:{{ping|A lad insane}} and another huge misleading point that needs addressing, when Guru Project is searched it is also re-directed to the Guru Josh page, Paul Walden aka Guru Josh was and had never been anything to do with this band, he was never a member and never involved in any of its music, you guys whole police wikipedia need to check the facts before you you delete true factual, move or re-direct information. Darren Bailie once again is solely responsible for the band called The Guru Project, he is still the band owner and TM owner. So i think it's time you do a little help in getting the Darren Bailie draft ready to be published instead of ignorantly denying or removing its factual content [[User:Dazperkz|Dazperkz]] ([[User talk:Dazperkz|talk]]) 13:57, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
:{{ping|A lad insane}} and another huge misleading point that needs addressing, when Guru Project is searched it is also re-directed to the Guru Josh page, Paul Walden aka Guru Josh was and had never been anything to do with this band, he was never a member and never involved in any of its music, you guys whole police wikipedia need to check the facts before you you delete true factual, move or re-direct information. Darren Bailie once again is solely responsible for the band called The Guru Project, he is still the band owner and TM owner. So i think it's time you do a little help in getting the Darren Bailie draft ready to be published instead of ignorantly denying or removing its factual content [[User:Dazperkz|Dazperkz]] ([[User talk:Dazperkz|talk]]) 13:57, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
::{{ping|Dazperkz}} There is a great essay [[WP:VNT|here]] that is relevant to your point. For a subject to have an article on Wikipedia, they typically should have been discussed in depth by multiple third-party sources as a standalone subject. Wikipedia goes off of what these sources say, and NOT what the source says. In other words, if every reliable source says that John Doe was born in Liverpool, but John himself insists he was born in Sydney, we will say that he was born in Liverpool. If you could provide links to third-party reliable sources backing up what you have said, the article may be fixed. If you haven't provided sources when there are sources to the contrary, you honestly might as well be building a snowman in Hell for as much you'll get done. Also, if you could refrain from calling many experienced editors "fake news" we would appreciate it. Please provide your sources. [[User:A lad insane|<span style="color:#2E2EFF">-A la</span><span style="color:#000000">d </span><span style="color:#CD0000">insane</span>]] [[User talk:A lad insane|<small style="color:#008600">(Channel 2)</small>]] 18:59, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
::{{ping|Dazperkz}} There is a great essay [[WP:VNT|here]] that is relevant to your point. For a subject to have an article on Wikipedia, they typically should have been discussed in depth by multiple third-party sources as a standalone subject. Wikipedia goes off of what these sources say, and NOT what the source says. In other words, if every reliable source says that John Doe was born in Liverpool, but John himself insists he was born in Sydney, we will say that he was born in Liverpool. If you could provide links to third-party reliable sources backing up what you have said, the article may be fixed. If you haven't provided sources when there are sources to the contrary, you honestly might as well be building a snowman in Hell for as much you'll get done. Also, if you could refrain from calling many experienced editors "fake news" we would appreciate it. Please provide your sources. [[User:A lad insane|<span style="color:#2E2EFF">-A la</span><span style="color:#000000">d </span><span style="color:#CD0000">insane</span>]] [[User talk:A lad insane|<small style="color:#008600">(Channel 2)</small>]] 18:59, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
:{{ping|A lad insane}}thank you for the info i will include the third party links etc as you have suggested, as you can tell i am not experienced at this and your message is exactly the kind of help i needed. [[User:Dazperkz|Dazperkz]] ([[User talk:Dazperkz|talk]]) 21:55, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
== Adding to an existing template on Jefferson Starship Page ==
== Adding to an existing template on Jefferson Starship Page ==
Revision as of 21:55, 20 February 2019
help forum for new users
Welcome to the Teahouse...
A friendly place to learn about editing Wikipedia.
@Espoo: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. This board is for asking questions about editing or using Wikipedia; we can't speak to why another site might not be working. You might try the Reference Desk. 331dot (talk) 11:08, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The reason i asked here is because archive.org is one of the most important tools used by Wikipedia editors. So i figured someone here would also know the answer to my question or a solution to the problem, both of which would probably take much longer to get straight from the website. At least i got the hint to look and try to find the solution on my device.
