}} template? Try this: {{Oldid|Wheeler–Feynman absorber theory|148096937}} to get this link:

Old revision of Wheeler–Feynman absorber theory

--CiaPan (talk) 16:04, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

signing again after correcting the ping address --CiaPan (talk) 16:13, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

@GeeBee60: Additional thing you're missing is that external link (those starting with http://) are formatted with single squared brackets (not doubled, like internal links) and the link label is separated with a space (not a vertical bar):

• this is a [[Main Page|local link to the Main Page]]: local link to the Main Page
• this is an [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page external link to the Main Page]: external link to the Main Page

--CiaPan (talk) 16:12, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

signing again after correcting the ping address --CiaPan (talk) 16:13, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you CiaPan and Chris857. Yeah, I figured out that | yields very differnt results in http links. Ciapan, your suggestion about the {{Oldid}} template is perfect and I pasted it exactly into my talk message. And, this whole string of advice I'm gonna paste into my reference sheet on WP edit helps. Gracías, GeeBee60 (talk) 17:04, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

My page was decline for not being adequately supported by reliable sources

Hello everyone, i have made correction on this page as required and i have deleted most of the information that could not be adequately verified, please could you check for me now if its ok, or please provide further suggestions? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Michael_Owhoko#cite_note-1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bderigbemi (talk • contribs) 17:47, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I've checked the first eight sources cited. None of them does anything to establish that the subject is notable. They all report statements that he has made – what is needed is sources about him. Maybe there are better sources later in the list, that do attest to his notability; if there are, you could make it more likely that a reviewer finds them, by removing most of those that don't help establish notability. Maproom (talk) 18:39, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Naomi Osaka wiki page

Hello, I have a question, more a concern. Before Naomi won the US open, the description on her page mentioned "Haitian-Japanese" and after her victory, the same page removed "Haiti" and referred only as a Japanese professional tennis player. I know wiki changes come from several contributors but you approve them so why did you accept such changes? Why remove the "Haiti" mention? Any issue with Haiti? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:8D80:524:CD1:428D:872:CA32:93C4 (talk) 18:32, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

The best place to discuss this is the talk page of the article. But there is already a long discussion of it there – click on Talk:Naomi_Osaka#Representing_Haiti and then on "show" over to the right. To summarise that long discussion, her nationality is Japanese, she has a Haitian father and a Japanese mother, and that information is all given in its proper places in the article. Maproom (talk) 18:47, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

What is going on?

I just "joined" and attempted to add an innocuous comment regarding the lack of citation and verification of a statement in an article. I received what is obviously a computer generated email about something called ClueBot that has disabled my comment. I followed a link (actually, there are about a dozen that could be followed) and attempted to find out what the problem was. Of course, nothing seems to work. Is there some Secret Handshake that I should have learned? Or should I just chalk it up as a lost cause, since I don't have a lifetime to devote to unraveling the mysteries of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bknewman (talk • contribs) 19:10, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello Bknewman. The "secret handshake", as you put it, is that we have a template - {{citation needed}} - for that task. User:ClueBot NG is an automated program that is not infallibile, but generally good at reverting obvious vandalism and leaving constructive edits alone. Chris857 (talk) 20:04, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, thanks. But since I have no idea where that "template" is (it doesn't seem to red-side in th Edit window), I'll just chalk it up to a lost cause. As I said, I don't have a second lifetime to learn all the intricacies just to note that a posting is not accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bknewman (talk • contribs) 20:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Bknewman. I checked and Chris857 was kind enough to type {{citation needed}} in the proper place for you. I assure you, it does not take a "second lifetime" to learn Wikipedia editing. The only secret handshake is learning the basics of wikicode. You can find a good introduction by reading the Cheatsheet. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:44, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

@Bknewman: Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup shows a lot of templates for various issues. If you see an article which does something you want then you can click edit it to see how it does it. You can search for help about something by starting a search with wp: in the search box. Your edit said "no attribution or verification", and wp:no attribution or verification could have helped. Or you are welcome to just ask here. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:46, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you both for at least highlighting flagrantly incorrect article. As for any future efforts on my part, I will pass! I know that what you described (search link; user talk, tea houses, etc) seems absolutely plain and basic to you. As for me, I suspect that you were using the English language...but I won't bet on it. My first excursion into the Joy of Wikipedia Editing is most certainly my last! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bknewman (talk • contribs) 21:26, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

DVD may have been out a little earlier

DVD may have begun as early as August or September 1994. There is likely evidence that DVD may have come out around that time (no earlier). That may mean DVD may have been out for 24 years; it came out in America around 1996 or 1997. It replaced VHS somewhere in the mid-to-late 2000s. Can someone clarify this?

