Wikipedia:Teahouse

Welcome to the Teahouse...                        

A friendly place to learn about editing Wikipedia.

Click here to
ask a question

Bonadea, 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

New entries

Relying on publications may not be the ultimate wisdom. In a particular (german) case I had endless discussions due to the fact that Wikipedia would rely only on published sources, and to those rather blindly, but not on "common sense". I realize that taking what has been written may be easier than thinking, arguing, investigating, even judging oneself. But in this age of fakes and of articles that nearly always have a bias and like to emotionalize the readers, cool personal judgement of the reviewers might be needed.
 In the present case I wondered why I didn’t know what this thing was that I saw advertized on TV (on a harmless Bollywood channel, Zee one), and that "guaranteed orgasms". So I googled this womanizer: Lots of promotions, ads etc.. But Wikipedia had nothing on this subject, neither the German nor the US version. So I thought, maybe it’s too touchy a subject. Turns out "vibrator" is explained at length and without restraint. Now if you look at newspapers etc. these sex toys aren’t featured ("covered") as often as, say, cooking recipes.
 I would have liked to ask: Is womanizer on Wikipedia’s index, taboo? But then I tried to write an entry, I took time, produced a very factual short explanation, and still: "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject." What do you expect in a case like this? Or is it really better, not to mention the device? – In short: Please rely more on your own judgement, if something is important to know. This is a lexicon for the public, for those who want to know (quickly) what’s what, not a scientific, proof-fast thesis. And let us have a quick way to check if there is a chance for a specific entry. – Fritz Jörn (talk) 18:26, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Fritz Jörn. Almost all Wikipedia policy is determined by consensus, and very occasionally parts of it change, as people make proposals and persuade enough other editors that the consensus changes. You are welcome to try to change this policy: the place to propose it is at WP:VPP. --ColinFine (talk) 19:56, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Colin, for your suggestion. The rejects I got naturally came from one person, with a lengthy standard statement. Naturally disappointed I will try no further: I know what a Womanizer is, having researched elesewehere; if the useres of Wikipedia want to know too, is now less important to me, I’m afraid. And to change a well accepted and proven Wikipedia policy I would not want. I argue for sensitivity and common sense with new subjects that may not have "significant coverage". –~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fritz Jörn (talk • contribs) 03:49, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Fritz Jörn. I have read your draft and did a quick research. I think it would have helped if you first developed the article further, outlining its distinction to a vibrator. This could entail reference to its inventor or origin/development and how the device works (e.g. how it stimulates through suction and pressure waves or how it mimics oral sex). A Huffington story also cited a study that showed the device can address orgasm disorder for menopausal women. Darwin Naz (talk) 00:09, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Fritz Jörn, and welcome to the Teahouse! Just a quick note: The suggested HuffPost piece (here) was written by a non-expert contributor (RSP entry), and should not be used in the article because it is questionable. The line "I learned of the study when I was contacted by a Public Relations firm" also undermines the credibility of the piece. While the contributor piece would not count toward notability, Lifehacker's review is a little bit better and is usable in the article.

Please refer to the Referencing for beginners guide for an overview of how citations should be formatted. In most articles, the only link that should be in the "External links" section is the subject's official website. Reviews should be in placed in citations, instead.

Also, in Draft:Womanizer, the sentence "The womanizer is expected to replace the vibrator as sex toy for women." is uncited and promotional, so please remove it. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! ​​ — Newslinger talk 08:29, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

​Regarding your comments on the notability guideline, one of the reasons we require at least 2 independent reliable sources with significant coverage before a draft can be published is to prevent companies from using Wikipedia as a promotional outlet for run-of-the-mill products. If a product is unable to meet this requirement, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia, but please feel free to write about it somewhere else. — Newslinger talk 08:41, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Colin & Fritz Jörn, interesting discussion. In an era where fake news is quite a prominent part of our daily lives, Wiki's policy of sourcing seems a tad sweeping. Why should anything that appears in an online or print media be taken as gospel, especially in controversial news that has little educative value, which I presume is the primary motive of Wikipedians? Wiki is across the board a space of knowledge and inspiration and anything not pertaining to that must be flagged and removed by Admins, I feel. ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nayaki75 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Let me reassure you that Wikipedia policy is not that "anything that appears in an online or print media be taken as gospel", Nayaki75. Sources need to be evaluated on their merits and information cross-checked across sources. See WP:RS. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:37, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you all for your friendly replys. They warm my heart. But please understand that from afar I will not try to improve the entry with more citations (I just don’t have them in Germany), and to work on an entry that might end in the wastebasket. If I have triggered an entry for someone else to write I’m already happy, and your users will find an explanation of the rather unexpected use of the word womanizer. At first I just had tried to add it in the womanizer disambiguation with a short mention, but the system wouldn’t let me without a full-fledged Wikipedia entry. (I think it might be nice and politically correct to describe the harware piece completely chaste with a twinkle.) By the way I have no contact to the inventor nor do I work for a company any more, see Joern.com. – Fritz Jörn (talk) 10:18, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello Fritz Jörn Welcome to The Teahouse (and welcome to the Wikipedia Runaround) I fully concure with your distain and flustration. Wikipedia tends to have a snobish "we know all, you know nothing" facade that gets irritating when hours of editing gets deleted with zero to little feedback, and what little feedback is given turns out to be generic "one or two keystroke" form responses that require additional hours of reading only to come to a WTF moment where you understand that no one understands your POV, but further you feel like Sisyphus because no matter how hard you try you end up no better off than before you first tried

I also have hit the conclusion that this site is next to useless.

sure there are many honest editors on this site but this site rewards activity with increased access to tools. which in turn allows those with ulterior motives to get faster promotions by "gaming" the system. I have no idea if you have encountered anyone who is trying to infiltrate Wikipedia upper eschilon but a way to leave a trail of these abusive edits (along with the real ones) without accusation one way or the other so patterns will be easier to find. They need a place inbetween "full published" Wikipedia and the incinerator called "revert"... i suppose some may think a sandbox does this but as you pointed out there is little access and no reliable way to disperse sandbox articles (you virtually need to contact every person before they find out where / what is in article) most bug report sites allow search of all articles written but if sandboxes are ignored there theoretically could be thousands of people writing about this womanizer but you have no way to connect with them since you cannot even link to a disambigous page.

you might want to persue a "sub wiki" that would retain your article with other rejects that includes infoboxes as why rejected, editor who rejected, those who concure, and those who help improve article, thus weekend editors could come to the (lets call it) Wikincubator to nurse their baby to health.

but I'm afraid i can only promise to support as i too have encountered the the quick click reverts personally and even saw one guy's article deleted because English was a second language for him (a few misspellings and many gramitical errors, the editor deleted the article instead of doing what a Wikian EDITor is supposed to do, EDIT!!!

so much for my rant, i hope you will persue further, if you do try then write on my "wall" or whatever it's called, I should notice in a month or two (i stopped visiting more often after my 3rd or 6th all-nighter was again reverted /or/ deleted) Qazwiz (talk) 10:24, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Cordless Larry but my observations in the last few weeks seem to be unfortunately deviant from what you say. My issues are the following:

1. 1. In an educational resource like Wiki that children of all ages use, why use yellow journal style material like Sexual Harassment allegations on any person's page no matter how well they are sourced or not? How can children be benefited by these 'information'? Certainly, Wiki is not to be used as a space by Admins or Editors for allowing these to be posted. They must be flagged and removed instantly. Those interested in gossip can find the relevant allegations in so many other online sources but they should never be part of Wiki.
2. 2. Why delete well sourced material that I (among several others) had personally researched and cited adequately in some pages like N Ravikiran with absolutely no effort to check the sources or point out specific sentences that may have needed citations?
3. 3. Why delete sections like awards without due diligence from any of the Admins in his page? Even a cursory google search would by anyone would have revealed that many of the deleted ones did not merit deletion at all.
4. 4. Why delete a whole page of Chitravina N Ravikiran - which I and presumably others used to researh into his compositions? I even pointed out that they be renamed as N Ravikiran Compositions. Any objective person would have needed only a couple of minutes to note that that page contained at least 30-35 citations from reputed media. Similarly it would have been obvious that barring one or two sentences that was similar to N Ravikiran page, the rest of the info was not only distinctive but study material for scholars about Indian classical's most prolific composer today. Yet, there were insistent moves to delete that page.
5. 5. I protested and was asked to transfer relevant content there to N Ravikiran page and when I did it, it was immediately summarily deleted even within a minute or two. How could anyone reasonable not see that the information was well sourced and contained facts like list of a composer's works?

The above points out to personal bias and a desire to undermine a prominent figure rather than objectivity which I am afraid is not healthy for a site of immense value like Wiki. I hope that my concerns are addressed seriously and sincerely by all Admins in good spirit:-) Nayaki (talk)

Date formats

Is the chart in the date format a suggestion or a rule for WP? There are a number of formats or styles that are identified specially as inappropriate and recommendations sometimes follow. I started to edit a particular style in WP since sometimes in the same article the inappropriate style and preferred style were consistent. Unfortunately, especially after advising that the style as incorrect some have been reverted based on the previous style based on their opinion was correct. It is my understanding that when it comes to commas in the "month year" style and the "day month year" style commas are not to be used to separate the parts unless it is a quote. All the dates revised have not been quotes. What is what? Is this a matter of some "quirk" of that particular English/Language/Grammar? I looked at the coding to see if there was any such notation and found none. I would appreciate it as those who insists on the previously existing format care to have a basic level of courtesy to explain on the talk page(s). Thank you.2605:E000:9149:8300:7C35:42EA:E43D:D94A (talk) 09:14, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi IP 2605:E000:9149:8300:7C35:42EA:E43D:D94A. You'll find more detail about this in MOS:DATES, but date formats are like national varieties of English in that there's no one particular house style that is preferred for all articles. Generally per MOS:DATEVAR and MOS:DATEUNIFY, you should try to stick with whatever style was used by the article's creator or first major contributor (as long as it's not a bad date format) and try to keep the formatting consistent throughout the article. In some cases, as explained in MOS:DATETIES, a particular format may be preferred for certain subjects, but you shouldn't really just change a date format simply because it's your preferred format or it's the one commonly used in your home country. You can propose such a change on the article's talk page if you think it should be made, but you should at least try and establish a consensus for it first, particularly if it's an article which is heavily edited and watched by lots of editors. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:11, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Further to this, IP 2605:E000:9149:8300:7C35:42EA:E43D:D94A, since I am one of the article creators/first major contributors in question. When I first submitted an article for review for Good Article status, I was told that the preferred format in English Wikipedia is month (not abbreviated)/day/comma/year, unless it's in a quotation, in which case the format in the quotation should be used, if different. My personal preference is day/month/year, but I conform to the preferred format. This is why I've been reverting your edits, and I explained this when you were registered under a previous IP address. I would have been happy to discuss this with you through my talk page (since you don't have one) and save both of us some time and effort. Wreck Smurfy (talk) 23:39, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

You are aware of the chart in the date format section that does specifically say that it is inappropriate? Not only that there are many instances in WP style development that things change. This is very much now that various styles have been explored through the years have been found to be revised and so why it is included in the inappropriate chart? So to say that at "X" time it was okay therefore until time burns itself up it will be followed is on face value ridiculous? nd there are many instances where in the same article the styles differ? So basically it is being said that for clarity different styles regardless as to inclusion in the inappropriate chart are welcomed?2605:E000:9149:8300:EC1F:6BF6:5F84:F209 (talk) 18:42, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I find it difficult to follow your style of writing, and a reply that consists of a series of rhetorical questions is also difficult to answer. Perhaps the answer to all of them is "Yes". What I can tell you, as the creator of at least one article that has been rated as Good (331st Rifle Division), it would not have received that rating if the date formatting was wrong. In fact, I had to correct my previous formatting to get the Good rating. However, more importantly, you are wasting your time, my time, and that of several other editors over something that is, by any objective standard, trivial. Wikipedia has bots to handle these trivialities. I would suggest, in all sincerity, that you turn your attention to something more productive, like some actual content. I am trying to work with you, not against you. Wreck Smurfy (talk) 03:35, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