In case someone else runs into this problem, one or all of these steps were required to fix the problem in Chrome on Android: 1) turn off dater saver 2) go to site settings > all sites > search for "archive" and remove all permissions and settings for all sites containing archive.org --Espoo (talk) 15:16, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I went to https://archive.org/index.php, the main page of the Internet Archive, and it is working again. Since I see you have both posted on the same date as I have, I suggest actually looking at your internet and Wi-Fi and check if it is working. :::If it still does that, then I think it is loading a website that might also be dead. TheSmartPersonUS1(TSPUS1)(talk)03:23, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really understand what you're saying (especially with "Since I see you have both posted on the same date as I have"), but apparently you didn't understand what i said either :) What i tried to say is that i fixed the problem by adjusting the settings of Android Chrome as described above. And i didn't have a problem with any other website. --Espoo (talk) 18:53, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Espoo: try this steps for android. 1) go to your WI-FI in the settings 2) Hold on the WIFI that your connected to unit a box appears 3) then click on "manage network settings" 4) scroll down unit you see dns1, then delete the dns and type "8.8.8.8" 5) Then scroll down to dns2, then delete the dns and type "8.8.4.4", now click save. 6) close everything even chrome tabs than that should've fix the problem. --___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk13:15, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, i'll try that if i need it, but as i wrote above, i fixed the problem by adjusting the settings of Android Chrome as described above. And i didn't have a problem with any other website. --Espoo (talk) 19:15, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Alex Oates page and IP edits
Hi, I just looked at the history for the Alex Oates page and spotted three edits from an IP from the same theatre which is currently running a play by the same playwright. The play has created controversy of late in both media and social media. Am a bit stumped if this page needs more experienced eyes to look in to this. Chricon79 (talk) 02:23, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Helo Chricon79, thanks for raising your concerns. Sorry you didn't get a reply until now. I've only had time to take a brief look at the article, and I agree with you that some strange editing has gone on. I'm not quite sure how you've concluded that the IPs are from the individual theatre putting on this allegedly controversial play, but someone with a personal point of view has certainly been contributing too much content. I have raised my concerns on the article's talk page that there seems to be a danger of the article about the person becoming a 'coatrack' article about another topic entirely - one of his plays. There is far too much detail there, and it does need trimming down a lot, and POV wording removed. I'm afraid I don't have time to do this myself, though realise you might be wary, as a new editor, of diving in causing more problems. Hopefully, other editors might wish to assist in cleaning it up. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Nick Moyes I checked the Goelocate for the IP in question (three edits make on 14 Feb)and it came back with the theatre's website URL as hostname. About the POV going on that in part maybe a by-product of current off-wiki debate going on about the play on Twitter and possible culture war going on between two philosophical schools of thought within the Autism community. Chricon79 (talk) 01:04, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, Chricon79. Good spot!. I must have missed that - the IPs I checked looked like generic TalkTalk addresses, but I see you're right. So good detective work - I've slapped a COI notice on one of them. Sorry I can't help further right now. I see the same overly-detailed content has been added to pages about Southwark Playhouse and Charlie Brooks. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:31, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Chricon79 Have a try at cleaning them up, as I'm not going to be able to spend time on this now. But do tread carefully - ensuring you leave a clear edit summary of every changes or content removal. Don't reinsert your edits if they been reverted, but discuss on the relevant article page, or on user's talk page. Always be polite and explain why you believe a certain action you've taken is justified. If in doubt, don't make any changes. I noticed wording like 'hypocritical' and 'signed by people who hadn't seen the play' Unless these are quoted in citations, and relevant to the topic of the article, these should all be removed. Many thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:50, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What's the article about?: A building in south London.
What's the problem?: The infobox displays a crazy map.
What do you mean, crazy map?: The map shows Ponders End – which is in north London.
Have you checked the coordinates?: Yes, carefully. The numbers are correct.
Then why does the map show Ponders End?: That's what I can't understand.
Has the map always shown Ponders end?: No, for a long time it showed Kiev, Ukraine. See the talk page, "Absurd map".
When did the trouble start?: When an editor created the infobox − on 3 February 2017 at 15:29.
Why can't you fix it yourself?: Because I don't understand how this mapping works. I can't see anywhere in the markup language that even tells it to show a map in the first place.
Hmm. I went to Google Maps and changed the coordinates in the infobox in the article to those Google Maps provides for Columbia Wharf, Rotherhithe, but it did not change the display. I wonder if this worked but it needs to rebuild and won't display correctly for a while?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:27, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question about pronouns in service award templates
Hi Teahouse team,
I have a question about the default pronoun options in the Wikipedia:Service awards templates.
I realise they're an opt-in, fun way to self-commemorate one's achievements, and can be very encouraging!
In the template I used on my userpage, it defaults to the text "...he or she..." - is this something I'm able to alter? If the pronoun "they" were the default instead, it would read much more clearly and not have a binary gender stipulation. Or, instead of a single change, is this something that I could ask about applying to the template as a whole?