Angela Maureen (talk) 22:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello. Angela Maureen, welcome to the Teahouse. Assuming that the evidence you have is reliable and authoritative, my advice to you is simply to repeat you question on the Talk Page of the article itself. i.e. Talk:DVD. But don't forget to include full details of your source(s). If you wanted to, you could even suggest the form of wording change you'd like to see. Whilst any editor (including you, of course!) is free to be bold and make those changes themselves, this is a popular page (2000 views per day), so discussing changes and their sources is a sensible way for you to proceed. The Teahouse hosts are unlikely to get involved directly, as we're here to help editors who encounter difficulties in editing Wikipedia, rather than making changes to specific pages. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 06:29, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

How to upload my profile on wikipedia

Tell me sir anyone.... So that... i can uplode my profile on wikpedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prasant kumar panigra (talk • contribs) 06:17, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Probably not, see Wikipedia:Autobiography. Your WP:USERPAGE can, if you want, be used to tell a little about who you are and what you do/like to do on Wikipedia. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:05, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

How do I disclose COI?

Hi there, I've tried to publish a page about a professor. However it got rejected due to being an autobiography. Therefore, I re-edited it to comply to a more neutral point of view. Upon trying to publish for a second time - I have received the comment "please disclose COI". I have clicked on the COI link, but I have no idea how to disclose it. Any help would be much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlyovich (talk • contribs) 06:38, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello Jlyovich, and welcome to the Teahouse! WP:DISCLOSE will hopefully have what you seek. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:02, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Witcombe Cider Festival - approval

Good morning,

Please can someone approve my edit/ add for Witcombe Cider Festival?

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

Many thanks Guys — Preceding unsigned comment added by Appletree8 (talk • contribs) 07:00, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello Appletree8, and welcome to the Teahouse! Your draft is not ready to be an article, if that's what you mean. But since it's a draft, you have plenty of time to work on it. I suggest you next take a look at Help:Referencing for beginners and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:13, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Appletree8. I agree with Gråbergs Gråa Sång assessment of the draft and also suggest you take a close look at Wikipedia:Notability (events) and Wikipedia:Your first article as well. Bascially, what's going to ultimately determine whether the draft is approved as an article is going to be whether it is deemed to be Wikipedia notable enough for such an article to be written. I'm going to add Template:AFC draft to the top of the draft, so that you can submit it to Wikipedia:Articles for creation for review when you think it's ready; however, I really don't suggest doing so right now because it's almost certainly going to be declined by a reviewer. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:32, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Tea

Welcome. I have a tea, thank you Chickeo 08:52, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Chickeo. Welcome to the Teahouse. I see you've got yourself a drink already. That's great. Once you start to make edits to the encyclopaedia itself, do come back and let us know if you encounter any difficulties, and we'll try and help you. Regards, from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:24, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

After editing page alignment

Hi, I've recently edited the Kelty Hearts page to ensure their squad is updated, however, I seem to have an issue with the pages alignment after Current Squad.

It appears fine while editing but comes out of alignment when published.

I've using the viewer to edit rather than source.

If anyone could tell me or fix the alignment for me.

It would be much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cipow (talk • contribs) 09:52, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Cipow, welcome to the Teahouse. I fixed it by moving {{Fs end}} to a new line.[1] VisualEditor has problems with table-generating templates. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:00, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Tea house

Is tea house in Asia?

Do they serve tea or any other refreshments? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan Aranha (talk • contribs) 13:04, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Stub template for dancer?

Does Wikipedia have a stub template for entertainers who were known for their dancing? I found Dance stubs, but they are for types of dances rather than for performers. Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types#Entertainers seems to be the appropriate place, but I don't see dancers there. I'm asking because last night I came across Frances E. Nealy, which had focused on her as an actress, but the newspaper articles I found dealt with her more as a dancer. Eddie Blick (talk) 13:25, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

{{dance-bio-stub}} is listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types/Culture#Other culture. It adds Category:Dance biographical stubs. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:16, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, PrimeHunter! I appreciate your help. Eddie Blick (talk) 15:37, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Entry rejected?

Hello -

A friend of mine submitted my bio as an entry for Wikipedia at the beginning of this year. I checked into its status and was referred to this board. I am wondering why it was rejected and what to do to make it eligible for publication. Since that time, I have announced my candidacy for a political position, which is the one change I have made to the original biography. Thank you for your time!