If a rating is the basis of maintaining how an article should not be edited to current standards then that WP would not be editing. Could it be that at the time the article was greenlighted that was the practice but according to the chart in date formats it clearly says that the style is inappropriate and even goes as far as to provide examples of approved formats. It could also be the situation that when the article was greenlighted that that was what the administrator thought was current. It is not. The WP system is not infallible; it is not written in stone because that is why there are countless screens of style standards. All that can be said is that from what has been responded to with my question directly on the talk page of date formats is the following: "My understanding is that if an article consistently uses one of the styles in the acceptable date style table, then that style shouldn't be disturbed without good reason. But if an article uses some other style, including the ones in the table of unacceptable styles, then the dates may be changed to one of the acceptable styles. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:22, 25 January 2019 (UTC)" The talk page was consulted directly as what seemed to be coming from previous answers was not definitive to explain just why "X" could be found in the date format section. The first reply to this question here said that there are different appropriate styles for different English language places. If that is so then the chart most probably would have provided that clarification. There is no such content there and so far that differentiation has not been pointed out in the format section. Just as WP follows proper grammar then it should also follow proper style otherwise there can only result confusion. Again, despite what may have as previously expressed being rhetorical, WP articles are not written in stone. They are constantly being reviewed and even "*" articles can be found to have either style that is no longer followed or outright grammar inconsistencies. Any justification based on what was suggested at the time of a rating status as the reason why an article should be treated as written in stone is not an adequate justification. Just as significant is grammar ask any attorney about what role can punctuation serve in the legal field WP should adhere to what is stated in the date format section so as to encourage the least amount of confusion especially for those who may not have a great grasp of the language and then perpetuate with additional articles styles that have been found to be inappropriate. As for belittling my contribution to WP, I would suggest that there be considered some refrain so as to not appear imperious. It can be noticed that at any time did I personalize these statements by stating "you" or "yours" etc. There are many aspects of editing in WP that can be followed if that is what the editor feels comfortable with. It should be a pleasant experience to follow the policies, guidelines and standards otherwise proper grammar would not be used.2605:E000:9149:8300:C9E:6B46:95A6:3A0C (talk) 08:52, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to make one more effort to encourage you to constructively contribute to Wikipedia. 1. Do not reply to a post in the Teahouse, or any other talk page, without using the requisite number of colons; 2. Ranting is a waste of everybody's time, mostly yours; 3. You have been banned from editing repeatedly, under several UP addresses, and you have yet to learn a lesson. Good night and good luck. Wreck Smurfy (talk) 04:54, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

An imperious attitude is not what can generally be thought of as cooperative or is that a point that seems to be unrecognized in these replies. I have absolutely no control over what IP address I am issued by my internet provider so if it is an intention to in some way discredit a another contributor? That issue has been repeatedly addressed in the past and to have gone to the effort to look into things it should have been evident ";" WP endorses the use of IP addresses as user identification. In fact, at times the IP address will change while editing is happening during the same session. Pleas refrain from attempting to direct to what direction someone contributes to WP a that implies a sense of ownership which it seems is an attitude of being uncooperative. If it is believed that editing according to WP standards is behaving badly when maybe it is time for this issue to be addressed at a community level? To base a reason for reverting edits that are in line with WP standards based on what an administrator advised is only evident that being imperious is supported. If it is noticeable to a reader that additional punctuation might make something more understandable to them then it should be assumed that a certain level of mental agility exists that to instead say otherwise is again a sense of being imperious. That should be evident with a history degree when reviewing original sources and it seems that is not applicable. All thr best.2605:E000:9149:8300:4560:D1CF:6806:3065 (talk) 07:33, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Could someone with authority close this discussion as there seems to be a differentiation as to what is the proper date format for the question at hand. The "Help" page says one thing and another contributor rests the reverts on an action when an article was to be rated at some time. It would seem clear enough what is to be followed and any variances should also be explained in the same section All that can be said is that if the style is to have commas then there are millions of improperly punctuation instances in WP.2605:E000:9149:8300:4560:D1CF:6806:3065 (talk) 07:49, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

IP 2605:E000:9149:8300:4560:D1CF:6806:3065|2605:E000:9149:8300:4560:D1CF:6806:3065: If you're going to be assigned a different IP address each time you post something and you plan on contirbuting regularly to Wikipedia, then it might be a good idea for you to register for an WP:ACCOUNT; you don't have to, but it will make it easier for other editors to know it's you making the edits and might help others from mistakenly assuming you of inappropriate using multiple accounts. Just a suggestion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:51, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

@Wreck Smurfy: Just from looking at the article 373rd Rifle Division (Soviet Union) and 331st Rifle Division (Soviet Union), the IP might have a point about the choice of date format and comma use. When you begin a sentence with a phrase such as "In month date year", you would add a comma after the date and the year per MOS:DATE; however, if the phrase is "In month year", then common practice is that you only need a comma after the year, at least in most national varieties of English I'm familiar with. Writing "In month, year," and "In month, year" seem to be both incorrect, though the latter case might be acceptable if the the month and year are part of two separate "parts" of the same sentence. As for the article in question being a GA, that's certainly quite an accomplishment; however, that's doesn't necessarily mean the comma use is correct and it could've been something that just wasn't noticed at the time. Since the article is about a military unit, you might want to ask about this at WT:MILHIST since the date formats used in military articles might be different from other types of articles; however, just look at the FA articles 13th Airborne Division (United States) and 21st Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Skanderbeg, they seem to be using the "In month year," format. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:14, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Clarity about the finite use of 'references' -- 'citations' -- 'notes'

There seems to be an overlapping or redundancy in the use of 'notes' (which are actually references to a published article, news story etc) written in brief terms. My question centers on 'citations' that denote in detail either references or quote references found within news stories, published journals and news documentaries. For clarity, quotations within an article or news story are best placed where on a Wikipedia page? If a scientifically valid claim is made, often the original paper is long in length and the specifics needed for Wiki are isolated (usually by page). But what if it is a nationally broadcast TV news story that has a quote within? The video of the news story needs to be cited and then, it is up to the researchers to review the entire video to see the quote.. correct? I am trying to avoid unnecessary redundancy. I am new to this process and as I look at Wikipedia articles, there are similar conflicts that maybe I don't understand that have added to some confusion. Comments, please. BARRY BARON (talk) 18:31, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

@BARRY BARON: Welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for being interesting in citing your sources. For video programs, you may include in the citation the time within the video that has the quote you are citing. A good place to learn about this is Referencing for Beginners, Citing Sources, and the tutorial at WP:TUTORIAL. There's also an interactive learning experience called the Wikipedia Adventure at WP:ADVENTURE. Hope this helps and feel free to ask more questions. RudolfRed (talk) 20:31, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

RodolfRed -- Thank you for the hint --- that's sort of what I figured. Just trying to be expeditious and more concise. Thanks again for the help and sage advice. BARRY BARON (talk) 20:28, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

trying in Draft "Anton Miller" violinist article (in Engish) to fix link to Italian Wikipedia article on Franco Gulli

trying in Draft "Anton Miller" violinist article (in Engish) to fix link to Italian Wikipedia article on Franco Gulli — Preceding unsigned comment added by Millipede (talk • contribs) 15:26, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Millipede. The best way to create a wikilink to an article in another language is to use Template:ill. So if you write {{ill|Franco Gulli|it}}, it will display as Franco Gulli: the main link is to the non-existent English article, so it is in red; but there is a blue 'it' link which will take you to the Italian article. If in the future somebody writes an English article on Franco Gulli, the link will automatically be updated to point to it. --ColinFine (talk) 19:22, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Millipede (talk • contribs) 21:20, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for having forgotten Wikipedia etiquette regarding four tildes or custom signature Millipede (talk) 01:08, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

"Consensus"

Since Wikipedia doesn't really use consensus as a means of deciding, one editor does that, always. How is the systemic suggestion of consensus, giving the appearance of consensus without any real consensus, be a valid method of assessing scientific truth via language? I strongly suggest that it is an unhelpful adjunct which should be deleted from Wiki-policy unless it's utility can be adequately explained, I further suggest that it cannot be explained and should be removed immediately with direct effect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YogiShivRaJi (talk • contribs) 2019-01-25T19:14:25 (UTC)

Hello, YogiShivRaJi. Almost all Wikipedia policies are set by consensus. You are welcome to try and change them: the place to do so is at VPP I don't think you will have much luck, but if you can win enough people over to your view, you will have changed the consensus. Wikipedia's purpose is not "assessing scientific truth": it is, like other encyclopaedias, to summarise existing reliable published material on a given subject. --ColinFine (talk) 19:35, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, there is a "discussion" when the action takes take but it is only senior "authorized" WP participants that seem able to handle the group when the decision comes down and when it concerns "authorized" WP participants only those that are accepted into that upper echelon of administrators seem to ever be in a position of authority. And it seems as if when there is someone that is not of the administrator class those that are administrators seem to find the most insignificant things to discredit the position of the non. So to say . . . . is rather simple. And I know that this "attitude" will not be appreciated by a certain group in WP but so is my insistence at the endorsement of WP to use my IP address as my user id. To not address significant challenges to what is accepted as credible sort of short changes the purpose of a source of knowledge. And WP does not seem to be a place where the limitation of "credible" sources is based on the ability of the language abilities of that particular language group. Non-western culture subjects are usually subject to western language publications. If a non-western subject is to be as fulfilling in its subject matter it would seem relavent to understand what is that subject within that culture, society or language group. You cannot do that if you do not understand the "native" language or what is published in the non-native language for others to attempt to understand.104.35.236.49 (talk) 00:01, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy, nor is it a bureaucracy. The purpose of existing policy and how it is enforced is to make it possible to create a collaborative, free encyclopedia that is as reliable as possible given the circumstances. Becoming an administrator means passing a rather grueling public hearing, which by its very nature establishes that the would-be administrator has earned their stripes. Still, as someone who is not an administrator, but has been in quite a few RfC and AfD discussions, I'd have to say that administrators aren't necessarily shown any special deference in decision-making, but that as experienced editors who have been doing this for years they know policy and guidelines pretty well and thus usually make good arguments. The few tasks that only admins are allowed to do (revdel, ANI, etc.), are powers have the potential to be extremely disruptive and thus have to be restricted to only users who have been thoroughly vetted by the community. If you ever disagree with an action that an administrator has done, there are various notice boards where you can go state your case and try to get the action reverted. As for your second point, I'm not entirely sure I understand the argument you're making: Wikipedia absolutely has problematic biases, but sources can be offered in any language. If you think that an article is missing a vital perspective from sources published in a given language, you should add that information and cite those sources. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:36, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

"Community"? You mean those that have already been elevated to administrators because that seems to be who is aware and responds to the vetting process. It is still a closed shop. All that is needed to black ball someone from elevation to administrator is despite knowledge of the process labeled as not always cocktail party polite. But that is what happens in an organization that has a class of one type and a class of another. It did not work in the Soviet Union. As for the "rules", there seem to be what is established in the guidelines and policies and then what gets in WP by what appears to be mere influence, i.e. date formats.104.35.236.49 (talk) 22:51, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Looking for music articles to work on

Relatively new to Wikipedia and just getting back into the swing of things. Can someone here who works on music articles give me some guidance on ways I can help? Sorry if this is a stupid questions. Grimothy29 (talk) 23:15, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

This one looks like a good starting point, and here is a page that may be helpful; it is an interesting walkthrough.Tamanoeconomico (talk) 00:25, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

You might also take a look at the WikiProject Music. Schazjmd (talk) 00:31, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Adding Grimothy29 so he sees there are replies. Schazjmd (talk) 17:55, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, I will check it out.Tamanoeconomico (talk) 17:40, 28 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grimothy29 (talk • contribs)

question about doing a speedy deletion

Could someone explain the process for a speedy deletion nomination? Stevenvieczorek (talk) 18:26, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

The criteria for speedy deletion are strictly limited, and laid out at WP:CSD. - David Biddulph (talk) 18:41, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I assume you are wishing to delete the Pennsylvania Bluestone article, this doesn't require deleting it is in the process of being discussed for a merge with Bluestone. Theroadislong (talk) 18:55, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Trauma Center

The History section of the subject, "Trauma Center," under, "US" credits two doctors in Chicago for creating the first trauma unit in the U.S. in 1966. The first trauma unit in the country, however, was a pediatric trauma unit in Kings County, NY created in 1962 by Dr. Peter K. Kottmeier. There are numerous articles on the internet crediting Dr. Kottmeier's pediatric trauma unit as predating the Chicago unit by four years. E.G. https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/435031-overview Is Wikipedia interested in accurately reflecting this history? Regards,

The page currently reads as follows: US[edit source]

According to the CDC, injuries are the leading cause of death for American children and adults ages 1–44. The leading causes of trauma are motor vehicle collisions, falls, and assaults with a deadly weapon.

