Wikipedia:Teahouse: Difference between revisions

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

Read the newest questions
Skip to bottom

Most recent archives
1216, 1217, 1218, 1219, 1220, 1221, 1222, 1223, 1224, 1225, 1226, 1227, 1228, 1229, 1230, 1231, 1232, 1233, 1234, 1235

What should I start in wikipedia?

Do you have any suggestions anyone? Any articles I should edit? What people I can collaborate? Thanks I love rpgs (talk) 20:19, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's some good info that was added to your talk page that will help you understand editing guidelines. If RPG is role playing games, you can look at the Role-playing game article, and even the RPG template could give you some editing ideas. Read the talk pages, look at the history, and if you have questions about the articles, leave them on the article talk pages. You can also put some info on your user page, such as adding hobby templates, so your user name isn't red. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:35, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If RPG is not roleplayinggames, see RPG. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:55, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome I love rpgs! I would also like to add that your personal knowledge or preference is just a part of it. When editing, you also need to consider the sources that are available to you since you need to cite whatever you add to a page. Regarding the process of editing, if you are having difficulty with wiki markup, you can start with the Visual Editor in the Edit page. There are also pages that you can go to listing articles that need editing such as this and this. You can also try joining WikiProjects such as this one for video games. - Darwin Naz (talk) 23:09, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Innocent Pictures Deleted :(

Hallo! It's Tathariel Amluglain, and I uploaded photos of book covers made by an author I was making a page for. I also uploaded her author photo and a picture of her favorite book character, and they were also deleted.

The claim was potential copyright violation, but I listed the links I got the images from, which were from the official sites of the author and fan art artist. I also listed who made the cover images and what books they were on, as well as the authors name in the description.

I don't know what I could have done to prevent potential copyright issues. Thoughts? Maybe I could've unknowingly done something wrong, or didn't know to do something because I'm so new.

Thanks for your time, TA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tathariel Amluglain (talk • contribs) 04:21, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tathariel Amluglain and welcome to the Teahouse.

You seem to be operating under a misunderstanding about copyright. You can, at least currently, link to, describe, or otherwise refer to a photo or image or book that is available on the web without violating copyright. But copying, as you did, still violates copyright. Wikipedia is extremely sensitive to copyright violations - if we were not, it could become the basis for an action that would shut us down. Only a very limited set of web content has been licensed in such a way that it can be copied to Wikipedia.

The best advice to follow, for the moment, is to only upload photos that you have taken yourself of natural objects. Taking photos of buildings, people, books, record covers, and other art works is, in some part of the world, going to not be compatible with uploading to WP or to Commons. As you get more experience, or as you get to a specific task, you can ask about what's allowed or not, but it can get very detailed and only a few people on WP can claim to be an expert on every aspect. It's also possible to use non-free content in very limited ways, which you can begin to explore at NONFREE. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:08, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article in question is Draft:Willow Marie Perrin It has been rejected for multiple reasons. The most important is that no one has written ABOUT Willow Marie Perrin. Only if there are sufficient numbers of independent, published articles about a person can they potentially meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and hence an article. David notMD (talk) 10:11, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

jmcgnh, it is perfectly acceptable to take photos of buildings as seen from public places, and people appearing at public events, and to upload those photos to Wikimedia Commons. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:55, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: True in the U.S. and a lot of other places, but in some countries Commons doesn't know what the c:Freedom of Panorama status is and will take down the photo. I've had it happen to me when I picked up a Flickr photo of a building that otherwise looked eligible but was taken in one of those countries. This is an example of why I've said "copyright is too complex for mere mortals". — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:05, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I conducted a newspaper search for "Willow Marie Perrin" and came up empty. Anobium625 (talk) 23:32, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Going from Draft to Article

I've drafted an article, and it meets the criteria of having more that 10 edits and my account is at least 4 days old. However, it is still designated as a draft. Does it become a full article automatically within a certain timeframe or do I need to do something to activate this? I've read materials about moving articles, but there is no move command as described. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roxaneramos (talk • contribs) 04:51, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Roxaneramos and welcome to the Teahouse.

No, nothing automatically promotes a draft into an article. Someone has to do that with the move action.

Your account has the autoconfirmed status needed for you to be able to move a page from draft to mainspace. It's probably a good thing that you didn't find the move command yet, since your draft Draft:Eduardo Vilaro does not have the required in-line citations. You have also not formatted it properly for a WP article, so someone will have to fix that. The overall tone of the draft feels promotional to me, so that, too, would likely have to be toned down. If you moved it in its current state, I'd expect a new page reviewer to just draftify it again, if they didn't nominate it for deletion.

Creating a new article on Wikipedia is a difficult task and you've made good progress towards it. If the articles for creation process were not so backlogged, I'd suggest using it to get a more formal review of your draft. One option, that does not require getting a review, is to use the Articles for Creation Help Desk to request a reading on whether your subject meets notability guidelines. To do that, point to the 3 to 5 references that, in your mind, best establish notability according to the appropriate criteria, either as an artist or more generally as a biography. State which criteria is met. If the notability hurdle is overcome, you should be able to move the draft to article space without so much concern whether it will be immediately nominated for deletion. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:10, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Roxaneramos your draft Draft:Eduardo Vilaro sounds promotional in its current state. I undid a few promotional content but it still needs fixing before it can be moved into mainspace. If it was to go live in that state, it will either be tagged for WP:QD as promotional content or be returned into draft space by a reviewer. Fix those changes and give more reliable sources to it and then submit the draft for review. Do feel free to ask any further questions you many need. Cheers 6Packs (talk) 06:41, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your feedback, recommendations and editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roxaneramos (talk • contribs) 15:40, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect picture

The picture of my village church is incorrect (it is of another village )and needs replacing . How do I go about this please ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charleswnixon (talk • contribs) 06:52, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can comment on the talk page of the relevant article. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:03, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Charleswnixon, and welcome to the Teahouse! In your shoes (assuming you are right, you didn't tell us what article this is about) I would start with searching at "Commons", see [1], which is where most of WP:s images are kept. If there is nothing useful there, consider taking a good picture yourself and upload it to Commons by the process here:[2].

If any of this "work", the new image can then be used in the article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:05, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Charleswnixon: Please link the page where you saw the wrong image. Then we can say more. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:08, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Publish an article

Hello, I'm already registered as a user of the French Wikipedia and have published an article. I would like to publish the English version, however I cannot change the title. Does the 4-day rule apply again when you switch to another linguistic version of Wikipedia? Thank you for your help! --FCDM (talk) 07:52, 24 September 2018 (UTC)FCDM[reply]

Each language's Wikipedia is independent, and you'd have to meet enwiki's requirements before you were able to move your draft to mainspace. Looking at User:FCDM/sandbox, you'll need to remove the misplaced external links, or convert them to references, and you have tried to call up templates or categories which may exist in frwiki but don't exist here. As a newcomer here, you could usefully read the advice at WP:Your first article. When you think the draft is fit to be published as an article you could submit it for AFC review by adding {{subst:submit}} to the top of the draft. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:01, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone check User:Lavidav’s removal of interwiki links?