I will paste the entry below:

this is not the place for a draft

Gabriel Piemonte is a writer, editor, and civic advocate living in the Woodlawn community in Chicago. He was born in May, 1968, to Ralph and Nancy Piemonte. Gabriel Piemonte has lived since 2000 on the South Side of Chicago. He is currently a candidate for the position of Fifth Ward alderman in Chicago. Piemonte was hired in 2000 by Caitlin Devitt, editor of the Hyde Park Herald, to cover real estate and development for that newspaper and for the Lakefront Outlook, the community newspaper for Bronzeville that had been started by Herald publisher Bruce Sagan in 1999. Over the course of his employment as a journalist for the newspapers, Piemonte also covered education, politics, and historic preservation, along with other topics. He was promoted to associate editor in 2002. While at the Herald, Piemonte learned about a group organized by Al Hofeld, Jr. and Cecilia Butler to found a credit union to cover the South Side of Chicago and to serve low income residents. He received special permission from his editor to organize with the group, which included residents from Woodlawn, Washington Park, and others. They successfully opened the doors of the South Side Community Federal Credit Union in 2003. It currently has nearly $4 million in assets. Piemonte's coverage of Bronzeville included the State Street Corridor, where one of the the largest concentrations of public housing in the country was located. When Mayor Richard M. Daley announced his intent to demolish the vast majority of family public housing developments in the city, Piemonte joined with Ethan Michaeli, the founder of the low-income residents’ advocacy group We The People Media, and Columbia University sociologist Sudhir Venkatesh in an effort to intervene in a process that they agreed was short on planning and needed services for relocation of residents. That effort was unsuccessful, and the Plan for Transformation, as it was called, continued apace without significant support for many of the relocated residents impacted by it. Piemonte worked for We The People Media for three years. During that time, he developed the People’s Institute, a curriculum for training Chicago residents without formal journalism training or social science education, to become knowledgeable about conduct social science research and further develop reporting skills they had begun to hone while reporting for Residents’ Journal, the flagship publication of We The People Media. He also co-authored, with Beauty Turner, a feasibility study which made the case for a relocation information center for displaced residents of demolished public housing using data gathered from graduates of the People’s Institute. We The People Media has since closed its doors. He eventually left We The People Media and began a project in Hyde Park that combined oral history and historic preservation. The Hyde Park Modern Townhomes Project digitally recorded interviews of residents of the midcentury modern housing that had been built during urban renewal in Hyde Park and also documented the properties and collected important artifacts related to them, such as blueprints and promotional material. The project is archived in the Regenstein Library. As that effort ended, Piemonte became aware of a window to be opened by the Federal Communications Commission for application for non-commercial radio licenses. He joined with Ursula Ruedenberg of Pacifica Radio to found the Midwest Media Group, a self-help project that provided peer support to citizens across the Midwest seeking to apply for licenses in order to start community radio stations. Through the popularity of the ad-hoc organization, which eventually also included applicants in the South and West regions, the pair were able to bring unique resources to their members, including free legal sessions with a lawyer with expertise in FCC licensing. Midwest Media Group members credited the effort in helping them to successfully make application for the licenses. Piemonte then returned to the Herald as editor in 2007. During his tenure, the paper editorialized on a number of local issues, often fighting for a greater voice for the ordinary residents of Hyde Park and in defense of local institutions and cultural events that were at risk of being eliminated to make way for the powerful wave of development in Hyde Park that began in the aughts., Piemonte was lead author on most of those editorials, with review by Sagan. While working at the Herald, Piemonte moved to Woodlawn, in preparation for his marriage to Mary C. Johns, editor-in-chief of the Residents' Journal, the citywide publication published by We The People Media, where she also served as deputy executive director. Now living in a community outside of his paper’s coverage area, Piemonte became more visibly active in local affairs, co-founding an urban agriculture effort that grew food for a local church's soup kitchen and food pantry and co-establishing a community garden on the 6000 block of Vernon Avenue. When the massive public school closure in 2013 was announced, Piemonte partnered with a neighbor to hold a pair of community meetings about a local response. One meeting brought out roughly 30 residents, and Ald. Willie Cochran (20th) attended a second meeting. When the Board of Education announced plans to sell of a number of its vacant properties in 2013, Piemonte convened a number of local community members to advocate for turning a child-parent center that had gone unused for years into a community center. The group got a hundred signatures from neighbors and talked with them about what they would like to see in a community center. They then drafted a plan, of which Piemonte was the lead author, that reflected the priorities of the community. In a first round of bidding, the group was unsuccessful in applying for the property to be donated to the community, although there were no other interested parties. In a second round, a fraternity outbid the community. As a demonstration of the capacity of the group, Woodlawn Voices and Visions was launched, a videography program that also develops critical consciousness through readings, discussion, and the production of documentary shorts. To date, Voices and Visions has served roughly 75 young people, with many enrolled in multiple sessions. The business plan of the group also inspired an urban agriculture program led by Piemonte that operated at Hyde Park Academy for a short time.. In 2015, a fire swept through the Shrine of Christ the King, a nearly century-old Renaissance Revival structure located in the Woodlawn community. Designed by famed architect Henry Schlacks, the church is considered by some to be his masterpiece. The church was also the anchor of the Institute of Christ the King, a religious order that provided meeting space to the community and supported community events. The Archdiocese moved to have the building demolished, and Piemonte and a congregant, Emily Nielsen, formed the Coalition to Save the Shrine. After the Coalition organized a fundraising campaign that raised more than $650,000, weeks of media attention, and a series of public events , the Archdiocese signed the property over to the Institute, which now owns it outright. The Coalition became Save the Shrine, NFP, which has raised tens of thousands of dollars since the building has become the property of the Institute in support of its restoration. Fourth Ward Ald. Will Burns abruptly announced in 2016 that he was leaving his elected office to serve as a lobbyist for Airbnb. While the position was vacant, Piemonte convened a series of meetings in which residents articulated what they wanted from local government. The meetings drew crowds of 30-50 people each and ran over the course of the vacancy, with two meetings coming after the announcement of the interim alderman, Sophia King. In March of 2017, Piemonte began writing about the planned development of Jackson Park on the South Lakefront. He also formed South Side United, an advocacy group opposed to the creation of a quasi-public development corporation to oversee building in the neighborhoods adjacent to the park. The corporation was begun as an arm of the Obama Center development in the park, and Piemonte’s writing began to include critiques of the Center, which was resistant to broadening community inclusion from his view. He also published articles on the site devoted to this project, southsideunited.org, about two other developments proposed for the park, an amphitheater and a PGA golf course, as well as other development issues affecting the South Lakefront. Among Piemonte’s response to these developments is advocacy for elected neighborhood councils for the communities most directly affected by the Jackson Park proposals. Piemonte is the grandson of Boston City Councilman and Massachusetts State Representative Gabriel Piemonte. References