In the United States of America, Drs. Robert J. Baker and Robert J. Freeark established the first civilian Shock Trauma Unit at Cook County Hospital in Chicago, IL on March 16, 1966.[6] The concept of a shock trauma center was also developed at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, in the 1950s and 1960s by thoracic surgeon and shock researcher R Adams Cowley, who founded what became the Shock Trauma Center in Baltimore, Maryland, on July 1, 1966. The R Adams Cowley Shock Trauma Center is one of the first shock trauma centers in the world.[7] Cook County Hospital in Chicago trauma center (opened in 1966).[8] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregger333 (talk • contribs) 19:38, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I think you may be right, Gregger333. The place to discuss this is on the talk page of the article, Talk:Trauma Center, where people with knowledge and interest in the subject are more likely to see it. --ColinFine (talk) 22:11, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Category:Timelines of cities in the United States

Some of these places such as Timeline of Albuquerque, New Mexico could be moved to a shorter title Timeline of Albuquerque and still be unambiguous. Should I comply with the guideline WP:USPLACE or is it fine to apply WP:IAR to this? Mstrojny (talk) 20:21, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I haven't got a reply in 2 days. How long does it take for a volunteer to answer my question? Mstrojny (talk) 23:55, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Normally you would get a reply rather earlier. My own view is that we ought to be consistent. The article Albuquerque, New Mexico is not entitled Albuquerque, although there is a redirect from the latter. WP:USPLACE gives a ref for a list of those cities which do not require the state name to be included, and Albequerque is not on that list. I would recommend that "Timeline" articles use the same naming convention as that for articles on the city directly, but I see no reason why you couldn't have a redirect from Timeline of Albuquerque. If you have a differing view you could discuss it at WT:Naming conventions (geographic names). --David Biddulph (talk) 00:28, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

@David Biddulph: I have created a proposal here if you would like to have a say in the proposal. Also, can you notify other editors about this proposal? Mstrojny (talk) 11:09, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Bayat(name) merge to Bayat(tribe)?

The main problem is with Bayat (name). There is information there that someone from the Bayat family killed Genghis Khan's favorite son-in-law, and I think this is the part that is disputed with a tag. I've done some brief searching and I see

1. Bayat tribe fought with Genghis Khan.
2. Khan's son-in-law was killed by someone from Nashipur. The Bayat people are said to have settled here.
3. Toquchar, listed as the favorite son-in-law, was not, in fact, related to him.

The article Bayat (tribe), while short, is much more factual (as far as I can tell) and I have at least 2 sources that have information that will help expand the article. My question is, should I propose a merger for Bayat (name) to Bayat (tribe)? Thanks, Aurornisxui (talk) 20:23, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Rude awakening

I found it very rude of buidhe to deny a simple building of the character of the user jffmurphy10. Perhaps buidhe would like me to follow or become dependent. Please be considerate buidhe of newcomers because brilliant minds do not think alike.

Regards,

--Jeffrey E. Murphy 23:40, 26 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jffmurphy10 (talk • contribs)

@Jffmurphy10: If you did not want your sandbox reviewed, you should have not submitted it for review. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:43, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

No, brilliant minds don't all think alike; but Wikipedia has principles and policies. Perhaps Jffmurphy10 would find it profitable to review What Wikipedia is not and User pages. --ColinFine (talk) 23:52, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Why is it there are obtuse individuals showing the human element portion of Wikipedia no regards? jffmurphy10 Sandbox still remain! Gheez!

Regards,

Jeffrey E. Murphy 00:04, 27 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jffmurphy10 (talk • contribs)

@Jffmurphy10: ...Did you want it deleted? I can do that if you want. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:13, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Funny character... we just hit our tenth edit. How do we ever repay you? lol — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jffmurphy10 (talk • contribs) 00:17, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Confused!

Hi, I was looking at Jeremy Ray Taylor's Wikipedia page and I noticed that it says he would be in an episode of Doctor Who (a tv show) in 2019. The thing is, it's been announced that the show wouldn't be returning in 2019, but in 2020, and nothing has showed up any search I've made of his episode or character. Also, there wasn't anything left in the References category about it either. Is there any way I can, instead of editing, maybe leave a remark saying that that should be checked out somehow? Does anyone know how I can confirm that that information is either true or false? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thebekahbird (talk • contribs) 01:02, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

@Thebekahbird: Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for wanting to make it better. You can raise the question on the article's talk page, and interested editors may look at it and respond or fix it. RudolfRed (talk) 01:11, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

@Thebekahbird: Hi, just to add to the above, we have nice templates like {{citation needed}}, which put an unobtrusive notice next to a statement. In this case, I added {{dubious}}. Definitely don't be afraid to add these tags, as they help involve other readers of the page, and point to the talk page. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 02:02, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Add citations and sources.

Hello. 1) Im have the sources / citations for what has been written, however im struggling to workout how to add them. any cheat sheet on this please

2) How to add a photo

many thanks

regards seav — Preceding unsigned comment added by Torng Seav (talk • contribs) 02:31, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Torng Seav. Please read Referencing for beginners and Help:Pictures. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:45, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Suicide of Katelyn Nicole Davis

This page is being subjected to possible deletion. I wish to agree with the deletion. However, I know zero about how to do this. I don't even know how to publish one word here.. unless it has a very simple sign post. Like this page. Please help me. Thank you HER KNIGHT (talk) 02:55, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, HER KNIGHT. Just go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suicide of Katelyn Nicole Davis, click the edit button, and make your case. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:04, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

At the AfD, click on Edit, then add your comment below the last comment. Typing a * will create a bullet. Most editors type Keep or Delete or Comment and then Bold that one word, followed by their comments. At end of comment, type four of ~ to sign your name. The process is not a vote. An editor will read all comments and make a decision. David notMD (talk) 03:40, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

(e/c) Hi HER KNIGHT. Some tips on posting to that deletion discussion. After you click edit, as suggested, your post goes at the very bottom of the page. Start your post with an asterisk (*), which will format as a bullet when you save. Right after the asterisk, write '''Delete''' – with the three apostrophes on either side. This will format as boldface, which is the convention at deletion discussions for formatting your !vote. After that, write out your rationale, ending with your signature, as you did for your post here. I would also suggest perusing Wikipedia:Arguments to make in deletion discussions, Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions and Wikipedia:List of policies and guidelines to cite in deletion debates. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:44, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Concerning the retention of historical statements about "Thirubuvanai", (in French: Tribuvane) which was deleted in Wikipedia on 26.01.2019.

Americans should first know the freedom of the United States, and the neighbors do not need to know. The people in the area where the event is to be revealed first to tell a historical event. The Puducherry government is a coordinated part of India which will not be able to conceive of the freedom of a territory and to conceal the bloodshed, humiliation, imprisonment and release of liberation and the liberation of that area.

64 years after the release of Puducherry, the Tribuvane commune is not aware of how and when it came to independence. No one knows today until today's true release of the Holy Communion. The banning of the loudspeaker is to block the report and to spread the lies and inverters without informing the world of the old stable real history of the joint effort of the journalists.Similarly, prohibiting the truth of the Freedom struggle of the Puducherry is to hide the truth.

On 06.04.1954, the three members liberation struggle group Kalitheerthal Kuppam lived headed by S. Narayanasamy took over the Tribuvane Commune(in English: Thirubuvanai Commune) from the French Indian Government and declared independence. The Liberation Government changed the name of the Commune as "Mannadipet Commune". Till now the name is existing with the name of Mannadipet commune. It is not legally binding on the Government of Mannadipet to incorporate the Indian Government agreement with the French Government under the name "Tribune Commune", as the Government headed by Tribuvane headquarters with an area of 23.54 square miles. The Liberation Government came to power from 06.04.1954 to 30.10.1954. It's not legally valid. The Liberation Government came to power from 06.04.1954 to 30.10.1954. In the period of the Liberated Government, the government has not been informed of any action of the state. Indian newspapers are afraid to release these messages. The Indian press also reluctantly refrained from releasing news of the governing body of the Tribuvane Commune and dismissed the state of the state.

As if the Indian media have been reluctant to release the news that the French government has been seized and fired since 06.04.1954, it is as if the modern World WIKIPEDIA NEWS HAS BLOCKED THE ARTICLE written in the title of "THIRUBUVANAI" the present editor.

History of the French India Liberation struggle was reportedly titled "Thirubuvanai", the title of the Wikipedia to inform the public about the hidden history. During the French rule, the name was changed to the Mannadipet Commune and the Liberation Government was in control of the 22 villages that had been held by the Thirupuvanai, Mannadipet and Kalitheerthal Kuppam. No one knows anything to tell any other historical event in the outside world. In the name of the history of the French Liberation War, the news will reach the readers and historians only if they tell the true limit. Historical article in the title titled Thirubuvanai in Wikipedia is a hidden history. There is no reversion in this.

We have only the power to carry out the "Sanwaa" movement, the successor of Narayanasamy, who has officially conquered the history of the renamed Tribuvane Commune, to seize the Commune from the French and take over as Executive Minister. There is no news for anyone else.

Therefore, it is requested to rewrite (release) the reverted content given in Wikipedia written by Sanwaa in the name of “THIRUBUVANAI’. Otherwise, Wikipedia will only be known as a medium that hides history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanwaa (talk • contribs) 05:29, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Why I didn't create

--Вадзім Медзяноўскі (talk) 05:52, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello Вадзім Медзяноўскі and welcome to the Teahouse. It's unclear what you're trying to ask here; please be more specific. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 17:05, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

No subject

Hi Teahouse. I'm having a spot of bother at the moment and I'm wondering if you could give me any advice. A year ago I uploaded an image I made myself so I could use it on my talk page. A couple of days ago I uploaded a fair use image (that got deleted, I'm not worried about that), but this other image from a year ago was deleted too. The people who deleted did no explaining. I initially assumed they thought I plagiarized it, So I uploaded the original variant of this image without lettering I used from a fair-use website to be on the safe side, but they deleted that again, believing it to be the one they initially deleted, leaving again no explanation. I'm really confused, as I've left a message and I've had no response. They've given me "final warnings" but I don't see anything I've done wrong. Could you give me a piece of advice? --Leavepuckgackle1998 (talk) 06:04, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Leavepuckgackle1998. If I understand you correctly, you uploaded two fair-use images and an image derived from a fair-use image to Commons. Commons does not accept images under fair use, but only free use and public domain images. —teb728 t c 06:51, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Let me add Leavepuckgackle1998, that (unlike Commons) fair-use image can be uploaded to Wikipedia under the very restrictive conditions at WP:NFCC, and those conditions allow use of fair-use image only on articles and never on user pages. —teb728 t c 07:32, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Leavepuckgackle1998. I think the problem might be with your "fair use" website. Images from such a site are probably still copyright, but if you tell us which site, we can check for you. (On a separate minor point, I find your user page amusing, but you might like to review it if you wish to be taken seriously as a Wikipedia editor. ) Dbfirs 07:59, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Need some help getting started on a new entry (after a few years).