I see that user:Lavidav has been extensively removing interwiki links to Eastern European wikis and cannot help wondering if they have been acting responsibly, or are just campaigning to isolate certain languages. Could a knowledgeable editor please check his contributions? They were warned on the 2018-09-19 on their talk page, but seem to have been active on the 20th. PJTraill (talk) 10:46, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey PJTraill. As far as I know, now that the interwiki links are housed at Wikidata, these links serve no real purpose. Notice that this edit to Kestrel removed the link to ru:Пустельга (значения), but in the side bar the articles are still linked because of the Wikidata item. It also removed the link to de:Turmfalke; however, looking at that article, it seems to be linked to Common kestrel instead. GMG ^talk 10:56, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @GreenMeansGo:. I did wonder about Wikidata, about which I know too little, and ought to follow up. Maybe @Lavidav: is just performing useful clean-up, but it would help if they were to provide edit summaries, perhaps referring to a relevant explanation of Wikidata. I am also curious as to whether Wikidata can be used to make both Kestrel and Common kestrel link to de:Turmfalke; perhaps I can found out for myself. PJTraill (talk) 18:53, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions to the time community - complete newb how to

Hi there, I am quite new to editing Wikipedia. I have a suggestion for the time community to discuss, and wondering where to start, is such a big community and I am quite new to this in the first place so not really sure what I am doing at all. I did create a sandbox version of a page, as a developer that made sense, but not sure how to share that, or who to talk to. Could I have some guidance on that please. The sandbox page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Craiglambie/sandbox Thanks in advance. Craiglambie (talk) 11:33, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Craiglambie, I seem unable to get it. Why do you copy the whole article to your sandbox at User:Craiglambie/sandbox? I can't see at the first glance (neither at the second and third...) where your copy differs from the original. Couldn't you just make desired changes right in the Hong Kong Time, so that is's clear what and where you change? --CiaPan (talk) 12:43, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CiaPan, sorry for copying article, I wasn't sure the best method for this suggestion. Or where to start discussion, so firstly thanks for starting this chat now.

My suggestions are around listing the Timezone Serial in the infobox on the RHS and as a heading, with reference to IANA website and PHP timezone website. Hong Kong Time is just a random timezone that I happened to be looking for the serial of. If I change the original, I presume it needs approval or something if you are suggesting that is best place to do it right? Happy to try that. Craiglambie (talk) 13:50, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Craiglambie. In any case where you feel you are making a improvement to an article, Wikipedia encourages you to be bold and go right ahead. No need for prior approval. If another editor disagrees that it's an improvement and reverts the change, then you should discuss the disagreement on the article talk page and try to reach a consensus about which version we should keep on the article. GMG ^talk 14:01, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks GreenMeansGo and CiaPan I will give it a go, be bold! Craiglambie (talk) 14:45, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

why does no one like the Americans with disabilities act

im just adding tags to pages that need citations of the information. public entitys hate this for it does not allow for cheating of the consumer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adarequiermentwiki (talk • contribs) 16:09, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adarequiermentwiki (talk • contribs) 16:14, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition of the same one or two links to vast numbers of articles does not appear constructive. There are many pieces of legislation which are applicable to the operations of the subjects concerned, but we don't list each of those pieces of legislation for each subject. Furthermore, if the additions were valid they do not meet the requirements to be defined as minor edits. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:29, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

meets requirements bad faith to revisions removing context in wich the systems or product or public entity is governed by desine in the united states — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adarequiermentwiki (talk • contribs) 16:35, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply didn't seem to be in comprehensible English, but we can ignore it as the OP has now been blocked for sockpuppetry. --David Biddulph (talk) 23:50, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Control editing

Good day,

Just found out today how to edit our charity page. A first time user. Very surprised to learn the process appears to be open to anyone who wants to add comment.. Is there no way to restrict the access to authorized persons only

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chriscrew (talk • contribs) 16:24, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Access is restricted to authorised persons only, which means almost anybody except those (like yourself) with a conflict of interest. You are obviously labouring under a misapprehension regarding ownership of articles. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:32, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to set up a website where you have control, there are many web-hosting service providers, but Wikipedia is not one of those. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:35, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "our." With certain limits, anyone can edit any article. The limits apply when an article has become a vandalism target, or for other narrowly defined circumstances. David notMD (talk) 17:45, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is standard in English Wikipedia, but I think I prefer German Wikipedia’s approach, where anyone can edit, but the result has to be approved by an editor of a certain standing before it becomes the version normally seen by the public. @David Biddulph: do you know whether this has been considered for en.wikipedia, and if so why it was not adopted? PJTraill (talk) 19:04, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't around when the enwiki rules were being made. The nearest to that is the minority of articles which have pending changes protection applied. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:16, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Created an account but can't log in

I think I created an account because I received responses from you but now cannot access my account. Can you help me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.222.17.227 (talk) 16:47, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you remember the username AND password, there's nothing we can do here to help you remember it. If you forgot your password, but remember your username, and have registered an email address with that username, you can request a password reset by attempting to log-in first. --Jayron 32 16:51, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you remember the user name of your account, or can you remember which articles you edited? If not, you might as well register a new account. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:52, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you are talking about responses at the Teahouse, can you tell us about the subject of that conversation? Knightrises10 (talk) 17:28, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Original Document

Am trying to update the article about the Warren Thomas Chapel in Hickman, Ky. The curator of the museum housed in this chapel has the original document deeding the property over to these former slaves from the Freedman's Bureau. I have read the info under the copyright, etc. topics in your website but not sure how we could protect a picture of this document from being used by others without permission. Can you point me to the proper place to find my answers? Thanks.--SarahBradyStrange (talk) 17:31, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If an image has been uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, or to en:Wikipedia, it may be used by others without permission. If the copyright holder does not wish it to be so used, then it should not be uploaded. Maproom (talk) 17:57, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SarahBradyStrange It's worth saying to any curator still nervous about making their museum resources freely available, that it's very often beneficial to the institution to have the extra awareness that sharing this material brings. Whilst Maproom is absolutely right that an image can be re-used by anyone once it's been validly uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, the re-user is still obligated to acknowledge the original source/uploader. So an account name that incorporates the naming of the museum would always be associated with any re-used version of that image. As a retired museum curator with 30 years experience (who regrets discovering Wikipedia rather too late in their career!), I find it frustrating how many of my former colleagues still fail to grasp the immense benefits of sharing their resources more widely, often under the mistaken belief that they'll lose out on some (in most cases, non-existent) income, or that the have to release high-resolution versions. Just make them good enough for online use only, and everyone benefits, but nobody loses. Wikipedia:GLAM can offer help and support to curators and institutions interested in making their resources available. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:12, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2pac question

On the r u still down page can we get a new picture it looks to me a little too old and outdated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biggiefan1999 (talk • contribs) 22:39, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The image is the cover, so blame it on the record label not us if you don't like it. In any case, it's a photo from 1996; do you really need to have it explained why there are unlikely to be any photos more recent than that? ‑ Iridescent 22:47, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Biggiefan1999: The R U Still Down? (Remember Me) page is about an album, not about the artist, so it presents an album's cover, not the artist's portrait (a portrait being on the cover is just a coincidence). So I'm afraid you'll not see a new cover unless there is a new edition released. --CiaPan (talk) 09:00, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Changing header of article