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabrielpiemonte (talk • contribs) 15:21, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

This isn't the place for a draft, so I have collapsed its display. The reason why Draft:Gabriel Piemonte was rejected was given at User talk:Twain1872, & eventually the draft was deleted after it had been abandoned un-edited for more than 6 months. Please read the advice at WP:Your first article but firstly WP:Autobiography. - David Biddulph (talk) 15:40, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Need help from a native speaker of Spanish

My Spanish is good, but not native. I'm translating es:Historias breves, work in progress at User:Jmabel/Historias Breves. Two things need help from a native speaker of Spanish. One relates to possible connotations or pun on envuelto; the other pivots on the phrase "una tarotista que trabaja en una línea erótica" ("a tarot reader who works in an erotic line," but what on earth does that mean?). Please see User talk:Jmabel/Historias Breves and the draft article itself for more details. Thanks in advance for any help. - Jmabel | Talk 15:50, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Jmabel! Try these people Wikipedia:Translators#Spanish-to-English – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:53, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

@Monkeytheboy and MX: - Jmabel | Talk 16:30, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

• Jmabel and Finnusertop: Thanks for the ping, guys. Happy to help! I've responded to the translation requests at User talk:Jmabel/Historias Breves. Please ping me if you have additional questions. Cheers, MX (✉ • ✎) 18:29, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

How to handle undiplomatic participation in a discussion.

I am writing to ask what recourse one has when, in a discussion about whether to delete an article or not, an editor gets fixated on one's input/participation even if not directed at them, specifically. The editor seems to be questioning my intentions and mischaracterizing my responses to two *other* editors.

I voted to "Keep" the article (which I was one of the original creators for, four years ago), and stated my reasons. The editor in question responded to my "Keep" vote on why they think it should be deleted and I responded to let them know why I disagreed with their response (which circumvented the substance of my reasons to "Keep"). I feel that was the end of discussion with this editor on the substance of the piece and I moved on.