Hi,

I completed an entry a few years ago for an ancient illuminated manuscript, but now I would like to write about a banned graphic novel from Egypt, and have forgotten where to go to begin this entry, with the title and the content from class members in a class I'm taking. Can you please direct me? Thank you!

Kerri — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kerri Buckley (talk • contribs) 07:00, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I know from what you've said it isn't your first article but have you tried rereading the article writing guide for new users. RhinosF1 (talk) 08:51, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Kerri Buckley and welcome to the Teahouse. You might like to rewrite your user page in the first person, since it is not supposed to read like an article. See WP:User page. Dbfirs 16:19, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Newbie here👋

Hi, ummm.. I'm quite new here so can someone teach me the basics(and how to add pictures) 🙏

I am bone123 (talk) 07:06, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

@I am bone123: I have left a message at your talk page. RhinosF1 (talk) 08:50, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

@RhinosF1: Thanks

When is present tense appropriate instead of past tense

When it comes to events such as a sports game, particularly say a championship event, is the title always current tense as the title never changes but the play does. It is the playing that changes tense not the title? What is the rule on grammar as to why it seems titles are treated as past events instead of as an identification that remains constant?2605:E000:9149:8300:4560:D1CF:6806:3065 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:58, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello IP and welcome to the Teahouse. Articles about past events are written in the past tense, whereas articles about ongoing events are written in the present tense, along with most other articles. You can find more information about this at MOS:TENSE. Cheers, Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 16:12, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Article Creation

How do i make a article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beetlebug202 (talk • contribs) 08:37, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Writing your first article can be difficult, but we have a guide on article writing that can be found here. RhinosF1 (talk) 08:48, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

How to make aricles

Hi Can An yone help me make an article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nana Asare 13 (talk • contribs) 12:03, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello Nana Asare 13 and welcome to the Teahouse. You can find a lot of information about this at Wikipedia:My first article. Wikipedia articles need references which show the subject of the article has significant coverage in reliable sources: sources which can be trusted. Cheers, Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 13:22, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

If this is related to Draft:The Kingdom of Jhansi, you may be better off editing the existing article Jhansi, adding any relevant material to that article and including references to published reliable sources. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:29, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Another help request

I am trying to locate a wikik writer to edit changes who has some Integrity and allow changes per Wikipedia rules. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:A250:AE40:4BE:7B88:66D5:7EE8 (talk) 12:33, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello, IP user. You stand much more chance of engaging somebody's interest if you make it clear from the first what changes you want to make. Otherwise, why would anybody bother to spend the time talking to, only to find out it is in an area they have no knowledge or interest in? Or it relates to a subject which does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability? No purpose is served by keeping it secret anyway: if somebody agrees to make some edits for you, they will be expected to declare their conflict of interest anyway, so it is much better to be open about it from the start. --ColinFine (talk) 14:41, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Can you create a disambiguation page for zip-line? It could also refer to Zipline International, Zipline Creative , and Zipline Safari. Mstrojny (talk) 13:32, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done --Gronk Oz (talk) 14:27, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

@Gronk Oz: Is there a primary topic to zip-line? If so, can you format the page so that it shows the primary topic like this one. If not, can you move the page to the appropriate title? Mstrojny (talk) 15:00, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

@Gronk Oz, David Biddulph, and MarkZusab: Because the disambiguation page is created with the compound word form, is it OK to move the title of the primary topic from Zip-line to Zipline? Mstrojny (talk) 19:49, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

The title of the primary topic article should be determined by how it is most commonly referred to in reliable sources. If you want to move it, I would recommend not doing so yourself but suggesting it on the article talk page. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:03, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

@David Biddulph: I have created an RM here. I personally have no opinion on whether the move should take place, but if you are interested in joining the discussion, please feel free to do so. Mstrojny (talk) 20:16, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

@Mstrojny: David Biddulph and MarkZusab beat me to it, and made the change you suggested. As for how to treat the variations in spelling (zipline vs zip-line vs zip line), I don't really have an opinion. (Well actually I do, but my opinion is that it's a trivial matter, so I don't mind whichever way it goes.) --Gronk Oz (talk) 21:51, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

i dont understand

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffcoll2222 (talk • contribs) 15:58, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

You are presumably referring to your userspace draft at User:Jeffcoll2222/sandbox? In the feedback messages on the draft and on your user talk page, the words in blue are wikilinks to more guidance to help you to understand. At present, the draft has no references. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:07, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I assume that you are trying to write your WP:Autobiography, but you need to provide independent WP:Reliable sources for all statements. You can't just write your profile here. See Wikipedia:Notability (people) for further details. Dbfirs 16:13, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Request for advice on how to help an article

I am a new editor and have a question on what to do next with an article. I came across Flame front when looking at underlinked articles. That article, however, looks like it has much bigger problems. I would like your advice on what I should do with it.

What I see: The format looks incorrect to me. There is an external link at the top of the article, and it is to another encyclopedia. However, that link is to a directory page in Britannica, not actually an article. So it really has no source. In my opinion, this also appears to fit more in a dictionary instead of an encyclopedia.

What do you recommend I do with this page? Should I try to clean up the format, and then tag it as unreferenced? (I don’t know much about this topic so don’t feel comfortable trying to expand it). Or do you think it would be better to submit this one as a candidate for deletion? (I have read WP:DP but I am struggling to come to a conclusion one way or the other). Or is there something else I should do? I want to help but don’t know where to go next with this. Desertborn (talk) 16:42, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Flame front seems very short, I don't mind looking through but it may want deleting. RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 16:48, 27 January 2019 (UTC) Must have been looking at wrong thing. RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 16:49, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I've just realised what's happened, the article in question has now been redirected to a better article. RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 16:51, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I have made boldly it into a redirect to Premixed flame there wasn't enough content fora stand alone article and what there was was unsourced. Theroadislong (talk) 16:52, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for creating the redirect! (And for helping me learn a good way to handle this type of situation. I can see that the redirect was better than either deleting or trying to fix). Desertborn (talk) 16:57, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Request process to update a Wikipedia page

Wikipedia was kind enough to create a page on my new position but it is incomplete and I would like to know my staff can reach out to for including more personal background information, adding service record, awards, etc.

Thank you,

Greg Slavonic Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Manpower & Reserve Affairs)

405-641-9013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:140:8D00:15A0:5591:6398:A28F:13BF (talk) 17:06, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Greg. Thanks for asking, rather than just getting them to plough in and do it. The thing to realise is that the article Gregory J. Slavonic is not your article: it is Wikipedia's article about you, and you have no control of the content. You and your associates are strongly discouraged from editing the article; however, you or they are welcome to suggest changes on the talk page Talk:Gregory J. Slavonic: if they add the template {{edit request}} (with the double curly brackets) somebody will come along and decide what to do about the suggestions. Any information to be added must appear in a reliable published source (personal knowledge, and unpublished information, are never acceptable in a Wikipedia article) and as far as possible in a source wholly independent of you. (I actually think that the existing article is a bit light on independent sources, and of those, News OK really doesn't have very much information. The rest of the sources, while reliable, are primary sources: the foundation of Wikipedia is what people unconnected with a subject have chosen to publish about the subject. If your staff can suggest any further independent sources for information about you, that would be helpful too).

If your staff want to go ahead with this, they should consider creating accounts: it is not required - they can edit without logging in as you have done - but it's easier to track who is responsible for edits. If they do create accounts, they should be individual (sharing an account is not permitted), and the account names should not suggest that they are "official" for anybody or anything. They may use their real names (as I do) or make up pseudonyms as they wish. They should then read about conflict of interest and paid editing before they do anything else. It would be helpful if they read referencing for beginners as well: suggestions will be easier to deal with if they include citations to sources; and while these do not have to be properly formatted on Talk pages, it would be easier if they were. --ColinFine (talk) 18:07, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

P.S. "Wikipedia" does not create articles. An editor Iowajason created the article about you back in September. AntonyZ added a big chunk, and TheRoadIsLong deleted content that was not appropriate or not adequately referenced. David notMD (talk) 19:49, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

from sandbox to get it 'out'

dear people try to get the written text into www - I mean public. so after ... I did it in sanbox .. and then? what to do? anyone konws how to do this THANKS + who can read this + are you answering to the email adress?

send bottom or where to is it sending???? public???? I donT understand how to contact you ---its like since so long - I had done everything + a person tilt it- because I put my photo from me inn

this is the snadbox page

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gewaechshaus/sandbox

love Micha Das Bach — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gewaechshaus (talk • contribs) 17:34, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello Micha, welcome to the Teahouse. I have good news, and I have bad news to give you. Firstly, the good news : another editor (MarkZusab) has helpfully added a 'submit template' to your sandbox page which would allow you to submit your article for review. You would simply click the blue 'submit' button for another editor to be prompted to review it ...a process that can take some weeks, as we are all volunteers here. We don't give out personal email addresses or communicate in that way - everything is done openly online here.

But there is very bad news, too. The article you have written about yourself is far from being acceptable to Wikipedia. You are not allowed to use Wikipedia to promote your artistic or business activities. As far as I can see, none of the references contribute to the essential requirement of demonstrating that you meet our notable artist requirements. Although they demonstrate that you have been busy over many years as an artist, and that you have participated in a number of exhibitions, they are not sufficient in my view. What you need to do is include detailed references to reliable independent sources that have written about you in detail and in depth, or to demonstrate that your work has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

The other bad news is that you very clearly have a 'Conflict of Interest' (COI), which you must declare. Wikipedia strongly discourages users from writing articles about themselves. Please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and follow the instructions for declaring that connection if you are set on having your sandbox reviewed by our Articles for Creation team. You should also read WP:YOURSELF to understand the reasons for not pursue this self-promotional path, and to let other, non-involved editors writing about you instead.

I have not commented on the lack on inline citations or the somewhat artsy-style of writing, which is non-encyclopaedic in tone.  Resolving those can come later. I have left a 'welcome' message on your talk page with more links about contributing when you have a COI. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:36, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

American College of International Physicians page

I just created and edited the article that should be linked to the list of one of the entries for what ACIP stands for, however, I'm not able to find how to link the material to what the page in reference, for that reason, we will highly appreciate your help in letting us know how to work the process to make it happen.
In advance, for your time, help and consideration, we thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mvgg6226 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

@Mvgg6226: Sorry but your draft article at User:Mvgg6226/sandbox consists almost entirely of copyrighted material. This is a copyright violation; Wikipedia cannot allow copyrighted material, even if it's only meant to exist for a short time to develop a proper article. You must express the content in your own words without copying or closely paraphrasing the original material. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:45, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Create a summary box for a bio page

Hello gentle and wise folks ... how do I create, please, the little summary box that sometimes appears at the top right corner of the page with details like name, parents, spouses, offspring, etc (in the case of a person) or various other details for other topics? Much obliged for your help!Mecla (talk) 17:46, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi again, Ive just spotted this. {{Infobox person}} should be the one you're looking for. RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 18:35, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

There are also various more specific infoboxes listed at WP:WikiProject Biography/Infoboxes and at Category:People and person infobox templates. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:42, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Editing "E H Carr". Can I suggest changes rather than make the change? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._H._Carr

In Wikipedia article for E.H. Carr, the following appears under "early life". At Cambridge, Carr was much impressed by hearing one of his professors lecture on how the Peloponnesian War influenced Herodotus in the writing of the Histories.[5] article is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._H._Carr

I am no expert in this area but believe "Peloponnesian War" should be "Persian Wars". Have read Carr but not Herodotus.