I want to change Header of an article. I made a page for a person and the header is not his name. It shows my login id as header and same is the permalink. How to resolve it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.56.233.103 (talk) 06:13, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 202.x and welcome to the Teahouse! You probably mean that the title of the article is incorrect. In order to change it, you need to move the page to a new title. That requires you to log in and become autoconfirmed. Regards —AE (talk • contributions) 06:37, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IP user. If the title of the page starts with your Login name, presumably with "User:" on the front, this means that you have not created your draft article in article space, but in your user space. This is probably a good thing, because when inexperienced users create new articles directly in article space, they often don't meet the minimum standards for an article, and get deleted. If the title of the draft is "User:(your username)/(some other name), then this is ideal: you have create your draft in a WP:User subpage, which is one of the recommended places to do it. But if it is "User:(your username)", then you have created it in your user page, which is not what that is for, and you should move it. If you tell us what its actual name is, or what your username is, we can help you better. --ColinFine (talk) 08:15, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, if you haven't already read your first article, I recommend you do so. Creating a new article is one of the hardest tasks in editing Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 08:26, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Create Article on Wiki for first time

Hi,

I am new to writing articles on wiki, my first article was marked for speedy deletion and that has left me a bit frustrated and now I need help on how to go about it. Anyone available to help please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shamszy (talk • contribs) 10:14, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shamszy. Welcome to the Teahouse. I'm not surprised you're frustrated - for a new user, creating a brand new page that meets all the requirements of this massive encyclopaedia is one of the hardest of tasks you can undertake here. I think I'd done 9 months of editing before I felt brave enough to create my first one! Do have a read of Wikipedia:Your first article and try doing The Wikipedia Adventure - there are 15 badges to collect as you learn the basics of editing and what Notability and Reliable Sources mean - these are two really key elements to writing an encyclopaedia page in a neutral, non-promotional tone. I can't see any other edits associated with your account to be able to comment on your past editing. But, just like driving, it's often advisable to move off gently and build up speed slowly as you gain editing experience. Or you stand a good chance of crashing. So, I'd advise you to work on future new article as a draft and submit it to Articles for Creation where you'll receive helpful feedback if it doesn't make the grade at that point in time. You can then work on it further and resubmit it when ready. Hoping this helps, and welcome to Wikipedia! Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:22, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would add in addition to the above good advice, that the article was deleted in part because it was a copyright violation, just copied from another website. Wikipedia cannot allow that for legal reasons. 331dot (talk) 10:24, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Hi, Shamszy! Probably reading Wikipedia:Your first article first will be a good choice. :) --CiaPan (talk) 10:25, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How to copy an image (png) from 1 language wiki to another?

As the header says, I've been trying to add an image from the english wiki to other languages. Is/are there a page(s) where this is easily explained? Dutchy45 (talk) 10:45, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Dutchy45. This could be quite easy to do or (on certain language projects) totally impossible depending on the image and whether it is a free file or a non-free file used under a claim of fair use. It would probably help answer your question with more substance if you could link to the image you are working with. GMG ^talk 10:49, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image in question. I hope this is what you mean by linking?! Kudos on the speedy reply (did not expect that) afterthought: looking to copy to Dutch, Portugese and German. Dutchy45 (talk) 11:05, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Dutchy45. Unfortunately that appears to be a copyrighted non-free work used under a claim of fair use. So it would have to be uploaded to each local project individually, also under a claim of fair use. But not every language project allows non-free content as the English Wikipedia does. I know that the German Wikipedia does not allow non-free media. You may have to ask editors on the Dutch and Portuguese projects to see what their local policy is. GMG ^talk 11:21, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

thank you! Dutchy45 (talk) 11:29, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How quickly are articles approved after multiple edits

Hello, I have been working on Draft:Natasha Mudhar for several months now, and making the recommended updates to the article. Despite submitting it several weeks ago, it does not seem any closer to being approved. Whilst I know there are several thousand articles for approval, is there any order of priority for article approved which may see it approved soon, or is it dependent on the most recently approved articles? Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DAL123 (talk • contribs) 12:16, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The order in which drafts are reviewed is up to each individual reviewer. It is possible that some reviewers will give priority to new submissions rather than resubmissions after a draft has previously been declined. The age profile of the drafts awaiting review can be seen at Category:AfC pending submissions by age. One thing which you can do while awaiting review is to tidy it up to deal with references used more than once. The tidier it is the easier it will be for a reviewer, and this might speed the process up. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:27, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Editing wiki

I have a problem where I added factual, not bias info to a wiki page but it was taken down — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thothunter (talk • contribs) 13:07, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Thothunter. Edits like this are obvious vandalism, and if you continue, you will be blocked from editing. GMG ^talk 13:09, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest that was obvious vandalism however I only did that because they took down my information on the rotten tomatoes score given to monster house Thothunter (talk) 13:19, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article submission review

Hello. How long does it take for an article submission to be reviewed? I have one waiting in my sandbox and need to get done with it. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Recorder XH (talk • contribs) 13:21, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you missed what it says in the brown box on your draft: "This may take more than two months, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 4026 pending submissions waiting for review." And from 2 sections further up on this Teahouse page: "The age profile of the drafts awaiting review can be seen at Category:AfC pending submissions by age.". --David Biddulph (talk) 13:27, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And just an observation that you submitted your draft today. And the references are bare URLs. Is there a reason for the rush to get it reviewed? David notMD (talk) 14:29, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article concerns the chief opposition alliance in that country, where the election will be held in December. The alliance was formed only in the last few days. It is a landmark alliance for it is the first time such diverse groups have come together.--Recorder XH (talk) 15:37, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Recorder XH. I fear that, like many people, you misunderstand what Wikipedia is. It is not a means of promotion, no matter how worthy the subject is; it is also not a newssite, and there is no deadline. If the alliance is only a few days old, then it is unlikely that it is yet notable in the special sense that Wikipedia uses that word: i.e. there is probably not enough independent material published about it yet - for this purpose Wikipedia is not interested in anything published or written by the alliance or its associates, or based on an interview of press release. We require that several people who have no connection at all with the subject have chosen to write about it, at some length, in reliably published places. None of the sources you currently cite in your draft appear to me to be what we are looking for: independent discussion of the subject: they all look as if they are based on interview or press releases. I suspect that it is just TOOSOON for this subject to appear in an encyclopaeida.

Also note that if we have an article about the NUP, it should draw on all reliably-published commentary about it, whether supporting or critical of it: it must not simply report what the subject wants to say about itself. --ColinFine (talk) 17:05, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ColinFine:, how long does it take to give Wikipedia notability to a political alliance of large political parties (with membership between 100,000 and 1 million)? The article is merely a start up and can certainly be expanded by anyone, including for criticism of the group (for example, and this again proves it is not too soon at all, the PM of Bangladesh yesterday said some harsh rhetoric about the NUP). The sources provided are independent, reliable media that are already used in Wikipedia. The sources are the leading headline stories of the past two weeks and not based on press releases and interviews.--Recorder XH (talk) 18:21, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The time it takes, Recorder XH is the time it takes for several people unconnected with the subject to choose to have articles or books about the subject published by reliable publishers. That might be quite quick - it is conceivable that it is not too soon for this alliance; but the references you included do not show it. It doesn't matter whether the article is complete or not: if the subject is does not currently meet the criteria for notability, then no article about it will be accepted, however written. The number of adherents is irrelevant. If you want the draft to be accepted, it is up to you to find sources which meet the criteria. Otherwise you are wasting your time.