(e/c) Hey SunnyBoi. Per {{Service award progress}}'s documentation, it has the parameter |genderoverride=. Unfortunately, though whatever you insert there will replace the default "he or she", it does not have a parameter to understand that if "they" is the override set, then "needs" must change to "need" to keep the text grammatical. That is, if you use, say, she as the override, it then states: "...she needs to meet the editing requirement", but if you use they, you get the ungrammatical: "...they needs to meet the editing requirement" (uggh). I'm sure someone better at template coding than I am could fix that. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:54, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Bonadea:@Fuhghettaboutit:@A lad insane:, thank you so much for your help! I’m sorry I missed the genderoverride tag. That is tricky about the “…needs to meet the editing requirement” making grammatical issues.
Thank you -A lad insane for the alternate template! I am drafting an update with it, but it seems to be cementeed on the next level of the award (remaining at 4000 editing requirement as the next hurdle), but that could be because I’m not updating the right information. I appreciate you making this, I’m hopeful that I can figure out how to change the service level so that it can apply to my shorter editing history :) Thank you again! --SunnyBoi (talk) 09:42, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SunnyBoi: You're welcome :) and I think I've got it to a place where it works; {{User:A lad insane/Gender neutral service award progress||year=2017|month=1|day=30|edits=1210}} should do it, at least it worked in my sandbox. I've filled in your information based on the editcount tool. -A lad insane(Channel 2)16:26, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's a truism that none of the hosts know it all - and tonight I am really stuck. I need help to understand why I am not receiving notification alerts when someone posts to a talk page of a sub-page of my own user page. That's a bit mind-bending, so let me explain...
I've just adopted a new user, Clovermoss, so I decided to create a sub-page for all our activities and discussions. This is something I've not done before, and we've started discussing various subjects on the associated talk page at User talk:Nick Moyes/Adoption/Clovermoss. I had hoped I would receive an alert whenever she posted anything there. (Email notifications are of no use to me as I don't have email access on my mobile, which is currently my main form of editing.)
My question is: why am I not receiving on-wiki alert notifications when they post to that talk page? Are alerts only produced when a person posts to the primary user page and not to a sub-page? I can't see anything in my preference settings that would allow me to enable alerts for this scenario. Wikipedia:Notifications offers no explanation. I have, however, found this open Phabricator ticket], but it's so old and so complicated I can't deduce what, if any progress has been made on it, but it does sound like it might be a known weakness. Any advice or work-around is welcome, or suggestions for the best way to reactivate this ticket.
Greetings, Nick Moyes, and welcome to the Teahouse! I don't know if I will be able to solve your problem in full, but I do have a work-around to offer: have you tried adding that page to your Watchlist? Not as good as a notification, but at least it might stop updates from going un-noticed.--Gronk Oz (talk) 01:26, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick Moyes: I have never come across this before, but it seems to be working as designed. According to Wikipedia:Notifications/FAQ#What_kinds_of_notifications_can_I_get?, it sends an alert "when a message is left on your user talk page". No mention of talk pages for your user sub-pages. Nor can I find any way to add those pages to the list of what generates an alert. There are preferences (Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-echo) that determine what you get notifications for, and it what form, but they still don't include what you're after. I think the only way to get it would be to raise a change request ... sorry.--Gronk Oz (talk) 01:40, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Hi, Gronk Oz. That would normally work, of course. But I have had to turn off my watchlist since last spring because a) I rarely see emails because of my real world commitments and b) when I do, I'm just swamped with messages on my webmail account, and tend to miss the really critical ones. To make life manageable, I've stopped all watchlist notifications and innumerable Facebook-type notifications altogether. An on-wiki alert notification would be ideal. Wading through two weeks worth of trivial emails and notifications to eventually respond to someone is not fair on them. That's why I'm looking for on-wiki notification alerts, but I thank you for replying with that advice. It's exactly the kind of advice I would have given another user. Your subsequent post does suggest one obvious thing I hadn't thought of - posting at the talk page of WP:Notifications itself. I might well do that, and not worry about Phabricator tickets for now. Thanks. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:53, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick Moyes: I hesitate to suggest it because I expect even if you don't say it in response, you'll probably think "duh", but I'll say it anyway: if there was a singular page that I was especially keen on knowing if there was changes to, wanted the most direct, single click method of checking for changes, and was resigned to the fact that there was no way to have changes to it pop up through notifications, I would save a link to the URL of its history at the top of my user or user talk page. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:06, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Fuhghettaboutit: It's a fair and sensible comment, thanks, though certainly not an ideal or elegant one. I've taken Gronk's advice and asked at Wikipedia talk:Notifications. As an adnin, may I ask if you were aware of this apparent limitation? It was certainly a surprise to me that alerts don't seem to work by default from edits to sub-page talk pages or, I presume, from sandbox talk pages. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 06:18, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE: It has now been ascertained that, following an RfC, a Phabricator task for this matter to be resolved was assigned in 2017 (some 13 years after it was first raised as an issue). That developer appears to have ceased activity shortly afterwards, and nothing has happened since. We now wait hopefully for another person to pick up or be assigned this task. For details, see: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T5234 Thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question on categorization
I am currently expanding articles by translating their more expansive French counterparts into English.