My brief responses to two OTHER editors since have been in the form of dialog as to what might improve the article (so they don't carry a connotation so much in favor or against it as it does addressing how the article could improve). This includes two posts toward the end of the discussion where I illustrate what I edited to help improve the article based on what the last voter articulated in their own comments.

The problem I am having is the person who had initially responded to my "Keep" vote in disagreement continues to respond to comments that are not directed at them but to the other editor who made suggestions as to what would improve the article. It's beginning to feel as though this editor is questioning my intentions (stating I am monopolizing the dialog and discouraging others from voicing their opinion - I have done nothing of that sort) and responding to even the most innocuous and neutral comment I post - in this case what I have posted is purely technical, e.g., "posted links, did this, did that, hope this improves the article" type of response. I almost feel they are trying to do what they are accusing me of doing.

This is the "delete" discussion I am referring to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ahmed_Emad_Eldin.

One reason I tend not to edit a lot on Wikipedia is this type of unnecessary contention. Since making a number of edits to the article in question I had reached the conclusion I had done what I could to help improve it (and I still think it should be "kept," of course) and have moved on. So I don't have more to say about the article deletion debate itself but do find it undiplomatic dealing with this type of unnecessary response: this person stated why it should be deleted, insist it should be deleted, and that's fine - I have simply responded to other editors on the suggestions to improve the piece. I'm trying to understand how what I did monopolizes or excludes others from participating. Am I missing something here?--1987atomheartbrother (talk) 17:17, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi, 1987atomheartbrother. Welcome, and thank you for setting the controls to the heart of the Teahouse. To answer your question directly - I don't think there's an 'recourse' needed, nor would any particular action on your part be appropriate, apart from listening to what other editors also say. For what it's worth, I'd say don't take it personally. I've just skimmed though the deletion discussion. My (albeit rapid assessment) leads me to suggest that it's not personal - and you shouldn't take it to heart - but they might have a point that accords somewhat with the essay called WP:BLUDGEON in terms of how much of the discussion you (and also one of the other editors to a lesser extent) have occupied - but those discussions looked quite healthy and acceptable up to now. Your responses to the Articles for Deletion discussion seemed ok to me, yet I see the perspective of the other editors who simply asked you not to come back to answer every single point, and has cited that essay. Sometimes, when an article has been in existence and edited by many users over quite a few years, a seven day deletion discussion (even with a number of editors commenting) doesn't seem enough time. But sadly that's how we have to operate. I think you're probably right to 'move on' now and to let others contribute to the debate. As I say, I don't think there's any 'recourse' needed. But that shouldn't stop you from improving the article if you're able, or responding to any new concerns expressed in that debate. I hope this opinion helps. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:28, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Two articles submitted for the same artist

Hello, thank you very much for the invitation. I've been working in the page of a korean singer now i submitted https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jungkook however i just noticed there's another draft for the same artist that was also submitted but that it's incomplete https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jeon_Jung-kook

I know one of both will be declined, but I wanted to know if in case the other article is the one declined the information that contains in the discography can be used to create a new page of the artist's discography? leigiraldo (talk) 17:21, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

@Leigiraldo: There is no rule that one has to be declined but even if, it would make sense to have a redirect from one name to the other. Any information can be merged into another page if the rules for attribution are followed. You can even retract your submission and merge your content to the other draft while a review is pending (the template explicitly states that you are free to continue working on it). See Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and Wikipedia:Merging for more details. Regards SoWhy 17:34, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much, I already wrote to the other editor so we can solve this and give a quality page for the artist. Have a nice day. ↳ LeiGiraldo . . . 21:15, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

@Leigiraldo: Just adding to what SoWhy has said, it's worth mentioning that there is already a redirect from a similarly-named page titled Jungkook (singer). After creating, it was almost immediately redirected to BTS (band) as that page (see this version) had no references, so that wasn't surprising. Nor was it very well named, as there's no other Jungkook on Wikipedia, so really no need to differentiate him from anyone else. I would be extremely surprised if, by collaborating, the two of you can't create an article that gets accepted. In my household, I hear little else but how wonderful Jungkook, Suga, Jimin and all the rest of BTS is (my daughter is off to see them in concert in London later this year, too, so I shalln't hear the end of it!). I realise BTS fans can be a teeny bit on the keen side when it comes to their idols, and it's easy to want to cram in as much as you can into a new article. I would suggest you resist that temptation, and pare down the draft a bit, removing all trivial content and information that is sourced from minor mentions or unreliable sources, sticking only to the bare facts and Reliable Sources about this heart-throb singer. Then I'm convinced you'll get your draft accepted as being Notable, or meeting WP:MUSICBIO. You are to be congratulated in wanting to take the collaborative approach to adding to this encyclopaedia. Good luck with it. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:48, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