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. --ColinFine (talk) 20:46, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administer, crat

I have a doubt. When a user become admin, do he lost his other user rights in wiki(rollback, reviewer, etc)? Is Beurocrat has the right of administrator?--PATH SLOPU^(Talk) 13:39, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Path slopu. All these other rights are included in the administrator toolkit, and so there is no need for a user to have them if they have the administrator permission. The Bureaucrat right is a separate right entirely, and while it is not required by policy that a crat be an admin, in practice, all crats are also admins, since the standard for obtaining the right is similar but with a higher threshold for community consensus. GMG ^talk 14:05, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GreenMeansGo:I have one more doubt. Which one is higher position- admin or crat?--PATH SLOPU^(Talk) 14:49, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Path slopu. Bureaucrat is overall the more advanced permission, as they are the individuals who may assign and remove administrator rights. GMG ^talk 14:59, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Path slopu, there is no hierarchy of "higher" or "lower". Admins are people who have been given rights to perform certain operations, because the community has decided they can be trusted with those rights, that's all. --ColinFine (talk) 17:11, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Umm...I mean, crat is the more advanced user right, as it is the user right that adds and removes sysop, and with a higher standard for entry. Just as steward is the more advanced user right than either, with all of the access of the previous two, but with additional access, and access across projects (even though community norms preclude them from using that access in many situations). So long as de jure or de facto policy makes sysop a prerequisite to crat, OS, CU, TA, steward...umm...global sysop...(is that all of them?) then these are all de jure or de facto more advanced permissions. GMG ^talk 18:09, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's not 100% correct. Being a local crat is not a requirement to be a steward. So they're not strictly hierarchical in that respect. But being a local admin is. GMG ^talk 18:13, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GreenMeansGo and ColinFine:Thank you for your valuable advice.PATH SLOPU^(Talk) 01:45, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Problematic edits

(Are experienced editors allowed to ask questions here? If not, please move this somewhere more appropriate.)

I was doing a search for "You Tube" (incorrect formatting) and came across two edits by Notthebestusername which cited https://www.youtube.com. This, of course, is incorrect, because it's the YouTube homepage. (Both edits were no longer recent when I reverted them.) I have had to re-revert after my edits were undone in both cases: on Mukesh Ambani, because the link was restored without correction for some reason; but also on Tobacco, because the link to YouTube was replaced with a link to an old Reddit post which links to a page that no longer exists. (I provided edit summaries in all four of my reverts; see page histories.)

Furthermore, the talk that's mentioned – presumably [3] – is completely inappropriate as a source (and especially in this context), because although Noam Chomsky could be used as a reliable source in some contexts, in this video he was speaking at a lecture, in 1995; was actually talking about the American federal government's regulation of marijuana; and didn't cite his sources for claiming that tobacco was "the second-most lethal substance". Finally, parts of the text that was cited were clearly directly lifted from the video without attribution, and I removed all of the cited text because it didn't really contribute any actual information to the section.

In another of their recent edits, they were reverted by SamHolt6 for adding incorrect information, using incorrect terminology, and breaking the flow of First Opium War's lead section. (Other various edits: unnecessary talk page creation; general formatting/capitalization issues, citation of primary sources and introduction of obscure and unexplained acronyms.)

Does Wikipedia have a formal process for handling this sort of somewhat problematic editing, other than raking people over the coals? I don't really want to do that if it's not warranted, and I've never really had to deal with this sort of thing before. (Notthebestusername joined in 2013 and has never been blocked. I believe they generally edit in good faith and not all of their edits are like those above, but I'm concerned that errors like these are being made fairly regularly after five years of editing.) Jc86035's alternate account (talk) 15:38, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jc86035 (1). Anyone can ask a question at the Teahouse, it's that most of the people asking questions tend to be newer less experienced editors so the corresponding response tend to be more general explanations/guidance than super-detailed response.

As for your question, basically my approach is to Wikipedia:Assume good faith as much as possible and try to engage the other editor via Wikipedia:Dispute resolution if it's a general content dispute, but also make use of one of the more topic-specific noticeboards listed in Wikipedia:Noticeboards when I feel feedback from others might help resolve or clarify things; in some cases, you might even find out that the other editor is correct. Serious policy or guideline violations (for example, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and Wikipedia:Copyright violations, etc.) often require an immediate response, but this can be followed up with a post/Wikipedia:User warning on the user's talk page explaining what the problem was and why it needed to be fixed. You cannot control how others respond to your edits and your posts; so, all you can do is be Wikipedia:Civility and try to explain the problem the best as you can. If the other editors doesn't respond or responds in a Wikipedia:Battleground type of way, there is unfortunately often no alternative other than to seek out administrator assistance at one of the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard or by posting a request on an administrator's user talk page.

In this particular case with respect to this and this, it looks like a simple misundertanding that should be able to be easily resolved through article talk page discussion. You're correct that linking to YouTube's main page is pointless; so, just use the article talk page to explain this and request that a link to the actual YouTube interview be provided instead. YouTube content can be a reliable source in some cases per Wikipedia:Video links and interviews also can also sometimes used per Wikipedia:Interviews, but a link to the actual interview is needed to assess it's suitablity as a source. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:56, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jc86035 (1), just a note here. I am notthebestusername [It is just one person :00]. I live in China, and whenever I find interesting interviews made by reliable sources, I often make an edit in the relevant Wikipedia page. Unfortunately, since you tube and many such websites are blocked in China, I use a vpn to access the same. Trouble is - you cannot log into Wikipedia with a vpn as it's algorithms imagine it to be a suspicious device! My practical solution (used by many of us wikipedans in China) is to do Wikipedia edits on a separate computer and use a vpn on a different computer. While this usually works well, this prevents us from giving the exact url (of you tube / google books) for the citation. Hope that cleared this matter. I can give the you tube url with a little extra work (copy it into a file, then paste it on logging off from the vpn, using the file as a sandbox) - it is a pretty pointless arduous chore for what is a voluntary service being provided by us Wikipedia volunteers.

Hope that clarified the above. Incidentally, often I am able to find better citations which I then use instead of interviews (example: from Harvard, Columbia, Jstor, WaPo, Guardian, and many others, all of which are openly available in China), but sometimes, I look forward to other wikipedans to fill in the gaps by adding the exact url and thus helping each other :) Notthebestusername (talk) 03:05, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Notthebestusername: While your situation might be a bit difficult, the WP:BURDEN is still upon you to provide a proper citation in support of content you're adding to articles (particularly BLP articles); otherwise, there's a good chance that it will either be tagged as a problem or removed by another editor. Moreover, while it might be easier to just simply link to YouTube's main page, that really doesn't help at all per WP:V. So, as arduous as it might seem, you should try to clarify the citations you add better, so that at least others can figure out what is actually be cited. If you have problems adding certain web addresses, try to avoid using {{Cite web}} since that requires a url be added to work properly; perhaps instead you can use another template like {{Cite interview}} or {{Cite AV media}}, or even just follow WP:SAYWHERE. You can also always add a clarification as a hidden note to the article syntax or post something on the article's talk page which explains what the actual url address is so that perhaps someone else can add it instead. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:22, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ Marchjuly - Yes, your suggestion of using {{Cite interview}} or {{Cite AV media}} sounds much better. I will do that. Notthebestusername (talk) 09:22, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Range block

Header added by ColinFine (talk) 17:13, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi administrators.