I have found the Category:Articles needing translation from French Wikipedia to be a great help in that end, but I have noticed that the category is full of French communes and that the sub-category Category:France geography articles needing translation from French Wikipedia exists.
Should these articles be put in the appropriate sub-category only or should they be present in both categories? Or are communes articles not a type of article that should be put in said sub-category? Sadenar40000 (talk) 00:09, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
When an article is placed in a category where a more-specific and applicable sub-category exists, it is best to place the article in the sub-category only. An article should not be placed in two categories when one of the categories is a descendant of the other. See WP:SUBCAT for more information. — jmcgnh(talk)(contribs)20:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
jmcgnh Thank you for the answer, but I see that there is a whole lot of miscategorized articles in that case, will I risk being blocked due to a "spam" if I decide to move a large number of these articles to the appropriate maintenance category?Sadenar40000 (talk) 21:19, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Sadenar40000: Large-scale bulk moves should be discussed before implementing. That way, your edit summaries can refer to the discussion and foreclose most questions and objections. Blundering about with bulk moves can lead to a block, but if you've done the advance work and are operating in accordance with the rules there should be no danger of being blocked. Instead, you may get a barnstar or something. — jmcgnh(talk)(contribs)21:37, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
jmcgnh The page does seem rather inactive, when should I perceive having achieved consensus by lack of opposition, or if I do not receive answers, should I kick the issue up to Intertranswiki? Sadenar40000 (talk) 22:25, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Sadenar40000: 48 hours is the usual standard for waiting for a response before activating higher-level choices. There's a general preference that you not post to many different places all at once, but it's okay to post in more-watched venues if a question in a less-watched venue is not getting a response within a suitable response period. Since this is a categorization issue rather than a translation issue, I'm not sure Intertranswiki is a good place to ask. I'm sure there are editors there who would have advice, but it's something that seems off-topic for them. I suggest maybe WT:WikiProject Categories as your next step. — jmcgnh(talk)(contribs)23:53, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@TheHelpingHandMan: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Being an administrator is not something that you simply sign up for; there is a process called Request for Adminship to go through. It is a community discussion about whether a user merits being given administrator powers. It usually takes years to develop an edit history and other evidence that you understand Wikipedia guidelines and have the right temperament you also need to show a specific need for the tools; the likelihood of a new user succeeding at getting administrator powers is probably close to zero. Keep in mind that you can do 95% of things on Wikipedia without being an administrator. Administrators simply have a few extra tools that would be irresponsible to give access to for all users. Concentrate on working on this project in any way you wish to; after much time others will eventually notice if you merit administrator powers and nominate you. 331dot (talk) 19:04, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Goveganplease: I would think that would be inadvisable, as your user talk page is meant for others to be able to communicate with you. Some notifications are also automatically posted there. 331dot (talk) 19:36, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No: Folks must be able to put info templates etc. on your talk page, but generally they are not supposed to edit your user page (unless there are obvious bugs, e.g., categories not designed for user pages.) You're still free to "archive" your talk page whenever you wish, there are several ways to manage this (incl. manual methods not requiring archive bots.) –84.46.53.0 (talk) 15:00, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Messed up coding
Hi,
I messed up the coding on the ‘Singles’ section of Melody Thornton really badly. I’m not sure how to rescue the previous coding without reverting all of my edits? I’ve done a lot of beneficial edits to the page and I don’t want to revert it all. Can someone help restore the singles section? – Joesimnett (talk) 20:34, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, all, I'm here to ask a question about creating a page that may already be in the process of being created by someone else. The page I've created is for a sportsperson who is not yet notable because he has't debuted, although he is likely to debut in a couple of months. Seeing how he'll be notable at a certain time, does it mean it's somewhat of a 'race' to submit my page or do editors give it some time to collaborate other drafts?
@ItChEE40: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Users can collaborate on drafts, but even if many do, there is nothing to prevent another uninvolved party from creating the same article first. 331dot (talk) 00:51, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, ItChEE40. I would like to advise you not to do this: not because somebody else is doing it, but because I believe this is the wrong way to go about writing an article. I think you realise that an article will not be accepted until the subject is notable; but I don't think you appreciate the whole of the reason for this. Every single piece of information in a Wikipedia article should come from a reliable published source: not from what you, I, or any random person on the internet know; not from social media; and, mostly, not from what the subject or their friends or associates say. If a subject is not yet notable (in the way Wikipedia uses the word) then by definition there is not enough information reliably published to ground an article. If you start writing an article before a subject is notable, then I have to ask where is the information coming from that you are putting into your draft? Once the subject does become notable (which might be when they debut, if they make enough of a splash that several independent commentators choose to write about them, but probably will be considerably later) you may find that the material published about them which will be the only material acceptable as the basis of the article will be rather different from what you have already written, and your draft may have to be completely rewritten. From your use of the word "race", I suspect that you think that it is important to get an article up as quickly as possible: it isn't. (It might be from the subject's point of view, but that is not of importance to Wikipedia, since promotion in all forms is forbidden here. Please see DEADLINE.)