As I understand, the Histories were written in 440 BC and the Peloponessian War began 430 BC, ~5 yrs before death of Herodotus. The Persian Wars (by lookup) were from 499-449 BC.

Can I submit this as a suggestion, or do I go ahead and edit? I could be wrong somehow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John10k (talk • contribs) 18:13, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Be bold and make the change unless there is an established consensus against it as long as you're changes are reliably sourced. RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 18:32, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Need clarification about the page Alfred de Zayas

Last night I had a curious experience about 2-5 minutes after I had completed editing the Alfred de Zayas Wikipedia page in which I wrote the following:

The UN Independent Expert advocated for legal compliance within the territory of the Hawaiian Islands, by publishing a pertinent legal memorandum involving illegal American military occupation. The memorandum clearly states:

"I have come to understand that the lawful political status of the Hawaiian Islands is that of a sovereign nation-state in continuity; but a nation state that is under a strange form of occupation by the United States resulting from an illegal military occupation and fraudulent annexation. As such, international laws (The Hague and Geneva Conventions) require that governance and legal matters within the occupied territory of the Hawaiian Islands must be administered by the application of laws by the occupied state (in this case, the Hawaiian Kingdom) not the domestic laws of the occupier (the United States)."

The complete memorandum is published here: https://hawaiiankingdom.org/p…/Dr_deZayas_Memo_2_25_2018.pdf

However, my post was removed by Oshawah. The reason given was for supposed lack of citation, although I cited a link to his memorandum PDF using the website link above, and did so in the correct wikipedia citation format. So I re-edited and left 2 citations. The second citation was The Guardian newspaper which quotes the memorandum. I took a screenshot after the second edit, which is posted here. Again my post was removed, this time by "Melcous", who said it was for: "...making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Alfred-Maurice de Zayas. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted...Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Melcous (talk) 10:04, 26 January 2019 (UTC)" (reference the second screenshot in this post) This is removal of clearly factual and easily verifiable information that is significantly groundbreaking in its impacts and implications in Hawaii. I see no reason why this is "unconstructive" or "disruptive"? Please advise... — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpeakingTruthToPower4Freedom (talk • contribs) 19:01, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

The link that you posted above is dead. Ruslik_Zero 20:32, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Here is the correct link: https://hawaiiankingdom.org/pdf/Dr_deZayas_Memo_2_25_2018.pdf. There was a typo in the link SpeakingTruthToPower4Freedom posted above. MarkZusab (talk) 22:05, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, SpeakingTruthToPower4Freedom. You tried to insert the same content into three different places in the same biography. That is disruptive even if it was unintentional. You tried to link to the hawaiiankingdom.org website operated by David Keanu Sai. This is an advocacy website and not a reliable source by Wikipedia's standards, and your link is defective and not functional. You used advocacy language pushing a point of view, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. On the other hand, the Guardian reference is useful, and can be used to support neutrally written content about this opinion of de Zayas. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. The place to discuss the specific edit is Talk: Alfred-Maurice de Zayas. Your username motivates me to inform you that Wikipedia is not a place to right great wrongs. All that being said, I agree that the annexation of the Kingdom of Hawaii by the United States was a terrible injustice, and that Wikipedia needs to cover those events and their contemporary results accurately and neutrally. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:41, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

While I can agree that perhaps my link was "dead" or was a misprint somehow, and that I may have been in error in placing the excerpt in multiple locations throughout de Zayas page, however I strongly disagree that the content of my post used advocacy language. I simply summarized what de Zayas himself wrote, and then published an excerpt from his memorandum. Can you please explain the words that indicate advocacy, beyond what de Zayas himself is advocating in his memorandum (after all this is his wikipedia page, can we not print or summarize his advocacy?). I suppose if I didn't use the words "pertinent" (legal memorandum) and "clearly" (states) it would sound less like advocacy? Other than that I am simply summarizing de Zayas and then printing an excerpt from his memorandum. And finally to respond to your last point in which I appreciate your sympathy for the situation- what de Zayas points out in his memorandum is that The Hawaiian Kingdom was never annexed by the United States and is therefore an ongoing military occupation- which is now a known legal fact of international law. Alfred de Zayas work on this issue has had a profound impact in Hawaii, and should be recognized somewhere in this page. Please advise what would be acceptable language... — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpeakingTruthToPower4Freedom (talk • contribs) 02:46, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps if I publish it like this:

The UN Independent Expert advocated for legal compliance within the territory of the Hawaiian Islands, by publishing a legal memorandum that states:

"I have come to understand that the lawful political status of the Hawaiian Islands is that of a sovereign nation-state in continuity; but a nation state that is under a strange form of occupation by the United States resulting from an illegal military occupation and fraudulent annexation. As such, international laws (The Hague and Geneva Conventions) require that governance and legal matters within the occupied territory of the Hawaiian Islands must be administered by the application of laws by the occupied state (in this case, the Hawaiian Kingdom) not the domestic laws of the occupier (the United States)." — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpeakingTruthToPower4Freedom (talk • contribs) 02:55, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

SpeakingTruthToPower4Freedom, as I told you previously, the proper place to discuss this matter is Talk: Alfred-Maurice de Zayas, and you have not yet posted there.

You wrote "In February of 2018, de Zayas advocated for legal compliance within the territory of the Hawaiian Islands, by publishing a pertinent legal memorandum involving illegal American military occupation. The memorandum clearly states:"

You simply cannot state "illegal American military occupation" in Wikipedia's voice. That is non-neutral editorializing. Use of the term "clearly states" is also non-neutral since those words imply that the opinions of de Zayas are more credible than other opinions on the matter. Using variations of the word "legal" three times in a sentence is poor writing.

When you write above that the theory that de Zayas supports is "now a known legal fact of international law", you are making an unsupported assertion. In order to say anything like that on Wikipedia, you must provide a reference to an impeccable reliable source that says that, and if other reliable sources contradict that (and they do), then the views of the contrary sources must be reflected as well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:25, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Sure, I will check in at the deZayas page- however since you are discussing this with me I will continue to respond here as well. First, it was not my personal opinion that Hawaii is under an "illegal military occupation"- that is exactly what de Zayas himself writes in the memorandum (and again its HIS wikipedia page). I was summarizing his statement using his language- not my personal opinion. However, I agree that the use of the word "clearly" and over-use of the word "legal" is biased and poor writing.

My personal opinion and observation that the situation is "now a known legal fact of international law", was never published on wikipedia, but a personal comment in our discussion. However, you can read Dr. Keanu Sai's PHD Dissertation which he had to defend against a committee of international law professors and experts. His argument was also accepted at the permanent court of arbitration, and by Alfred de Zayas. I do not know why you asked me to cite my sources on that statement as it was a personal comment in our discussion, but also because you did not cite sources for your claim that there are other legal opinions (or facts) in the matter. All that being said, I am more concerned with how I can publish the excerpt from de Zayas. Does the following form comply with your standards? Please advise:

The UN Independent Expert advocated for legal compliance within the territory of the Hawaiian Islands, publishing a legal memorandum that states:

"I have come to understand that the lawful political status of the Hawaiian Islands is that of a sovereign nation-state in continuity; but a nation state that is under a strange form of occupation by the United States resulting from an illegal military occupation and fraudulent annexation. As such, international laws (The Hague and Geneva Conventions) require that governance and legal matters within the occupied territory of the Hawaiian Islands must be administered by the application of laws by the occupied state (in this case, the Hawaiian Kingdom) not the domestic laws of the occupier (the United States)." — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpeakingTruthToPower4Freedom (talk • contribs) 04:11, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

SpeakingTruthToPower4Freedom, for the third time, discuss this at Talk: Alfred-Maurice de Zayas. You have not done so. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:32, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Discussion is now underway on the article talk page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:02, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Undefined Rejection

Hello,

I recently submitted two separate articles for publishing and both were rejected for an undefined reason..

Could you please help me to understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Professor talbot (talk • contribs) 20:06, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

In each case the reviewer left a comment on the draft page. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:10, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

And you are actually three for three on declined. Bluntly, your references are not good enough to confirm these businesses or people as notable by Wikipedia's standards. A couple were one-sentence mentions, when what is needed are longer, more detailed publications about the topics. One was a interview with the subject. What a person says about themselves or their business is not a reliable source. For Draft:Jersey Champs in particular, your 2nd and 3rd refs are both to the same interview. Your 1st ref is just a company financial profile. David notMD (talk) 20:15, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Professor talbot, I am sorry but I have deleted your drafts as unambiguously promotional. Please be aware that Wikipedia is not a promotional platform. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:17, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

How to start?

What can I do here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drunkguyash (talk • contribs) 21:16, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Drunkguyash. Welcome - you've made your first edit here at the Teahouse. Great to hear from you. There are a million things you could usefully do here to improve the worlds greatest online encyclopaedia. The trick is finding ones that interest you, and ensuring you go about doing it the right way! Let me help you by suggesting you try our interactive introduction. It's called The Wikipedia Adventure, and offers you the chance to collect 15 badges on your userpage as you learn the basics of editing (improving) this encyclopaedia. There are tons and tons of things that need doing to improve existing article, so this page: (Wikipedia:Task Center) is a summary of the different types. Best advice is to find one or more articles on things that interest you. Look for minor changes you can make to improve it - like spelling, punctuation, or better wording. Avoid adding any personal opinions or "things you happen to know but can't prove". This is a big no-no here. Later, you can learn to add references to support statement that don't yet have any evidence to prove that they're right. Adding references is extremely important, but can be a bit tricky at first for complete newcomers. In due course, assuming you decide to stick around, do take a look at Help:Referencing for beginners - but maybe just try some simple editing first. You did make one test edit to an article which has just been reverted - that's OK. But in future, do use your 'sandbox' to experiment with how edits look. There's a link to your own sandbox at the top of the page, or you can use Wikipedia:Sandbox which anyone can edit as a test. You could add a few lines about yourself and your interests on you own userpage, too. This helps others understand your motives for wanting to contribute here... just don't reveal any personal details, especially if you're a minor. I'm sure you'll have a million and one other questions, so do come back to the Teahouse anytime, but ask us only a few at a time! If you can remember, type four keyboard tildes (like this:~~~~) at the end of every talk page post. That automatically adds your username and a timestamp. that we we all know who said what, and when. Good luck, and let us know how you get on. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:22, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Improperly marked my first two edits as minor.

My sincere apologies but my first two edits I classified as minor when the difference is more than superficial.

I've attempted to locate the option to uncheck minor edit but have been unable to do so.

Am I missing the option or will it require the assistance of a more senior editor to make the change on my behalf?

Thank you.

Vcpecon (talk) 21:30, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

@Vcpecon: Welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for being vigilant. This isn't something that can be corrected, as far as I know. Just be more careful in the future. RudolfRed (talk) 21:35, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

@RudolfRed: Noted and thank you for the quick and helpful reply. Vcpecon (talk) 21:42, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Is it OK to use self-published statistics?