I clicked on the treehouse because I didn't know what page to tell you what i'm about to say on.

So basically I have been editing a wikipedia page from my laptop, which is the only page I have edited on with it. Then on Sunday, when i was logging on to continue editing my page, it said that my ip had been banned from editing wikipedia pages and that the ban was in place until August 2019, and that i couldn't edit any other Wikimedia article until 2021. I didn't understand what was going on, so i emailed one of the Wikimedia stewards, who explained some things about that my ip had been used to edit other pages and vandalise pages, as well as that lots of innocent users are caught out by this.

He also told me to ask you whether or not i am eligible for the 'ipblock-exempt' group, and that when I am added, that i should check if i can continue to edit. Then the story took another twist.

Today, just before I started writing this help question, I checked the page to see if I could edit, and it turns out that I could, and there were no signs of anything to do with a ban. So I am really confused about what to do.

If it is just my location of where I am now to where I was on Sunday, or any other reason that I am still banned, can you check if I am eligible to be on the list, and add me if so, even if my ip is not blocked anymore.

Basically can you just help me get back to normal on here.

Many thanks,

TheKnowledgeMaster1738 — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheKnowledgeMaster1738 (talk • contribs) 17:02, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TheKnowledgeMaster1738. I am not an expert on this; but what I know is that your IP is not you, but the address of where you are currently connected to the internet. (If you only ever edit from a single computer, which is hard wired to the network, you might always have the same IP address, depending on how it is set up; but even then it might change from time to time. And if you move around and connect to different networks, you will certainly have a different IP address each time). So it is not you that have been blocked, but the network you were connected to on that occasion. Last week I was using an open network at the Eden Centre, and was a bit miffed to discover that I couldn't edit, because the IP range was blocked. --ColinFine (talk) 17:19, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If this is some place that you will edit from on a regular basis, you can ask for an IP block exemption (what the steward was asking about) by following the directions at WP:IPBE. shoy (reactions) 17:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

help with a promotional article

Good day please I am having difficulty writing an article on promotional. Kindly assist — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mojisolafolorunso (talk • contribs) 17:32, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As was explained on your user talk page, and in the deletion log for your sandbox, promotion is forbidden on Wikipedia. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:42, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Twinkle

I can't seam to install twinkle. I added it to my preferences page and clicked save but can't use it A 10 fireplane (talk) 17:46, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello A 10 fireplane. Did you clear your browser cache? If not, you must. I have also seen your edit history, which shows you are editing using Mobile. Unfortunately, you can't use Twinkle on mobile view. Instead, you will have to change to desktop view. Then, you can see the Twinkle option at the top. I hope it helps - Knightrises10 (talk) 19:11, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Knightrises10: ok I got ya, thank you for your help A 10 fireplane (talk) 20:14, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance sought

I've tried to do some minor editing of a couple of pages before and tried to enter new sections in two pages. I often come up against a problem that I then correct only to find out there's still a problem. I'd like to set up a new page for an author/artist. I can guarantee I'll need some major hand-holding from start to finish. Is there someone specifically I can work with, who can set up the page with me?

Thank you!

Paul — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulThePony (talk • contribs) 18:20, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@PaulThePony: Read the guidance at WP:YFA on how to create an article. There is a wizard there you can use to create a draft to work on that you can later have reviewed when you are ready. If you are connected to the artist/author you also need to read WP:COI and WP:PAID. RudolfRed (talk) 18:46, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PaulThePony. I'd like to suggest that your choice of words implies that you have a misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is for. Rather than "setting up a page for" (which is appropriate to social media, or a business directly), I suggest you think in terms of "writing an article about". The word about is the important one: the article should not be based on what the subject does, says, or publishes, but on what people have written about the subject. --ColinFine (talk) 20:39, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Music album

What is the procedure for create music album wiki page without disturbing already data here ? Exactly which type of references are required for that ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naveensharma1993 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Naveensharma1993. The procedure for creating an article about a music album is the same as the procedure for creating an article about any other topic: first find the independent reliable published sources required to establish that it is notable (the alternative criteria in NALBUM might apply, but if so, you will still need sources to justify that). Please see your first article for general advice about the difficult task of creating a Wikipedia article. --ColinFine (talk) 20:51, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DOI and PMID?

When using citation templates, what are DOI and PMID? Anobium625 (talk) 22:46, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like they're for using Digital object identifiers and PubMed identifiers. More info on how to use them can be found at WP:DOI and WP:PMID. Random character sequence (talk) 22:51, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That was a quick response! Thank you. Anobium625 (talk) 23:00, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

:v

v — Preceding unsigned comment added by Takenix (talk • contribs) 23:07, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is this worthy content - a photo of a handwritten poster from Bar Camp 1

I have a photo that might add value to the following page: BarCamp. I removed the poster from the walls of Bar Camp 1 - I know the sponsor, Ross Mayfield - I don't know how to handle the copyright questions. File:BarCamp1 poster.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vahekatros (talk • contribs) 08:52, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome, Vahekatro. Interesting question. I'm not sure I know chapter and verse on how to handle this. We don't give formal advice on copyright here at the Teahouse, as images are handled by the totally separate Wikimedia Commons guys. My own view is that I would be happy to photograph and to use this on Wikipedia, as you've done. The good folk over at Wikimedia Commons are much stricter on images than we are at en.wiki. So sometimes, because we allow fair use whilst Commons doesn't, it can be better just to upload certain images directly to Wikipedia, and not to Commons. But I see this as an anonymous poster - a sign on the wall, if you wish, OK for fair use here, not a copyrightable piece of intellectual work. I'm not sure of its merits within the article, but that's a completely different issue. If you want further opinion, you could ask over at c:Commons:Help desk. Personally, I wouldn't worry about this one at all. But I could be wrong, of course! (Oh, it's also worth mentioning that knowing someone involved in organising an event who says it's OK to use something they've copyrighted is not sufficient permission for any image to be uploaded. They'd need to upload it themselves, or grant formal permission via the OTRS system. But I doubt that applies to this handwritten notice.) Don't forget to sign your talk page posted with four keyboard tilde characters in future, (like this ~~~~) Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:38, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Make real article from draft

How to make real article from DRAFT: I do not see any possibility to move page in another "namespace". It looks like ability to "move" pages is disabled forme Thank you— Preceding unsigned comment added by LiamTheFirst (talk • contribs) 12:44, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LiamTheFirst, and welcome to the Teahouse. Most pages can be moved by any editor who has the access level autoconfirmed, that is, has been here for four days and has made 10 edits. Sam Sailor 06:53, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LiamTheFirst you have only been here for 11 hours. You can't move anything until your account is autoconfirmed (4 days) and you made 10 edits. Feel free to always ask 6Packs (talk) 09:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia edit blitz?

Hello, Rebestalic here (again).

I feel that it might be time for a big editors' event; maybe it should be in the theme of a one-day or one-week edit blitz in where every editor that has seen the alert is challenged to edit as much as possible, in the same manner of the Great Wikipedia Dramaout and blitz chess.

Is this the right place to ask or should I go to the Department of Fun?