If you're looking for a to some degree protected place you can create a sub-page of your user page. A better idea might be a draft, because it's by definition open for contributions by other editors, and as long as nobody clicks on "submit" it can violate WP:CRYSTAL temporarily (until you are sure that your crystal ball worked as expected.) Ask again when ready, the final Special:MovePage is technically simple, but might require help by folks with more rights (e.g., in theory a move without leaving a redirect from the old place requires admin rights, in practice you can suggest a speedy delete for the old place with reason "left over from page move" or similar.) –84.46.53.0 (talk) 15:16, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please advise me HOW I ‘Apply the Creative Commons license’ to images I wish to accompany my proposed page/s for a new entry on Wikipedia's ‘List of South African women artists’…
Hello, David Desmond. I am not an expert here, and I may have misunderstood; but I have a feeling that you have also misunderstood. In order to upload pictures to Wikimedia Commons, the pictures must be either public domain, or have been released by the copyright holder under a suitable licence, typically CC-BY-SA. I take it that the pictures we are talking about are not in the public domain - if they are (probably by reason of their age) you can simply upload them and choose that option. Otherwise, Wikimedia Commons requires a statement from the copyright owner that they are released under a suitable licence. Unless they are your own work (which they presumably are not) you are not capable of making this statement. There are then two cases: if the owner has made a public declaration (for example on their website) that they are licensed in a suitable manner, then you can upload them, and refer to that declaration. Otherwise the owners themselves need to communicate with Wikimedia to assert that they have released them: see donating copyright materials.
One further point: not all CC licences are the syame. Wikimedia Commons requires a licence that permits reuse for any purpose (including commercial) and the creation of derivative works. Some CC licences permit this (such as CC-BY-SA) but others don't.
As noted above, there's no THE CC licence, there are six current combos, everything including NC (non-commercial) or ND (no derivatives) is unsuited for Commons, only CC-BY (by attribution) and CC-BY-SA (BY + share alike) are allowed. And of course CC0 (public domain designation supported by CC if you are the photgrapher etc., but you are not, based on the info on your talk page.) After that fails enwiki offers a Plan B, "fair use" as defined in US-law, not exactly the same concept as in UK or AU law, but the enwiki servers are in the US: The person must be dead, otherwise you'd be supposed to get a free photo of the living person. The photo must be required to illustrate the article (you found no free photo elsewhere) and "lo-fi", e.g., over 2 MB source JPEG scaled down to under 1 MB. Once you have that you can use Special:Upload and fill out a "fair use rationale". It's actually simple, I got it right in my 1st attempt, and failed in my 2nd attempt, because the 2nd female engineer wasn't dead, and I didn't plan a trip to the UAE to take a photo. –84.46.53.0 (talk) 15:38, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Akinfeda Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia does not pay contributors. All of us are volunteers who are here to improve this project. We cannot stop you from offering your editing services to others for pay(off wiki), but this is not encouraged and in that situation you must comply with WP:PAID. You would be unable to guarantee any particular result, however. 331dot (talk) 02:05, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Some free advice: if your research and proofreading skills are such that you allow the word "free Lance" to appear in that form you have some work to do before you earn money at this anyway. Britmax (talk) 10:40, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Linking/uploading image that appears in another Wikipedia article
Hi,
I've been trying to use an image uploaded to another Wikipedia entry. Obviously it's fair use? It even has a url on wikimedia.org.
However, I tried every syntax option I could think of or find online, and nothing worked. So finally I just downloaded the image and uploaded it from my laptop. Of course, the mifterbot (whatever that is) serves me with a warning tag that image will be taken off in 7 days.
By the way, is it only me, or is the Wikipedia edit interface not so friendly, to put it mildly? I teach programming and know a variety of markup/markdown systems (e.g., Latex), and now I am even more in awe of the type of information people have put on Wikipedia despite its unhelpful interface.
The human "reception committee" could also be a tad more friendly. I spent weeks of editing and adding what I thought was a pretty rich content, before daring to submit my article for first acceptance - only to be slapped with a C by two different graders with zero explanation or detail. I looked up the grade examples, and it seems to be a pretty harsh grading call. Not that I care much about grades, I care that the article is posted; but this community doesn't seem too welcoming (that was not my only experience with this attitude).