User:Nick Moyes Thank you very much for your message, I'll be fixing those recommendations to improve the article and make it more professional, I've been searching for all the reliable sources because I really think these boys deserve their own page. Many try to search them now that they have individual music and producing releases that are charting around the world for the first time ever for korean artists and it's frustrating they can't find any english article about him. I hope your daughter has the best time in the concert, I'm so happy for her. This is the first time they go to UK and it's already in such an iconic venue. Those boys are such an inspiration how starting from zero and being ignored by their own country they now became in their pride. I'll been supporting via periscope it's going to be a really amazing iconic night.

I also talked to the user that has the other article and she agrees to retract her submission but doesn't know how to do it so I'll try to search and send her the information. I'll do my best working on this so it can be accepted, it would be an honour to be added as Notable and meeting WP:MUSICBIO (I changed my username recently it's not leigiraldo anymore) ↳ GiovannaG . . . ^{(My talk)} 23:50, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

My quote

I'm a beginner and I'm really confused I would like to start editing, but I don't know were to go or how to go about it. - Selena L - S3e3l3e3n3a2030 (talk) 18:12, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

You could start by following the various links in the messages on your user talkpage. If you have specific questions after that, please feel free to ask. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:45, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

@S3e3l3e3n3a2030: If you want to test editing, Wikipedia:Sandbox allows you to edit as much as you like. Once you have familiarized yourself with how to edit, check out Wikipedia:Tutorial for a quick guide. Regards SoWhy 18:45, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Hey, Selena L. I'm sure you're frustrated by having your first article deleted, but don't be downhearted. Another suggestion to get you started, and to enjoy learning about how Wikipedia operates, is to have a go at The Wikipedia Adventure. It's a fun, interactive tour, during which you can earn up to 15 separate badges for achieving different assisted tasks. Learning to edit Wikipedia is a little bit like driving a car for the first time. Whilst you could just jump in and set off down the road at high speed, there's a high probability that you'll crash and never want to drive again. Luckily, no-one here gets ever killed from editing, but it's always best to drive slowly and on familiar roads to start with. What are your interests? Why not go and look at a few articles about the things that really interest you - then see if you can find any spelling errors, better ways of stating known facts, or adding in better references? Working on the things you find of interest to you personally is often the best way to start off. Failing that, there's a few hundred thousand other tasks that need fixing - see the 'Help Out' section at Wikipedia:Community portal! Regards and best wishes at the start of your own personal Wikipedia journey. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:01, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

creating an article

HI! is it necessary that I have to create a draft article? on my side, I don't want a draft but a new article because the draft takes long to be reviewed, kindly I'm requesting for your help, please — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rinyakila (talk • contribs) 20:32, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

You created a draft today Draft:The loss of Traditional Knowledge and you are already concerned it has not been reviewed yet???? Having looked at it, it will be rejected, as it has no references. David notMD (talk) 21:10, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

The draft (Draft:The loss of Traditional Knowledge) certainly isn't fit for publication as an article because you haven't supplied any references. --David Biddulph (talk) 21:10, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Rinyakila, and welcome to the Teahouse. No, there is no rule that says you have to create a draft. At present you cannot create a non-draft article, but once your account has existed for four days, you will be able to.

BUT, I strongly advise you not to do so. The articles for creation process exists precisely because writing an acceptable article is very hard, and working in draft gives you the opportunity to get it up to scratch before submitting it for review. My standard advice is always to create a draft, unless you are very certain that you can create an acceptable article on the first attempt. I also advise people not even to try creating an article until they've had at least a few weeks' practice at working on existing articles.

In any case, I strongly advise you to read your first article; and I also suggest There is no deadline. --ColinFine (talk) 21:10, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Rinyakila, and welcome to our Teahouse. Right now, for you, it is absolutely essential. The reason is that you only created your account on 12th September, and we have a very low bar on allowing new editors to create or move pages. We call this being ("autoconfirmed"), and you have to have an account for at least 4 days and have made 10 edits or more. So you do need to wait. After that, yes, it is possible to start a new page from scratch. But i really don't advise you to try it. For an absolute beginner, creating a completely new page from scratch that survives review is one of the very hardest tasks anyone can perform here. A really do urge you to work on a draft first. And having your work summarily deleted because it fails to meet the essential criteria of an encyclopaedic page can be extremely demoralising and the probably cause of many new editors not lasting long as productive contributors.