Rebestalic (talk) 04:12, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Rebestalic. There are fairly often such edit-a-thons hosted throughout the world. These are often sponsored and organized by individual WikiProjects, like WikiProject Military history or WikiProject Women in Red, and focus on getting groups of like minded editors together to work on subject areas where they share interests and experience. If you're interested in such events, finding interested editors from an active WikiProject is probably a good place to start. GMG ^talk 10:51, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How many

How many editors on Wikipedia ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editmanz (talk • contribs) 07:06, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

see WP:ABOUT and / or https://stats.wikimedia.org/v2/#/en.wikipedia.org Regards, Ariconte (talk) 07:18, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Writing and Editing Pages on Related Themes?

Hi there,

I am quite new to Wikipedia, but I have some knowledge of the Expressionist art movement, and mid-century art in general, so I've recently edited pages (stubs in most cases) on Philip Pavia, Marianna Pineda, Arthur Polonsky, and American Figurative Expressionism, as well as created a draft on the figurative expressionist Mel Zabarsky. I've read a good deal about Wikipedia best practices over the last several days, but I still have a few questions about the process:

1. How much do I repeat information that is relevant to several articles on separate but overlapping and related subjects? Obviously, I don't want to copy and paste from page to page, but some of the information overlaps, and I have yet to find any best practice reference for dealing with that.

2. Is there any way to call for someone more expert than me to do some edits on American Figurative Expressionism, the most important of these pages. It seems in my estimation to get quite a few page views (~600 in 30 days), but it was very incomplete when I took it over — more semi-formatted notes than not. Ideally, someone more knowledgable than me would do a round of editing, too? What are your thoughts on this sort of thing?

3. Finally, I also wouldn't mind someone peeking at these pages to give me some feedback to see if there are any errors I'm making in a patterned way. Most of the stubs were in very threadbare condition, not all of them seemed to be publication-ready, so I did the best I could to improve them, and still keep picking at them. The long and the short of it is I want to make sure someone more knowledgable than I thinks I'm on the right track.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by EditGirl99 (talk • contribs) 07:47, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

EditGirl99: if you want people to look at an article, it's helpful and polite to provide a link to it, like this American Figurative Expressionism. I've had a look at the article, and my only comment is that it fails to start by saying what it's about. I think it's an artistic movement. Maybe it's a form of Expressionism. The article ought to say, preferably in its first sentence. Maproom (talk) 08:19, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest you look at Charles Demuth as example article about an artist. David notMD (talk) 18:52, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi EditGirl99. Regarding issue #2, I have modified the lead of the American Figurative Expressionism page to describe more what it is about. You can message me or do a revert if you feel it is inappropriate. Left a comment in the Talk page as well. Regards, - Darwin Naz (talk) 06:05, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you have two or more consecutive references, do not insert a "/" between them. And consider gallery format if you want to show several images by an artist. David notMD (talk) 10:06, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPP/S

Hi! Are there only two trainers at new page reviewer school, or are there some other unlisted ones as well? Thanks, Knightrises10 (talk) 11:01, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Knightrises10. Yeah, it doesn't look like that idea in particular ever really got off the ground. But I've reviewed a few thousand articles, and I'm sure others here have as well, and we'd be happy to answer any questions you might have. GMG ^talk 11:03, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GreenMeansGo: Hi! Thanks :-) I'll ask you if I need some help. Thanks again - Knightrises10 (talk) 11:09, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion

Hi there, I had a page deleted before I even had time to put it up properly. I had a long argument with the deleting editor. In short (very short!), it appeared that by declaring a conflict of interest, I had doomed myself to immediate deletion - no quarter given, no questions asked. I feel this is unfair, there was no interest in the content or suitability of the article, the only stumbling block was my own conflict of interest. I have subsequently learned that - despite Wikipedia asking you to do so - declaring a conflict of interest leads to immediate deletion with no discussion. This is really bad. What made it worse was that the deleting editor was rude, insulting and contemptuous, there was no attempt to discuss the merits of otherwise of the article, it was all about attacks on me personally and my own ethics and honesty. I felt as if I had been caught selling crack to pre-schoolers. It was a horrible experience. I still feel, however, that the article has merit as an encyclopedia entry. How do I fix this? Obviously you are going to want more information, but I really just wanted to get the conversation started. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niki Moore (talk • contribs) 13:27, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Niki Moore: I'm assuming you refer to The Foundation for Professional Development? I cannot see you having contacted TomStar81 (talk · contribs), the editor who deleted this article. You should try that first. Having reviewed the deleted article, I agree that it was probably incorrectly deleted as unambiguous advertising but probably also met the requirements of not indicating the significance or importance of the subject. If you like, I can restore the article as a draft and you can work on it in peace. Then you can submit it for review once you are done. Regards So Why 13:39, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear SoWhy, Thank you for your nice reply! I did not have a discussion with TomStar81, the deletion (and the subsequent argument) was with someone called Cabayi. I agree that it most likely did not meet the requirement of your 'not indicating the importance'... etc, but that was because it was taken down before I had the chance to do so! The mistake I made, I think, is that I decided to put the introductory paragraph up first, before I put in everything else. I would be extremely grateful if you could put it up as a draft and you could let me work on it and get it right. Niki Moore (talk) 15:53, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ping User:SoWhy. GMG ^talk 15:56, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping. @Niki Moore:

Done, you can find it now at Draft:The Foundation for Professional Development with instructions what to do when you are done. Please remember to follow WP:PAID and declaring on your userpage if you are paid to edit this page and if so, by whom. Regards So Why 16:03, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Niki Moore, repinging since I forgot to sign. So Why 16:03, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, thank you, thank you! Niki Moore (talk) 17:17, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was pinged here by SoWhy (talk · contribs) (thanks for that, by the way, otherwise I'd have never known about this). I find it very disheartening to have my interaction characterized as "..rude, insulting and contemptuous"; all the more so since Niki Moore (talk · contribs) never reached out to me. If you had, you'd have seen this. I lean toward an inclusionist mindset, and if you had asked I would have userfied the information or put in the draft space for you - I already replied to one such request yesterday. If you had given me a chance I'm sure could have had discussion on the matter and reached an agreement, it wouldn't have been hard. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:40, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TomStar81: I think from her post above that she meant Cabayi, the tagger, and not you.

Regards So Why 07:10, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TomStar81 (talk · contribs) Dear TomStar81 - You were not the person I interacted with. I put in a request to find out why the page had been deleted so fast, and the response I got was from Cabayi, who was quite abusive. It disheartened me completely, and I decided not to go near Wikipedia ever again! Then I read a few articles , as well as the ones on the Wiki site itself, (because having had some previous experience on Wikipedia, I found it hard to believe that the Wiki culture had changed so much) and I decided to give it another try. That is when I contacted the Tea House, and I have found nothing but support and encouragement, it has made SUCH a difference! I have spent the entire day fixing the problems with the page (it is hard work but stimulating) and I am now a confirmed fan again. Thanks for your note so that I was able to clarify this. Niki Moore (talk) 14:09, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreement of what an article should be called

Hi. I recently moved an article (Chequers Agreement), from it's official long title ("The future relationship ..."), to simply "Chequers plan". Recently, another user moved it to "Chequers Agreement". I think "plan" is a more appropriate than "agreement" of several reasons (more common name, part of ongoing negotiations, etc.), but don't know how I should go about it. Also, the user who moved it is much more experienced than me.