C-class is common. I recently put in 150 edits and a 10X expansion to get Vitamin deficiency to C-class. Rather than trying for B-class, editors may attempt an improvement to Good Article, which incorporates a peer reviewer. David notMD (talk) 02:21, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, yes kinda confirms my suspicion. Again, I was not complaining about a particular grading I got, but rather about a rather clear whiff of snobbery that welcomes the new editor onboard. Your Vitamin article looks a solid B (at least) to me in any sane 21st-Century grading system.
Thank you! I changed to 'File', seems like now it does point to the original Wikimedia upload by whoever edited that other page. I guess the trick is to click on the image and see exactly what the image's official Wikipedia name is? AforBaheer (talk) 04:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Classes B and C are just some editor's opinion and have no particular force. Only good article and featured article classes are based on a formal review. Ignore the classification for now and try not to think of them as grades.
It appears that the image you were starting from was this one at c:File:Staircase-Verfahren (Transformed Staircase).png and its translation at c:File:Staircase Transformed Up Down English.png You are allowed to use this original image and you are allowed to modify it (such as by translating it), but you are expected to point to the original when you upload the translated version. If you do not supply the attribution, your upload will have to be deleted as a violation of the license which lets us use these images at all. (Or deleted as a duplicate.) This is not a matter of fair use. I wish you had asked here at the Teahouse when you first ran into problems.
You've written a substantial article - albeit aimed at a more technical audience than the general reader at Wikipedia (probably more technical than a lot of admins) - and got it accepted by a reviewer. Congratulations, that's quite an achievement. Creating an acceptable new article is a difficult task. Thank you for your contributions. I'm sorry if your reception came off as snobby. Encouraging new editors is something we try to do here in the Teahouse.
But Wikipedia has a lot of rules, policies, guidelines and customs; nearly all of them emerge from a gradual consensus process involving many editors over several years. While some things should be considered fixed in stone, other parts are still being hammered out. Keep working on contributing and you'll master the parts of those rules that you need and get (gentle, I hope) recommendations if you stray. — jmcgnh(talk)(contribs)04:15, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Archived Question re List of Thermal Conductivities.
Hello again Tea House: Thanks for all your help and yet the Analytical List in the List of Thermal Conductivities which lines up in Google Chrome does not line up in Microsoft Edge. The conductivities HAVE TO line up with their corresponding temperatures for the table to make any sense but for example the Ice section and various other sections are out of alignment in Microsoft Edge. That defeats the whole purpose of the list. Would anyone have any advice on how to get the listed conductivities to line up with their corresponding temperatures on every browser? (I don't know the syntax of the table and I only learned how to get things up on it by trial and error).
Thank you, Patriot1423 (talk) 04:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is starting to sound like a topic that can't be addressed well in the Teahouse and we may need to send you to a different venue. The Village Pump (Technical) page may be a good place to get an answer to your question. The fact that different browsers interpret CSS and HTML and Javascript in different ways has long been a problem on the web, but all of this hassle is apparently the price we have to pay to stay away from a software monoculture. — jmcgnh(talk)(contribs)08:23, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Adding a list of articles under category to my watchlish
Hi I want to add a list of articles all at once that all are under certain category. I don't want to do it one by one! Is there any way to do it all at once! Thanks--SharabSalam (talk) 05:20, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@شرعب السلام: I'm not sure if that's possible, but as a workaround you can browse to the category, then click "related changes." That will show you a list of changes to articles in that category, but it won't actually add anything to your watchlist—you'll have to go back there whenever you want to check it. It's not as nice as what you're asking for (which might be possible, but I don't know of a way), but it works. Gaelan💬✏️09:14, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@شرعب السلام: I think that if you do what is called "edit raw watchlist" you can type in the names of all articles you want to follow at once. If you click edit watchlist, there is then an option to "edit raw watchlist". 331dot (talk) 09:28, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You have created and saved an incomplete draft at Draft:Sri Bharat Mathukumilli. You can find all of your contributions by clicking the "Contributions" link at the top right-hand corner of any Wikipedia page. Drafts (and other non-article pages) are not found in the default options in Wikipedia search. For guidance on how to develop your draft, please read WP:Your first article. --David Biddulph (talk) 06:47, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Josephintechnicolor: Welcome to the Teahouse. If you go to the RZB Securities page and click on the blue links in the proposed deletion template, you can see why Matthew hk (talk·contribs) has tagged it for deletion. Specifically, there are no sources in the article to prove that this branch passes the general notability guideline. Sources must be independent (so not the bank's website) and in-depth coverage (so not a mere FINRA directory entry). As far as other branches having articles, that is an other articles exist argument. Each article has to stand on its own merits, not because similar articles already exist on Wikipedia. Some of the articles in the list at Raiffeisenbank were very short and should probably also be deleted or merged; for example Raiffeisen (Albania) was created in 2006 and there is no way an article like this would ever be accepted under today's standards. shoy (reactions) 15:54, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
2) Semion Mogilevic and Raiffeisen (2)
I never said that Semion "Controls" the bank. What was written is the below.