I also note that you created Draft:The loss of Traditional Knowledge, which you subsequently blanked. Looking at the early version (see here), it looks more like an essay or 'opinion piece', which wouldn't be accepted in that form. So, what I'd earnestly advise is that you take the time and trouble to learn the basics of Wikipedia before trying to create new pages. Perhaps you'd read Wikipedia:Your first article and have a go at The Wikipedia Adventure. (I wish I'd had these when I first started here; I think it was 9 months before I felt confident enough to create an article based on Reliable Sources that met our Notabilty Guidelines) Anyway, welcome again, and I hope this isn't too disappointing. I wish you all the best for a long, well-referenced and productive Wikipedia journey. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:22, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Site review & acceptance

Hello Folks,

I started creating a new Wikipedia page a few years ago for a well-known musician in Harry Belafonte's band, Mr. John Cartwright. He's has become an important mentor to musicians in the Los Angeles area. He's approaching 80 and I wanted to make sure the world knew about him and his contribution.

The page is mostly finished, but I got pulled away from the project. Can you tell me if it's approved so I can complete it? I also want to start a new page for a historic bookstore that should be remembered.

Thanks for your help. As an author and editor, I like being part of the Wiki team.

Diana Weynand — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diana Weynand (talk • contribs) 20:56, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

@Diana Weynand: There's a huge problem that's going to prevent the draft from being approved -- it doesn't cite any sources. Another issue (more easily fixed) is the use of editorializing phrasing, such as "distinguished" and "accomplished." In such cases, show, don't tell.

My usual advice for writing articles on any topic:

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 left after step 3, 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. Make sure this summary is just bare statement of facts, phrased in a way that even someone who hates the subject can agree with.

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) 21:03, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse, Diana Weynand. Your draft is located at User:Diana Weynand/John R. Cartwright. I am sorry, but your draft is entirely lacking in references to reliable, independent sources, which are the building blocks of an acceptable Wikipedia article. Please read our core content policies Verifiability and No original research. At this time, your draft article is not in compliance with those policies. I recommend that you read and study Your first article and Referencing for beginners. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:10, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

To add to what Ian.thomson and Cullen328 have said, Diana Weynand: however distinguished Cartwright may be "mak[ing] sure the world knew about him and his contribution" is precisely what Wikipedia is not for: that is called promotion, and is strictly forbidden. Wikipedia is for summarising what uninvolved people have already chosen to publish about a subject. --ColinFine (talk) 21:14, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Block self request

Block 666thedevil2222222 reason keep on making bad page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 666thedevil222222 (talk • contribs) 22:03, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello 666thedevil222222 welcome to the Teahouse. Whilst I'm not convinced your username will be seen by some people as particularly appropriate, I see no reason for you to think you should be blocked at this stage. Yes, you've created some rubbish new pages which have been deleted or turned into a draft. But so long as you learn from the experience, and don't create silly articles for the sake of it, you should be OK. The best way to get blocked is to continuously ignore the reasonable advice of other editors, or to demonstrate that you're WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopaedia. You haven't done that as yet. So, why not give The Wikipedia Adventure a go, and win up to 15 badges in our fun interactive teaching tutorial? Then read Wikipedia:Your first article to help you decide if making new pages is really for you, or if perhaps there are other things you can contribute to here. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:47, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

My edits are accurate but keep getting deleted

Info on my Wiki page is way out of date and I'm trying to update/delete. I keep getting blocked or reverted. What do I do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bethanybee (talk • contribs)

@Bethanybee: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I assume this relates to Toben Seymour. If you are Tobin, you should be aware that the page is an article about you, and not "your Wiki page". Please read the guidelines on autobiograpical edits at WP:AUTO. You should also confirm your identity with Wikipedia by emailing the address listed in the paragraph this link takes you to, as we have no way to know you are who you say you are. If there is information on the page that is incorrect, we want to know what it is, but you should not edit the article yourself. You should post your concerns on the article talk page, which is Talk:Toben Seymour. This will allow other independent editors who follow that article to review your comments and determine how to proceed. To draw additional attention to it, you can make your comments an edit request(follow the instructions at that link) 331dot (talk) 22:59, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Related at Wikipedia:Help_desk#Editing_my_own_page. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:14, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

articel genrated wrong place?