I am considering just moving it back, and notify said user, as per WP:BOLD, but think it might be too aggressive, since he also used BOLD to move it. I can also make a move request, but don't knowhow to do that, or what the procedure it, or how much I will set in motion. Or I can just make a talk-page-comment, saying I think the other name is better, but it might very well just be ignored.

What should I do? Heb the best (talk) 13:53, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Heb the best. The third step in the BOLD cycle, after Bold and Revert, is "Discuss". When somebody reverts an edit you make, you choices are to accept the reversion, or to open a discussion. From your description, this isn't technically a reversion, but the same applies. (Because it is not a reversion, it is within the rules for you to revert their change, but I wouldn't advise that). Open a dicussion on the talk page, and ping the other user - see if the two of you (and anybody else who chooses to participate) can reach consensus. --ColinFine (talk) 14:00, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Heb the best: You've now done the right thing by starting a discussion at Talk:Chequers Agreement. Thank you. I have just added my own observations on the matter there, and I agree with your plan to re-title the article. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:16, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I need help on a new article. Am I doing things correctly?

Your First Article - Intro says "Biographies of living people are among the most difficult articles to get right."

I want to make sure that I'm doing things correctly. Thanks. Here's the link: Draft - Mark Alpert.

AltoStev (talk) 17:16, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, in some ways, AltoStev, but not really. The very first step in writing a new article is to find several places where people who have no connection with the subject have chosen to write at some length about the subject, and been published in reliable places. Unless you can find this, it is not worth your time writing anything, because the subject does not satisfy our criteria for notability, and no article will be accepted, however written.

It is possible that Alpert is notable in Wikipedia's sense, but nothing in your draft establishes this. Note that Goodreads is user-generated, so not regarded as a reliable source; the bio on Freshfiction.com appears to be contributed by the subject themselves (see http://www.freshfiction.com/faq.php#FAQ12); I'm not sure how teenreads works, but I doubt that the bio there can be shown to be independent, and in any case it's not very detailed. I think Kirkus reviews is regarded as a reliable site, so the review would help to demonstrate that the book reviewed was notable, but there's not enough there to do that for the author, in my opinion.

There are one or two minor issues about your draft: what somebody is noted for is a matter of opinion, so an article should not say it in Wikipedia's voice (though it can quote an independent source that says this). Also, we don't use chatty expressions like "it's" and "right now" in articles. But these can be fixed. The question of notability needs to be addressed before anything else. --ColinFine (talk) 21:19, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is where I would really focus: Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Primarily, If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. and drill down from there. The coverage bar is high. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:52, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My First Edit

What is the best first edit question you have been asked? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocketboynj (talk • contribs) 18:06, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Rocketboynj. The best first question I have been asked consisted of five elements. I wish every one of them did. These are:

A clear explanation of what the user needs help with
A link to the Wikipedia page they're having problems with
An indication which of our two editing methods they're using (Wikitext or Visual Editor)
Whether they're working in mobile mode on a phone, or classic 'desktop' view as on a computer
Their signature/timestamp (very simply added with four keyboard tildes, like this:~~~~)

We rarely get all of this, so we reply as best we can with the information supplied... ...or we ask for more.

Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 08:26, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Creation of an article: Akihiro Yamada -Wikipedia

Dear Administrators/Friends/Ammarpad/Stormy clouds,

I have found in a 'Teahouse' page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia Teahouse/Questions/Archive 835#Creation of an article: Akihiro Yamada -) the following: 'Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.40.70.66 (talk) 12:09, 22 September 2018 (UTC) Here is the archived query in question. Essentially, the IP asked about the creation of an article about themselves in en.wikipedia.org, translated from their entry in ja.wikipedia, but was aware that they could not create a translated autobiographical article themselves owing to the obvious conflict of interest. They were subsequently advised to refrain from editing matters related to themselves, and advised of the potential pitfalls of an article about one's self. Finally, the ultimate advice given, which still stands, is that, if a subject is notable enough to merit an article, someone else will create it. If this is not satisfactory, consider requesting a translation. Given the existence of the Japanese article, the inertia to create an English one, given sufficient coverage in reliable sources, is likely lower than from scratch, but such a request would still be heavily scrutinised, and the downsides of an article would still persist. Hope this helps, Stormy clouds (talk) 12:21, 22 September 2018 (UTC)'

In my original message is as follows: 'I am glad to find online a Japanese entry about me: ‘山田昭廣 - Wikipedia’. However, I think that an English entry would be of more use since I am a specialist of English literature, especially Shakespeare. I know that I am not entitled to create an English entry titled ‘Akihiro Yamada – Wikipedia’ myself. So I wish you to be a host for it on your website. What I would like to state in it is very short and the text would run as follows: Akihiro Yamada (born 1929 in Nagoya) is a Japanese scholar specializing in English literature and bibliography. He published some twenty books on Shakespeare and his contemporaries. For more information, visit him at http://researchmap.jp/yamada-akihiro-6002/?lang=english'

Many thanks for your comments. English-speaking specialists will find the Japanese version of little use, so for their benefit (and mine) I am proposing an English version, though very short (which you may expand by visiting me at the provided URL). The English version will be of great use to them who would share academic interest with me in order to advance scholarship, simply by clicking the Wikipedia. I am afraid that a mere translation of the Japanese version, primarily addressed to Japanese scholars, will be of no use to English-speaking specialists. I do not know if I am 'notable enough to merit an article' but may I mention that you will find me in various editions of Marquis *Who's Who in the World* (U.S.A.) as well as in various publications of International Biographical Centre in Cambridge, U.K. I really hope that there will be a volunteer willing to be a host of this entry. Best wishes. Akihiro Yamada — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.40.70.66 (talk) 19:00, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How do I publish a picture on Wiki

I have heard you have to add a source but I don't know to edit the pictures of other people — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sibudaqueen (talk • contribs) 19:05, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sibudaqueen. Generally, the images we use here are uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. To upload a photo, it has to be licensed under a free license, where anyone can edit or use it, as long as they provide attribution – say who created it, and in most cases publish it under the same license. You'd either have to take the photo yourself, or convince the photographer to upload it to Commons.

If the photo already is on Commons, you can find simple instructions at Wikipedia:Wikimedia Commons. /Julle (talk) 00:51, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Page Name

how do I edit the Wikipedia page name? I can see how to edit the content within the page but our event has been re-branded so we need to change the page name as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoagclassic (talk • contribs) 19:21, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per comment on your Talk, you must change your User name away from the name of the event (golf tournament) before you can be unblocked. And then you will need to comply with WP:COI and WP:PAID. David notMD (talk) 20:20, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Verification

Hi there, how do you add a verification in the footnotes or reference list? How do you verify a reference given? Thanks.

Hello. Please read Identitfying reliable sources and Referencing for beginners. If you have more specific questions, please come back to the Teahouse. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PJLink (remote display device control) English page for wikipedia

I noticed there was no PJLink page listed in english, but there is a German page listing a basic description of the PJLink standard: German wikipedia PJLink reference

While looking at the rules, there was an explicit rule stating "... 3 notable references ..." with the inference that a webpage-only may not be an appropriate reference.