"Raiffeisen has a link with Semion_Mogilevich, USA claims he controls RosUkrEnergo, who is actively involved in Russia–Ukraine gas disputes, and a partner of Raiffeisen Bank."
3) RB International Finance USA (main USA raiffensen entity - make a new page)
I suggest we put RZB Securities under the main USA entity called "RB International Finance USA" (a new page to be created) and include RZB Finance. Both the former RZB securities and RZB finance have now been placed under RB International Finance USA management which is under Raiffeisen Bank International AG. Is that suitable for you?
Matthew hk - I hope that resolves everything?
04:42, 19 February 2019 (UTC)Josephintechnicolor (talk)
Need help in finding reliable sources for my first article
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I'm trying to put this article about XLN Audio together but have run into some issues in finding sources that fulfill the WP:NCORP requirements. I found it odd that there was no Wiki article about XLN as their name and products keeps appearing in interviews with both world-leading songwriters and reviews/product articles in magazines about music plugins. If anyone can help me find some reliable sources on them it would be highly appreciated (this is my first article and I would really like to get it up and running so any advice would be much appreciated).
@Owlsia: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I would first ask you if you have any association with XLN Audio. Regarding your question, there needs to be independent reliable sources with in depth coverage of XLN Audio. If the only coverage is brief mentions, name drops, or press releases, this company likely does not merit an article at this time. 331dot (talk) 09:34, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@311dot: Hi 311dot, no I am not associated with XLN audio. I keep hearing about them in articles and interviews but could not find any Article on wikipedia about them as I was looking to read more about them. Been looking for a topic to write my first article about for a bit and thought this may be a good subject.
I just find it a bit strange that a company that seems to be widespread and known in the songwriting and music production Industry did not have a Wiki, especially as I could find articles about similar companies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Owlsia (talk • contribs) 09:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Owlsia: I'm 331dot, not 311dot, but I follow this page so it's okay. It is possible for a company to be widely mentioned but still not merit a Wikipedia article. The key to meriting an article is significant coverage. Not every company merits an article here, even within the same field. Companies do not "have a Wiki" as a Wiki is a type of website, but a Wikipedia article can exist about them. 331dot (talk) 09:59, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot: Sorry about that, I'm a bit new to Wikipedia on the editing side. Trying to learn as much as possible. For example, when looking into similar companies within the Audio software I found this article for EZdrummer holding no significant WP:NCORP references: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EZdrummer . Am i missing something here or are the rules for these types of articles different as they don't fall under the organization cathegory? Thank you in advance. (Also did i get the sign correct this time?) Owlsia (talk) 11:18, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you did. It seems that EZdrummer may not meet the criteria for an article either. As this is a volunteer project, it is possible for inappropriate articles to exist for some time. 331dot (talk) 10:24, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would need to edit a draft article to make it less commercial -like. I would be happy to comply - just not quite sure which parts would need editing..
Would be most thankful for any instructions on this :)
Read WP:COI just in case, and fix the issues in the rejected draft as you see fit. Don't submit it too soon again, it really upsets folks if something they considered as "not notable" or "spam" pops up in their review queue again without major improvements. Apparently WP:NORUSH is the base law of AfC (Articles for Creation). –84.46.53.0 (talk) 16:19, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Drafts
I am asking how to make drafts not drafts and actual articles. The drafts are
Add {{Draft article}} at the very begin of your drafts, and save. Read what the template says, and if you think you've done what is expected click on "submit" displayed by this template. You can continue to improve your drafts after submission. –84.46.53.0 (talk) 16:25, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there all. I'm a bit confused as to the process surrounding new entries. Six months ago I created my first entry and published it in draft form. I come back here regularly - mostly to read stuff rather than edit - but didn't see any feedback from editors or those who approve these things. Today I received a notification that the article draft has been deleted due to "inactivity" - IE I haven't done anything to it. I wasn't aware that it needed work and I went to great lengths to keep the language neutral and to only include information that could be verified via cited articles.
So what did I do wrong and how do I get it back? I've tried reading the "undeletion" information but it has just made me more confused to be honest. The article was on a Dutch DJ and musician known as Young Marco in case anyone knows how to look into it and see if I missed any criticisms/requests for rewrites.Sellbydave (talk) 13:05, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to be having trouble getting into a talk situation with the editor who declined the article. I tried to click through to the guidelines to check where it was I went wrong, but it just brings up some template window thing. The main reason it was declined seems to be that the subject in question wasn't "notable" enough, yet he is better known and has a wider discography than some other music acts and DJs who have entries. I'm happy to change it if there's something I can do to get it past the editor/make sure it is suitable, but without a clearer explanation I'm not sure this is possible. There was also some reference to cited sources being "close" to the subject but they were all reputable music magazines/websites and not personal websites, bar one link to his record label's website. Sorry if I sound dumb and confused but I am new to this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sellbydave (talk • contribs) 13:28, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How long till my article is reviewed after been blocked?