When a website displays statistics, can you use those in an article or are they to be deemed as self-published and unreliable? Should one wait for a secondary source to publish the numbers? Asking on behalf of Draft:TSUKI_Project, as it has a counter of members (not right now, but when the draft gets a reply the official website may be out of maintenance mode again), but I'm not sure if it's OK to use its official member count, or just use the count specified in a secondary source (as the original author of the draft has done)... Anyone know what's proper to do here? ShindoNana (talk) 22:18, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

@ShindoNana: That is probably OK. Wikipedia does allow using self-published info in some cases. See WP:ABOUTSELF. RudolfRed (talk) 22:52, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) A subject's own website is not appropriate for establishing WP:Notability, but once independent WP:Reliable sources have shown notability, then the website can be quoted for a limited amount of basic facts that are not likely to be disputed. Secondary sources are usually preferred at Wikipedia. Dbfirs 22:55, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, ShindoNana. I must disagree with RudolfRed on this matter. According to WP:SELFPUB, self-published material is allowed as long as "the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim". In this case, the topic is a cult with a deranged and delusional belief system. Such cults are motivated to inflate their influence and membership. I would not accept a single solitary thing this cult says as being factual. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:02, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Thank you for that correction. I must admit I was thinking in more general terms and did not review the draft page. RudolfRed (talk) 23:09, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

... and I made the same mistake by replying in general terms and not checking the subject.  Dbfirs 23:15, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you both for the swift replies, that makes sense. I could definitely see a cult do that, so I'll stick to the used secondary statistic, then! ShindoNana (talk) 22:50, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

How to edit a user's page

I still can't edit users pages — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polycarp Iwodi (talk • contribs) 23:05, 27 January 2019 (UTC) I want to edit users pages,especially those i know i've played a part in their careers.

See WP:user pages. The main user page is usually considered to belong to the individual user so you should not normally edit these without permission. Sub-pages and sandboxes may be used for collaborative editing. WP:user talk pages are for communicating with the users. I see that you have been editing User:Polycarp Iwodi to make it look like an article. This is not permitted. Perhaps if you changed it to first-person it might be acceptable, but this page is intended for you to say something about yourself and how you intend to improve Wikipedia. It should not be a personal profile. Dbfirs 23:42, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello Polycarp Iwodi, welcome back to the Teahouse. I don't understand why you say are unable to edit another user's page. I presume you mean their talk page? If so, having found the editor's own userpage, look for the 'Talk' tab towards the top of the page in desktop view, or the blue, 'talk' link in mobile view. Feel free to click the 'talk' link after my signature and try to leave me a message, remembering that new discussion go at the bottom of a page, not at the top. To make it easy, in desktop view there's an 'Add topic' tab towards the top of the page for you to click to start a new discussion.

That said, I don't understand your follow-up comment about editing those user's pages whose careers you have played a part in. Most editors have anonymous usernames, so how would you know who they really are? If you are thinking of editing actual articles about a notable person (presumably a musician?) who you believe you have influenced personally, you'd need to be extremely careful that you're only adding factually-based comments, supported by independent reliable references. You can't leave comments in the hope that you'll be promoting yourself via their pages - this would be a conflict or interest and would be quickly removed as promotion/spam. To that end, I was concerned, like Dbfirs about the content you have already placed on your Wikipedia userpage here. That's why I left you a little warning message about it on your own talk page. I'm afraid it is written in a way that resembles a mainspace encyclopaedia article, and in the third person. This is not appropriate content to leave there (see WP:FAKEARTICLE). Just saying a couple of lines to say who you are (using the first person tense) is OK, but not like this. Please delete the content and write something less 'promotional' about who you are and your interests in editing Wikipedia. If someone else spots it they're quite likely to propose it for deletion - so the best way is for you to quickly change it yourself. If I've misunderstood what it is you actually want to achieve here, do reply with further explanation, and someone will get back to you. Regards from the UK, and maybe I'll get a test message from you on my talkpage soon! Nick Moyes (talk) 23:54, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

User page has been sent to MfD. CoolSkittle (talk) 00:28, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, CoolSkittle Here at the Teahouse we do try to give users a bit more leeway - hence my gentle invitation to Polycarp Iwodi to remove the promotional content themselves. But what's done is done. @Polycarp Iwodi: You are welcome to re-create your userpage, but not with the same kind of content you had there before. Hope you'll still want to continue editing the encyclopaedia, though. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:35, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Something about math

Hello I am a newcomer to Wikipedia! Sorry for my bad grammar.. My textbook of Mathematical analysis told me to prove $\left\{n\sin {\frac {180^{\circ }}{n}}\right\}$ converge. Of course, it converges to π, then the proof says "Let $t={\frac {180^{\circ }}{n(n+1)}}$", then it started to use the monotone bounded sequence convergence theorem to prove it is convergent. But how did it get t?

Welcome to the Teahouse, Abel Sage Feynman. The Teahouse is for asking and answering questions about editing Wikipedia. Please ask your question at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Mathematics instead. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:01, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Need help about how to prove that the subject of article is relevant enough to make it's own Wikipedia page

Hi, I would like to ask for your help to review this article I have made. First of all, I'm sorry if my wording or grammar is a bit off. There is (2) things that I need more guidance, in which it's about my draft article titled Lee Dae-hwi.

1) How do I prove that the subject of the article is relevant enough in the songwriting area? Lee Dae-hwi has made his name in the Korean Medias that he has been active in making, composing, producing songs. He already made 8 songs (1 unreleased in music sites, but has been played on broadcast). As he already active as songwriter, it is noted that he still has not released his songs with himself as the singer. I have added the online news links for the references, but it seems that the last review I got is that it's still did not show significant coverage and not enough to prove his relevancy in such area.

2) How do I prove that Lee Dae-hwi's released songs has been released legally / How do i credit them properly? As I got the review that my article has not meet the Notability of musician, I need your guidance in which part(s) that I should fix. I need to know if I need to put more details for the songs' copyrights.

Lastly, Thank you so much for your patience in reading my questions. I would very much appreciate it if you could help me. --Otterlyhwi (talk) 02:05, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Otterlyhwi. As was noted in the reviews of Draft:Lee Dae-hwi, it was determined in a deletion discussion that he is not notable as a singer separately from Wanna One. For the guideline for notability as a songwriter see WP:COMPOSER. The most likely criterion for him would be #1: “Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition.” For the guideline for the notability of a song see WP:NSONG—a pretty high standard. Does one of his songs meet one of these criteria? (Do not worry about copyrights and legal release of his songs.) —teb728 t c 01:47, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Capitol Studios article

I just read the article on Capitol Studios (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Studios), which partially seems more like an advertisement than a Wikipedia article. I am not sure if this is the right forum to bring this up, but since (at least among recording nerds) these studios are considered to be far from unimportant, I didn't just want to bury my comment in the talk section. Thanks. Garrrick (talk) 02:20, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Garrrick: Welcome to the Teahouse! In addition to the option of helping improve it directly (the best option!), we also have an advert template (Template:Advert) that you can place at the top of the article using {{Advert|date=January 2019}}; this will warn readers and editors that the article is written like an ad. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 02:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

It seems in this edit, the whole article was rewritten to consist of a large amount of unsourced advertisement-like material. I don't have much time to deal with this right now but I will if I get the chance. Thanks for letting us know! Cheers, --SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 02:44, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! Garrrick (talk) 10:40, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

City populations

I was recently looking up the population of Minneapolis/St.Paul compared to San Diego CA. The page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_statistical_area, does not even list San Diego, CA. How can this be right? San Diego is roughly the 8th largest city in the U.S. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lsmatthys (talk • contribs) 07:13, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Simply that San Diego is not a "combined statistical area", the meaning of which is explained in the lede of the article and which are listed in ref 2 of the article. CSAs are for combined authorities such as Minneapolis/St.Paul and Dallas/Fort Worth, not for individual cities. The "See also" section of the article includes a link to List of United States cities by population which of course does include San Diego. - David Biddulph (talk) 07:26, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Lsmatthys. San Diego is not a part of a combined statistical area. Instead, it is part of the San Diego-Carlsbad Metropolitan Statistical Area. Please read this link. Combined statistical areas consist of very large urban concentrations of many cities. The San Diego and Carlsbad statistical area is hemmed in by the Pacific Ocean to the west, Mexico to the south, the El Centro statistical area to the east, and the massive statistical areas of Los Angeles, Orange County and San Bernardino to the north. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:40, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Copyrighted contend

Hello!

My entry was deleted because there was copyrighted contend in it. I think the relevant content is a table. The owner of the original article asked me to put in there. So my question is if there is a way to upload the table with his permission even though it's copyrighted? If yes how could he give this permission?

Thank you! Gianna — Preceding unsigned comment added by GiannaHenkel (talk • contribs) 07:23, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

The process for him to release the copyright, if he wishes to do so, is at WP:Donating copyrighted material. Otherwise, you will have to reword things in your own words. --David Biddulph (talk) 07:29, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Thans for the quick reply! Is there also a way to find out if there are other copyrighted phrases in the text? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GiannaHenkel (talk • contribs) 07:38, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Anything that has previously been published elsewhere is copyrighted (whether or not specifically labelled as such), unless specifically defined as free from copyright or released under an appropriate licence. There is further explanation at WP:FAQ/Copyright. The simple answer is to write the article in your own words. --David Biddulph (talk) 07:46, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

On your User page, you will need to declare whether your connection to the owner/author of the table is paid. If not paid, you will still need to indicate a conflict of interest. David notMD (talk) 10:57, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Lack of credible pages for citing

Hello everyone! I'm excited to begin creating articles on Wikipedia. I'm having a bit of trouble getting approval on my first article. Do we need to cite any works by an author? While I was able to cite 2 of the book titles, I'm having trouble with the 3rd. If there's no credible site to reference, is it best to just leave the book title off entirely in order to meet the Wikipedia requirements?

Also, if we include information in the "career" section, does it need to have a reference cite-source as well? There's certain information that I only see available on the writer's personal page, but I was informed that we can't use someone's personal page. (Side note: I also see that the writer has multiple other interviews and mentions through various pages, but I don't believe any would qualify as being allowed since they aren't as notable as something such as The New York Times, etc.) With that being said, I do see other 'live' pages using a notable person's personal page as a reference. Is there an exception for some but not others? And, how should I go around that?

I'm really looking forward to getting the hang of article creation and would be grateful for any input. Thank you for your time reading this! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Animegearlab (talk • contribs) 08:05, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

What is needed to demonstrate notability is coverage in multiple published reliable sources independent of the subject, so neither books by the subject nor interviews with her are suitable for this purpose. Primary sources can be used for some purposes, but not to demonstrate notability. You may find existing articles without sufficient secondary sources if the article hasn't been carefully scrutinised, but "other stuff exists" is not a valid argument for including further inadequately-sourced articles. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:14, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, @Animegearlab:. As a non-native English speaker I am not quite sure I fully understand your problem, but as far as I do you hesitate to reference some off-line sources, not published in Internet. Is that right?