I was thinking about adding a PJLink reference page in English, but was concerned that the effort I put into creating the wiki page would be deleted since the only reference I have available is the JBMIA (Japan Business Machine and Information System Industries Association) webpage that hosts the PJLink standard: PJLink Standards home page

Should I be concerned about the wasted time? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alisonken1 (talk • contribs) 22:07, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Alisonken1. I think that is safe to say that most experienced editors on English Wikipedia will agree that an acceptable article will have at least two or more references to significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. A site that hosts the technical standard is not independent and also simple hosting of content written by others is not significant coverage. Please read Your first article for additional information. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:14, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

time taken

how much time does it usually takes for a draft to get reviewed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larsonreever (talk • contribs) 04:39, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As it says in the brown box on your draft "This may take more than two months, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 4097 pending submissions waiting for review.". The age distribution of the 4000+ drafts awaiting review can be seen at Category:AfC pending submissions by age. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:03, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

hello everyone i am trying to create pages for all online news channel related to sports category. so starting with the list i have created my first article, please check and give me suggestions on how it can b improved.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sportsflashes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Appu bhatnagar (talk • contribs) 04:49, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Appu bhatnagar and welcome to the Teahouse. I see you have already submitted your draft for review. Rather than ask us to do the job of the reviewers, I suggest you wait until you receive feedback from the WP:AFC helpers. Then, having read and understood any feedback they do give you, pop back here if you then don't know how to proceed. But do recognise that only a small handful of companies and websites ever meet our Notability criteria. I'd quickly comment that name used int he text doesn't match that in the citations, some of which are promotional and insider news, but potentially it might be deemed notable. Spend your time digging around for more in-depth, independent reliable sources to help meet the criteria set out in Wikipedia:Notability (web) and probably also WP:NORG, against which your draft's notability will be assessed. Oh, and do please sign all future posts with four keyboard tildes (like this ~~~~). Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:50, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How to remove redirect

I want to know the information regarding how to remove redirect for a page.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sriram444 (talk • contribs) 05:04, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Sriram444 and welcome to the Teahouse. It might have helped if you had linked to the page you're asking about, and explained the reasoning behind your request. Because you didn't do that I can suggest two scenarios, and you can read more at WP:REDIRECT and especially the sub-section within it called "When should we delete a redirect?".

Firstly, if you simply wish to create an article on a topic whose title is currently a redirect to another page, it is possible simply to remove the redirect text and replace with new content. This creates a completely new article. But you should expect some resistance to that, and possibly quick reverting of your edit. So the best way is to go to the talk page of the article and explain what you want to do, and why. Leave it a week for feedback/discussion, then you can be bold and make the change.
If you simply believe a redirect is wrong, and that it should be deleted, we have a discussion forum for this type of page. See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion - also known as WP:RFD

I hope this helps. Oh, and in future could you please sign every one of your talk page posts by using four keyboard tilde characters, (like this: ~~~~) which automatically adds your name and timestamp. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 08:02, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

General Debate of the 73th UNGA

Hello there! I need help.

I am the one who started General Debate of the seventy-third session of the United Nations General Assembly. But, in my honest view, it seems that someone has edited that article his own way and make disruptive edits (see here). In fact, I try to make this article better by doing final lists of speakers, daily and overall conclusions as well as concise replies by countries. But the content, as of now, seems to be much disruptive than before.

Can it be considered an edit warring? And if not, is there any opinion on how to make such article better? Thanks. Aamuizz (talk) 06:10, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You, Lihaas, and others have been working together to update the article, and have been discussing your changes on the article's talk page. I see no edit warring. Maproom (talk) 06:57, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unable to upload content into wikipedia

Hi,

We are from Chennai, India. We run a k-12 school for students we wanted to upload content about our school in wikipedia but we are unable to do so? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.219.206.194 (talk) 07:32, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You already asked this at the help desk. Please keep questions in one location. Thanks 331dot (talk) 08:46, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Need help in creating page about our company

Can you please help me out about the below message as I received it from Wikipedia regarding speedy deletion of my article published by me earlier.

A tag has been placed on User:Giridhar Surisetti/sandbox requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from glassdoor.com/Overview/Working-at-Miracle-Software-Systems-EI_IE15484.11,35.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 14:56, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Can you also please help me out on how to get our company page got publish on wikipedia,,?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giridhar Surisetti (talk • contribs) 11:13, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Giridhar Surisetti: Welcome to Wikipedia! Glad you want to add to the articles here. Before you proceed, you should be aware that Wikipedia has rules related to conflicts of interest and editing when you're paid for your time. You need to clearly disclose the latter. In general, creating a page about one's own company is not a great idea – it's difficult to be neutral.

Should you nevertheless want to proceed, you need to:

Clearly state your conflict of interest and that you're editing while paid to do so.
Write an article with your own words, not copy it from somewhere else.
Refer to good, reliable sources. This is core part of Wikipedia and how Wikipedia works.

You would probably also want to read WP:NCORP before you spend any more time, to see if the company is notable, according to Wikipedia's understanding of the word. Wikipedia is a publication like any other publication: not all information is indiscriminately accepted. Otherwise you risk wasting your time. I understand that I'm throwing a lot of links at you, and I apologise, but you're doing something that requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies, so there's really no simple way around it.

Welcome. /Julle (talk) 11:53, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 399: / Line 399: @@
 :I was pinged here by {{User|SoWhy}} (thanks for that, by the way, otherwise I'd have never known about this). I find it very disheartening to have my interaction characterized as "..rude, insulting and contemptuous"; all the more so since {{User|Niki Moore}} never reached out to me. If you had, you'd have seen [[User:TomStar81/CSD|this]]. I lean toward an inclusionist mindset, and if you had asked I would have userfied the information or put in the draft space for you - [[User_talk:Nubeli#Re:_Deletion_of_Backdrop_CMS|I already replied to one such request yesterday]]. If you had given me a chance I'm sure could have had discussion on the matter and reached an agreement, it wouldn't have been hard. [[User:TomStar81|TomStar81]] ([[User talk:TomStar81|Talk]]) 20:40, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 ::{{re|TomStar81}} I think from her post above that she meant Cabayi, the tagger, and not you. {{=)}} Regards [[User:SoWhy|<span style="color:#7A2F2F;font-variant:small-caps">So</span>]][[User talk:SoWhy|<span style="color:#474F84;font-variant:small-caps">Why</span>]] 07:10, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
+{{User|TomStar81}} Dear TomStar81 - You were not the person I interacted with.  I put in a request to find out why the page had been deleted so fast, and the response I got was from Cabayi, who was quite abusive.  It disheartened me completely, and I decided not to go near Wikipedia ever again!  Then I read a few articles , as well as the ones on the Wiki site itself, (because having had some previous experience on Wikipedia, I found it hard to believe that the Wiki culture had changed so much) and I decided to give it another try.  That is when I contacted the Tea House, and I have found nothing but support and encouragement, it has made SUCH a difference!  I have spent the entire day fixing the problems with the page (it is hard work but stimulating) and I am now a confirmed fan again.  Thanks for your note so that I was able to clarify this. [[User:Niki Moore|Niki Moore]] ([[User talk:Niki Moore|talk]]) 14:09, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 == Disagreement of what an article should be called ==