Dear Teahouse. I think I was a bit confused while generating the first draft article. I am not sure, if I made any mistake in placing it not in the sandbox? I can't check somehow the status ? Is about corn sauce. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WuHaiJie (talk • contribs) 01:41, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello, WuHaiJie. You were trying to write a draft on your user page. That page is for some information about you as a Wikipedia editor. I moved your draft article to Draft:Corn Sauce. I recommend that you read Your first article, and use that information to improve your draft. Your can ask questions here at the Teahouse at any time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:53, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

What should I do?

My article, Feng Timo, has ben nominated for deletion. I think it's still possible to save it. But what should I do? Omega68537(talk) 04:56, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

@Omega68537: Don't panic. It's possible to save it provided there are reliable sources report about the subject. Now, go to the deletion discussion and using reliable sources explain why you think the subject merits an article. Since it's about a musician, the guideline is WP:NMUSIC, compare the points there with your sources and then write the reason in the discussion. Also, in the event it's eventually deleted (or even retained) just know that it's not your article, it's Wikipedia's. None of us has ownership of any text here, we only contribute.–Ammarpad (talk) 05:11, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

@Ammarpad: Thanks, but Feng Timo is NOT a professional musician, so it's difficult to find sources to proof that she meets WP:NMUSIC. In fact, Feng Timo is a professional network anchor. So is WP:NMUSIC fully applt to it? And what should I do? Omega68537(talk) 10:10, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, generally you should be looking for "multiple reliable sources" about her, irrespective of whether the guideline fits her profession or not. Since she's an anchor, then WP:JOURNALIST may be closer to her. But just find sources that can make her to pass WP:GNG and present your argument there. –Ammarpad (talk) 10:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

@Ammarpad: Thanks. I think she probably meets this notability standard, but I can hardly find more reliable sources. Unfortunately, Feng Timo is gettine less and less popular due to much negative news, see[2], [3]. So the probility of being deleted may be increased. This is why I'm panic. Omega68537(talk) 11:05, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

"Much negative news" should make it easier to establish that she is notable. Maproom (talk) 13:08, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

First time user

Dear All,

I created wiki business page and started getting surprises with spam etc. I am surprise how other companies (there are millions of company web pages) are able to write about their business. I am very new to wiki and would appreciate if someone could help me with this.

Please note, this is the FIRST time i am landing on wiki and getting warnings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bookcheap (talk • contribs) 07:38, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

It would appear from your username and your draft article that you are in direct conflict with Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines. Do go to that link and read all of it, but the key words are "COI editing is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia." HiLo48 (talk) 07:44, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

@Bookcheap: Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a business directory. We have articles about notable businesses but they are written by volunteer editors, not by people associated with that business.

Your username is also a problem. I'll leave a note about that on your talk page in a moment. – Joe (talk) 07:46, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Follow-up to Sikhareswar Jena

Esteemed sir,

Though there are no newspaper cuttings,press releases of 1980s available due to lack of Archival facilities in Odisha at that time.His activites were widely publicised those days in leading Oriya newspapers,Samaj and Prajatantra and ALL India Radio,Cuttack.But,i have cited various websites/links where references to him are available.Once it is available online,many discerning editors will contribute ,vet and enrich the piece of writing.Though I am related to him,I exercise abundant caution and meticulous vigil to ensure objectivity to avoid any COI,as the write-up is purportedly based on verifiable information.I have nothing more to add.Let other esteemed editors help improve it .There are very few or no personalities in Fire engineering in Odisha. Warm regards and submissions Jena Amiya Kumar (talk) 08:41, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Zeremariam Fre - new page

Dr Zeremariam Fre founder of the Pastoral and Environmental Network in the Horn of Africa (PENHA) has just been awarded the prestigious Desmond Tutu Reconciliation Fellowship. The award ceremony is on 4 October and will attract media interest. My page for him is ready to upload. Do I need prior approval and where do I upload the content? Thank you for you guidance. Nicole — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicolekenton (talk • contribs) 12:33, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Did you read the replies which you received at WP:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 825#creating two pages - Dr Fre and PENHA? --David Biddulph (talk) 12:43, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

wanted to create a new article about news website

i want to create a new article for news website which is few years old and does not have lots of blogs or sources. the only source it has right now is its website and its social media pages. can anyone please help me out here, wheather i can create this new article or not with respect to the souces/references required in wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Appu bhatnagar (talk • contribs) 12:53, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Simples. No independent published reliable sources means no article. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:57, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Hand info

Welcome to hand info. The Hurricane Maria (2017) celebrating 1 year. but florence dissipate tommorow. Regards Chickeo 13:18, 15 September 2018 (UTC)