If so, please refer to WP:SOURCEACCESS in the Verifiability policy, which explicitly says sources do not need be easily accessible. You can find more explanation at Wikipedia:Offline sources. Best regards, and good luck in editing! :) CiaPan (talk) 08:42, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Vis-a-vis Draft:Aya Knight I am confirming what DB wrote. Listing books by the person who is the subject of the proposed article does not contribute to establishing notability. Ditto citing published interviews. What you need is independent writing ABOUT the person. Can be website or print. David notMD (talk) 11:05, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone! The feedback was really helpful. I'm hoping to create a series of articles revolving around notable novel writers and anime series that aren't yet included in the encyclopedia. It's taking me a bit longer than I expected to adjust to the requirements, formatting, and general navigation as a content creator - but, I'm confident that I'll get the hang of it soon. I appreciate everyone's time in providing feedback! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Animegearlab (talk • contribs) 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Article review on Talk Page

I have been requested to update an article on an Agribusiness company which is quite extensive. I would like to publish my update in comparative form to the existing article on its Talk Page. I have the updated article in my sandbox [1]. What is the best way to publish it on the Talk page? Gibmul (talk) 12:27, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Creating a new version of an article is rarely a good idea, you are welcome to make suggestions on the talk page, but beware the article is already plagued with conflict of interest paid edits, so I am not going to encourage you. Theroadislong (talk) 14:08, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

What I am trying to achieve is this type of comparitive example for the Talk Page so that editors can decide which edits they would accept https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=742003912 Gibmul (talk) 16:15, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I see that you have properly declared PAID on your User page and the Talk page of the article. My suggestion is to start a new section on the Talk page of the article and for a section of the article, paste in the existing text and your proposed revision. Maybe start with History. Then, up to other editors to implement or not. Repeat. This will be a slow process, as there is not a lot of traffic to the article in question. David notMD (talk) 16:25, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance.Gibmul (talk) 15:43, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

How to create an article?

I want to create an article about the video game Wrestling Revolution 3D. Can you please tell me how to do it?Cedric Grazer (talk) 13:24, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Cedric Grazer, Greetings. Pls read WP:Your First Article and referencing for beginners to familiar yourself on how to create an article and info on inline citation. You could create article via WP:AFC wizard [HERE. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:37, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

@Cedric Grazer: (ec) Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I would caution you that successfully creating a new article is probably the hardest thing to do on Wikipedia. It takes much time and practice. New users who dive right in to creating articles often end up disappointed and with hurt feelings as their work is mercilessly edited and even deleted. I don't want that to happen to you. New users are much more successful when they take the time to first learn about Wikipedia and what is expected of new articles and contributions in general. They also take time to first make small edits to existing articles, to get a feel for the process. I would strongly advise you to use the new user tutorial(click that link) and take some time to first edit existing articles that interest you.

When you feel ready, or if you still want to dive right in to creating articles, you should read Your First Article to learn what is expected. This includes gathering at least three independent reliable sources that discuss the subject you want to write about in depth. This excludes things like press releases or anything associated with the subject directly. You can then visit Articles for Creation to create and submit a draft for review by another editor, who will give you feedback before the draft is formally placed in the encyclopedia, instead of afterwards when it will be treated more critically. 331dot (talk) 13:40, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Editing my page

I am trying to remove my birthdate from my page. I have done necessary edits, but it does not remove it. Please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviatorgypsy (talk • contribs) 13:59, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

@Aviatorgypsy: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I would note that the page is an article about you and not "your page". Your edits are being reverted because you appear to other editors be just a random person removing information from the article. You will need to confirm your identity with Wikipedia by emailing the address at the end of the paragraph clicking this link brings you to. You can then make an edit request on the article's talk page, as autobiographical edits are discouraged. While it can be removed, it will be difficult to keep out of the article if your birthdate is published in reliable sources. If it is not widely available in reliable sources, it will be easier to keep out(and should be, as all information in articles needs to be sourced) 331dot (talk) 14:05, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

My First article got rejected

Hi,

I was creating my first article and it got rejected. Please suggest what should i do to make that article public? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kidscampusnoida (talk • contribs) 14:10, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

@Kidscampusnoida: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I am sorry, but I had to delete your draft, as it was not appropriate for an encyclopedia article. Encyclopedia articles cannot be promotional and their content must be supported with independent reliable sources that offer significant coverage of the subject. You also are associated with the school and as such you have a conflict of interest and must declare as a paid editor; please click those links to review those policies. You must also immediately request a change in username using one of the two methods at WP:CHU as usernames cannot be that of an organization. As you have a conflict of interest, you should not directly edit in its area. 331dot (talk) 14:15, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I have posted some information on your user talk page about how you can request a new username. 331dot (talk) 14:16, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

How To Become A Volunteer / Admin

Does anyone know how to become a volunteer for the wikipedia, besically work for them :)

Jeriqui123 (talk) 14:11, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jeriqui123 and welcome to the Teahouse! We are all volunteers here, so if you want to help out, just start improving or expanding articles you are interested in. Admins are just a group with some special tools to make it easier for us do necessary cleanup but they are only granted to editors who have been active for more than a year with several thousand edits, so I suggest you try editing first. And if you need any help, check the guide at Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia or feel free to ask here. Regards SoWhy 14:17, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

@Jeriqui123: (ec) Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. All you need to do to become a volunteer here is visit and be willing to participate, which you seem to have done. I would suggest that you take the new user tutorial to learn about how Wikipedia works and how you can participate. Becoming an administrator almost always takes years, as you build up an edit history and reputation that shows the community that you understand Wikipedia policies and processes. You don't need to be an administrator to do 95% of what needs to be done on Wikipedia, so I wouldn't worry about it. 331dot (talk) 14:19, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hello, Jeriqui123. This looks like a pile-on welcome for you! It's great to have you here at the Teahouse. Welcome. As has been said, anyone who edits anything on Wikipedia is a volunteer, as none of us get paid for what we contribute. Wikipedia is a freely available, open-to-anyone-to-edit sort of amazing encyclopaedia of notable stuff. So each of us contributes to the things that interest us. And you can do the same, too. The best way is to take our tour, called The Wikipedia Adventure which lets you gain up to 15 badges on your userpage as you learn the basics of how everything works. Being an 'Administrator' is a responsible position which any editor can become, subject to the rest of the community here approving them. It usually takes a few years and a lot of editing experience to gain sufficient broad knowledge to take on that role. But, once again, they're unpaid volunteers too! And all that volunteer effort has created what you see today - over 5 million articles on the English Wikipedia alone, and a resource that everyone from junior children to research scientists utilise. I have left you a welcome message on your talk page, full of a load of links and stuff to help you become a great editor. As you appear to be a young user, take care not to reveal any personal information about yourself that you might later wish you hadn't. We care very much for the safety of new, young editors, so feel free to take a look at Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors. Remember that we judge people (if that's the right word to use) not by their age, their gender or other stuff - but simply by the quality of what they contribute, and how they go about dealing with other editors. Good luck at the start of your very own Wikipedia adventure! Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:34, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Ideas

How to get ideas of editing? If I want to make small edits like spelling mistakes, how can I find those? Drunkguyash (talk) 15:06, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Welcome, User:Drunkguyash! Check out the Typo Team pages to find lists of misspellings you can help us correct. Schazjmd (talk) 15:09, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

@Drunkguyash: Can I ask, what are your hobbies and interests? One easy way to find things to improve here is simply to read articles about your favourite subjects. You might then follow links from that page to other ones (call it Wiki-surfing, if you will), or click the categories at the very bottom to find related articles. Along the way you're bound to stumble across spelling, punctuation and other things that cry out for some editor love and attention. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 18:07, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Trying to add article for deletion

And I'm failing miserably. Using manual method. See today's list. Thanks. Aurornisxui (talk) 17:00, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Your afd3 template submission failed because you had nowiki tags and other formatting. I've fixed it, as you'll see in this edit. The easiest way of doing the 3 steps is to use Twinkle. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:09, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much!! I will try Twinkle next time. Aurornisxui (talk) 17:13, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Simple question but hard to answer it

How can I change a name of an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. James Dimsey (talk • contribs) 19:20, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

You move it to a new title. See Help:How to move a page. --Jayron32 19:26, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Bradley Steyn

Hello Teahouse, My rugby mate, Bradley Steyn has had an incredibly unique life experience that he is making a good faith effort to leverage into social change concerning violence in South Africa. His story has been covered by multiple news outlets and he is releasing a memoir, published by Jacarta, along with a corresponding documentary, potentially funded by Kevin Kostner. Please review the stub article that I have created for "Bradley Steyn" and help me understand how to present this information in a way that upholds the wiki's standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esreekay (talk • contribs) 20:34, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

@Esreekay: The article looks dangerously vulnerable to being deleted as an A7. You may wish to add an introductory section. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 22:23, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

@Esreekay: I do tend to agree with A lad insane. I saw it half an hour or so ago at New Page Patrol, but decided to leave it a while as it had already been tagged regarding notability. There are lots of amazing people in the world (you and me included!), but for someone to merit a Wikipedia page, we need to see a number of articles that have written about them in quite some depth. (See WP:NBIO for details). I do think you will need more than what you've currently found about a witness to a massacre that, itself, doesn't yet have a Wikipedia page about it. The Pressreader article from Pretoria News seems moderately strong. Can you find any more like that to include? Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:59, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

@Esreekay: In addition to what the others have posted above, you're also going to have to verify the copyright ownership of the image you're using in the main infobox. Generally, it is the person taking a photo, not the person being photographed, who is considered the copyright owner of said photo; so, I don't think you can claim that photo (technically those photos) as being authored by Steyn himself unless he can show that copyright was officially transfered to him. Moreover, you uploaded the image as a single file, but it actually looks like a montage of three different images. The montage itself might be considered a derivative work eligible for its own copyright, but the copyrights of the individual photos themselves also need to be considered. Commons will not be able to keep the file unless you can estalish that the person or persons who took each of these photos have given their explicit consent for his/her/their work to be uploaded to Commons under the license you chose when uploading the file. If obtaining this position seems too much of a hassle or unlikely to be granted even if you do ask, then my suggestion to you would be to tag the Commons file for deletion using c:Template:SD and request deletion per c:COM:CSD#G7. You can then (if you want) take your own photo of Steyn and upload that to Commons under a free license of your choosing.

Finally, you should also not really be creating any new articles or adding content to existing articles about Steyn if he's one of your friends because you would be considered to have a conflict of interest with respect to him for Wikipedia purposes. Please see WP:COISELF for more details. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:45, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Koreans in Uzbekistan. What should I do ? How to deal with the statistics of dictatorial regimes that can be distorted?

I have a problem. There are official statistics of the Republic of Uzbekistan. However, it is clearly distorted. It does not reflect the mass exodus of Koreans from this republic between the years 2001-2016.

So from Uzbekistan 52 thousand Koreans returned to South Korea. However, in the state statistics of Uzbekistan this outcome is not recorded. The same statistics do not reflect the religious discrimination of Koreans in Uzbekistan - they are Christians of different denominations, and Uzbekistan is an Islamic country with a dictatorial regime.

The estimated real value of Koreans in Uzbekistan is 78 thousand. But official statistics show almost 100 thousand more.

What should I do ? How to deal with the statistics of dictatorial regimes that can be distorted?Hatchiko (talk) 23:39, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Hatchiko. Do you have published reliable sources for the correct statistics? If so use that —teb728 t c 02:17, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

I see you have raised this issue at Talk:Koryo-saram#Figures_for_Uzbekistan, where you will probably get answers from more knowledgeable editors. Maybe wait until you get a reply there? Also, you should maybe make clearer that the issue is with the infobox number, not with any content of the article text. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 13:38, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello?

Hello this is ToodyFoot what is his — Preceding unsigned comment added by ToodyDoot (talk • contribs) 01:44, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Teahouse is a place to ask questions about how to be a Wikipedia editor. David notMD (talk) 02:15, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Possible future admin nomination

How long does it usually take for someone to get admin nominated? I previously was nominated (but failed) on Wikivoyage. I know I have a checkered past on both sites, so if you tell me how long I should wait to apply, make it about double the normal time. Libertarianmoderate (talk) 01:47, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

This Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Libertarianmoderate/Archive suggests you had/have sockpuppets, at least at Wikivoyage. You were also blocked, then unblocked in December (description you deleted from your Talk page). Highly unlikely you will ever make Admin. David notMD (talk) 02:42, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

I suggest that you spend the next three years (at least) making only constructive edits, and no silly comments. Also avoid creating or using any sockpuppet accounts, and show that you have a thorough understanding of Wikipedia policies, then you might consider applying, and some editors might vote for you. I've been editing for more than ten years, and do not yet feel that I have a thorough enough understanding of some policies to apply for adminship. Dbfirs 09:06, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Edits like this [2] would suggest that you are not serious about editing here let alone gaining admin rights. Theroadislong (talk) 10:18, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

How to make a meetup page

Hello! I co-organised an editathon last year and someone helpfully setup a meetup page for the event. I cannot find how to make a new meetup page for the new event, could anyone help me locate that info? I made a draft and tried to move it, which I thought would work, but there is no "meetup" space to move it to that I can see. Help! /Louise000 (talk)/ —Preceding undated comment added 03:41, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Louise000. I believe the namespace used for "Meet up" pages in the "Wikipedia" namespace. As for how to create the page, maybe you can find that information in Wikipedia:Meetup. You could also try looking at some of the pages in Category:Wikipedia meetups and see if there's one whose formatting you like; you can then probably just format the one you want to create the same way. My only other advice to you is to not add any non-free images to the page since doing so is not allowed per Wikipedia non-free content use criterion #9; so, if you want to use images, you should probably stick to using those already uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:20, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi User:Marchjuly. Thank you, with your help I was able to figure it out. The info I needed was that yes it is indeed the "Wikipedia" namespace as you suggested and that it can be located into the meetup subfolder by just adding "Meetup/" before the page title, which is straight forward but not completely obvious. Glad it worked!!

/Louise000 (talk)/ —Preceding undated comment added 05:03, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Searching for a template

This template says something along the line of "This article only deals with TOPIC as it is in the United States. Expand it with international uses of TOPIC." I know it exists because I've seen it in the past year, but no idea where. I spent quite a while trying to find it in templates by category, such as Category:Hatnote templates, and learned many very interesting things about templates, but didn't find it. And I can't devise a search for it. The article I want to put it on is Game show. Thanks. deisenbe (talk) 05:50, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Sounds like {{Globalize/US}}, one of a family derived from {{Globalize}}. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:18, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Including an Image to an Article

Hi folks! I hope everyone is having an excellent day. Being new to Wikipedia, I'm still having a bit of trouble dissecting instruction on how to handle certain formatting. On an article, does Wikipedia automatically generate the 'right side info box' images? Or, is this something I should manually include when creating an article? If this is something I should be doing, can anyone please instruct me as to how to format the infobox?

I do see the 'media' button at the top, but I wasn't sure if that simply embeds the .jpg into the article itself, versus the right infobox.

Thank you for your time!

-Mason, Animegearlab — Preceding unsigned comment added by Animegearlab (talk • contribs) 07:03, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Please read Template:Infobox book which should show you how to implement infoboxes. The image location like [[File:Example]] goes in the image = line

You may also find WP:YFA a helpful guide as writing articles can be hard. RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 07:25, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much. This is exactly what I was looking for. You've helped me a lot and I appreciate your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Animegearlab (talk • contribs) 08:05, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Preventing vandalism.

Hi. In the ideal world, Wikipedia would be vandalism-free from when it started until the end of time. However, I'm pretty sure there's lots of vandalism in reality despite the best efforts of users and bots, all of which was probably committed by at least 100s if not 1000s of users. Why not create more bots to fight it (duplicating existing ones or ones made from scratch) or even being able to create an account that is meant just for this purpose?211.27.115.246 (talk) 07:35, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

It is sometimes difficult for humans to distinguish vandalism from genuine edits, so bots certainly cannot operate with 100% accuracy, despite advances in artificial intelligence. The existing anti-vandalism bots are often quick in reverting edits that are obviously vandalism, but Wikipedia relies on ordinary editors such as yourself to research the dubious edits and revert the ones that the bots miss. Why not WP:Create an account? Dbfirs 08:57, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Beyond the bots that revert what appears to be vandalism, there is also mw:ORES which highlights potentially problematical edits for review by those editors who choose to use the "Revision scoring on Watchlist" option at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-watchlist. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:11, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

• From Why not create more bots to fight it (duplicating existing ones or ones made from scratch), I infer that you assume every bot can do a limited amount of work. If so, you are mistaken: bots are automated processes that can precisely do lots of work quickly, unlike humans; they do not tire and do not have edit limitations. (And, as described above, unlike humans, bots can only do the really basic stuff.) Sorry if that was obvious to you, but I have seen people get confused with much simpler computer stuff. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:57, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

No cite button

Hi, I edit using visual editing on my iPad, and recently the cite button keeps disappearing, so there is no way to cite a source except for using source editing. The text & link features still appear at the top, but not the source button. Is this something I’ve done, or have Wiki removed the feature? Or a bug?

Thanks. – Joesimnett (talk) 10:50, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Joesimnett, welcome to the Teahouse. I'm not experiencing any issue seeing the 'Cite' button using Visual Editor on my old iPhone5S, still using iOs10. Despite always receving a wiki-alert that my browser (Safari) is not officially supported, the cite button is certainly there. To test it I went to both the Ketchup and Visual perception articles in desktop view and clicked the top 'Edit' tab. Sure enough, there was the Cite button and its two big quote marks in both pages. It functioned OK. Had I wished to I could certainly have cited sauces sources, or even cited sight sources. Maybe others can suggest a reason you're not seeing it. I should probably crawl away now... regards Nick Moyes (talk) 12:14, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Why the refusing editor doesn't wait a moment to see if some growing is happening.

Why the refusing editor doesn't wait a moment to see if the following ist happening. " A Wikipedia entry is a good idea. Would you maybe like to start it and let others improve it? No Wikipedia page needs to start off polished. Once it's there it's easier for people to add drive-by improvements." I was very disapointed because the invention of Melinda ist really a break through. I'm sure thet the refusing editor doesn't understand the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.3.92.161 (talk) 11:20, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi anonymous editor, and welcome to the Teahouse. The above is the only edit from your IP address, so we don't know what article you are talking about. In general, it's a good idea to start an article in your sandbox, at least until you have found WP:Reliable sources to establish WP:Notability. Once notability is established, the article should be safe from deletion unless there are copyright or libel issues, and it is then available for other editors to improve. Dbfirs 11:52, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm Confused...

DAWNSEEKER2000 left me the following message:

"Hello, I have noticed that you have been using Wikipedia as a source, but the encyclopedia is not considered reliable. Please discontinue. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to ask." Thanks, Dawnseeker2000 17:15, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Dawnseeker2000 18:04, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Help me to understand because I'm under the impression I am under evaluation for the possibility of having my account terminated. Am I wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smittypots (talk • contribs) 12:56, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Smittypots, All that is being asked of you at this point is to not use Wikipedia articles as references in other Wikipedia articles. This looks like it has been going on for a while. You need to find sources that are not associated with Wikipedia to support the information in Wikipedia articles. You should go to WP:ANI#User Smittypots and explain you understand that Wikipedia articles can not be used as references and that you will not do that any more. ~ GB fan 13:05, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Smittypots: To elaborate on the above: you should never cite Wikipedia articles as references because Wikipedia is not a reliable source. If you found claim X in article A and want to reuse it in article B, either article A cites an acceptable reference which you can then re-cite in article B, or it does not, and then you should look for an external reference to use (if there is none, you should remove the claim from article A). You may use wikilinks instead though.

I doubt you are at any serious risk of blocking ("account termination") (based on your current actions at least). I think Dawnseeker2000 (ping) overreacted big time in taking you to ANI (which should be reserved for serious and/or long-lasting conduct problems), and made a fairly poor job of communicating what the problem was to you. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 13:13, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Why not give a chance?

Hello everyone, I find a friendly atmosphere here at Teahouse so I am encouraged to join.I created an article "Draft:Alliance School Kermanshah" a few days ago and I put "in use" at the beginning. It was put in draft just as i clicked the first publish button.The person did not give me a second to continue. I wish to know what the problem is and what I can do. thank You Alex-h (talk) 14:45, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Alex-h. As the message on your user talk page said, the article was moved to draft space to give you an opportunity to prepare it for article space. When you believe it is ready for article space, you can click the "Submit your draft for review" button, and if the reviewer accepts it, they will move it to article space. —teb728 t c 15:51, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Can we as a company create a wikipedia page?

Hello,

We would like to edit page for our company. We have seen there are several conditions which have to be fulfilled. Who will control these points? We respond to one of them which is enough.

Thank you for your answer.

BR

Pat — Preceding unsigned comment added by Precipart2019 (talk • contribs)

Hi Pat. Welcome to Wikipedia. Goodness, where to start? I'm assuming you represent www.precipart.com? If so, have a read of this notability guideline on what criteria allows us to include an article on a company. Do you think you meet it? Can you supply three or more references to independent sources (books, magazines, journals, newspapers) which talk about Precipart in detail. If you think you can, go back from your mental list and remove all insider trade journals, blogs, syndicated press releases, company websites and so forth, and consider the question again.Then, because we strongly discourage users from writing about themselves, post only those links to Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies. Then, if a non-connected editor is motivated to write about your company, they may do so. But do not expect this to be a quick process. If it is deemed to be a genuinely notable company, someone will undoubtedly want to create a page about it. Should you then be motivated to edit that article, resist the temptation. Instead, read and follow our two policies on Paid editing and Declaring a conflict of interest. Follow those guidelines and if you then want to make changes, place an {{edit request}} on the talk page of that article.

A less urgent thing to tell you at this time, which is very easy for you to follow as you have only ever made one edit here, is to cease using the account and create and use another one which only one person (you) can ever use. We don't accept usernames that appear to have more than one editor accessing it, or promoting a company. So "PricipartPat" would be fine - just not the company name on its own, please. I'm sure I've missed something - maybe another host will add further advice. We all work as volunteers to maintain this encyclopaedia. It's important to appreciate we only include 'notable things' in it. It's not for WP:PROMOTION, so you will have to proceed with care. Does this help? Nick Moyes (talk) 15:20, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Fredrikson Stallard

Hello, I have passed my 100th edit on this article and think it is now ready for publishing. Would someone please help?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paradise lost 90 (talk • contribs) 15:00, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

As the template says, just be patient and it will receive a review soon. RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 15:12, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Goodness, Paradise lost 90. I'm sure you've made more than that! This was your first edit to Draft:Fredrikson Stallard, and only the fifth edit this account name had ever made. It added 22,350 bytes to the new page; not bad for a beginner. Are you sure you haven't edited here before? Nick Moyes (talk) 15:39, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Need mentor for a new user KenGohan

I am just here to ask for a mentor for this user. Apparently he is editing on this article. All I know about him, that he has lack of experience in adding citations or referencing sources. I have left two messages in his talk page regarding this issue. Other editors also informed him but it seems like he doesn't want to or can't understand. This request might have some grammatical issues since English is not my first language. Thanks
Sincerely,
Masum Reza(talk) 15:43, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Edit not saved

Hello. Trying desperately to add an item to the requested articles page: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Arts_and_entertainment/Literature#L I started getting an error, edit not saved when I tried to include links to amazon.com. Then I tried reference tags but messed the closing tag, and now I can’t even fix that because even if my item has no links, I still get the not saved error, possibly because of the other links in other items of the same section. Halp! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Authorlahey (talk • contribs) 16:10, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Confused new user

I am working on creating my first Wikipedia page. I have created an account. When I first started to create a page, there was no SAVE button - only Publish. So, the content I have written exists - but I'm confused on a few items.

First - on business pages, there is a right column on the page where company info appears. How do I create that on a blank page?

Second - how do you insert photos into the text so that the text wraps around the photo?

Third - when the page is done, how do you submit it for review and comments and (hopefully) posting?

Thanks Ken Crowhurst