I have been blocked once,given a "last warning" for moving articles to mainspace before they were approved and repeatedly warned. Do you think there is hope for me? My article is still awaiting review and I fear I might be going through my punishment. Please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EndiongJohn (talk • contribs) 13:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the notice in the brown box on your draft Draft:Uwemedimo Nwoko, it says "Review waiting, please be patient. This may take 7 weeks or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 1949 pending submissions waiting for review." Is there something in that which you don't understand? While you are waiting, you can read some of the links from WP:Welcome, and continue to improve your draft. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:59, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The block was in place until you changed your User name and the Warning was for moving drafts directly to mainspace. Neither action carries over to AfC review of your draft. Do realize that your submittals of this topic has been declined four times and your references are still not up to standards. David notMD (talk) 04:58, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Bismark55: What that means is that you need do nothing, but simply walk away. Nobody will know you were ever here. Sorry you've decided you dont want to contribute to building this encyclopaedia, though. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:31, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to block your account you can randomise the password after making sure that there is no working mail address for a reset password attempt. If you want to hide your user + talk pages move them twice, 1st to a sub-page of your user/talk page, then to another sub-page of your user/talk page, then blank the original user/talk page and the 1st user/talk sub-page, and put a "speedy delete author request" on the original user/talk page. This doesn't disable, e.g., Special:Contributions/Bismark55. There's also a WP:LEAVE global policy on Meta:Right to vanish, but that requires the help of a bureaucrat, and gets you in trouble if you ever decide to create a new account, for no obvious advantage. It should be also obvious that the WikiMedia ideas about this are in conflict with any EU privacy laws in the last decades, IANAL, ask a lawyer if you're up to no good. I've tested the two-step + randomise procedure in 2006, and I'm testing the just don't log-in procedure since April 2016, WP:WNCAA is not funny. –84.46.53.0 (talk) 16:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
. I am not understanding why it appeared and how to remove it. I've reviewed other living person (artist) biographies and they are formatted in a variety of ways. Some have a list of 'select exhibitions' and others have tables. I removed the list (assuming that was the issue) and changed the heading from biography to career (not clear if that matters). For now, can I just delete that edit from page?
An IP editor left that tag on your sandbox. This tag is normally applied to articles main space and is somewhat out of place on your draft, but I suppose the editor thought they were giving you helpful advice. When you believe you have addressed the issue raised by the tag, you are free to remove it.
I hope you're looking at some good examples of articles on artists - articles with classifications like good article or featured article are best; nearly any other article is liable to not be a good model, since only GA and FA articles have been subjected to any sort of rigorous review.
At first glance, your draft presents a somewhat forbidding wall of text and does indeed read more like a biography that would appear in a gallery catalog than an encyclopedia article (you need to strive for a more neutral tone in your writing). Please keep working on it and submit it for review when you think it's ready. — jmcgnh(talk)(contribs)21:25, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the tag, as the content is in your Sandbox. I agree with jmcgnh that the content needs trimming (WAY TOO MUCH DESCRIPTION OF SHOWS), and creation of sections. Model after other artist biographies that C-class or better (shown at top of Talk). Best wishes for submitting this to Articles for Creation. David notMD (talk) 02:21, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello David David notMD. Thank you for your input and for removing that tag! I apologize but I do not understand how to navigate to the "Model after other artist biographies that C-class or better (shown at top of Talk)" that you've referred to. @David notMD and David notMD:Question, How can an editor solicit other editors for help and input into their article(s). Also, how are people notified in this platform? I apologize if it is improper to 'ping' you. I noticed this on the sandbox revision history - not in the notifications. Thank you!LorriBrown (talk) 17:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant is go to artists' articles, and at the top of each Talk page there should be a rating (Stub, Start, C-class, B-class). The Start and C-class are models to emulate. See List of contemporary artists for examples. Pinging is appropriate (even though I don't do it). David notMD (talk) 20:19, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
how do you create a wiki page like this one, having top paragraph and then bluepanel left side saying Contents and one on right with photo and info below-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahatma_Gandhi and then write about each content section like Early Life, Education, etc - is there a step by step tutorial to watch.
Recently I went to the "Power Boys" page, which I'd once worked on. Someone added to the "The author" section and stated the first book was apparently written by William Manners, because his name was on the title page of the original manuscript. No reference was listed for that claim. I added a conversation to the "Power Boys" Talk page, expressing my misgivings about non-referenced additions.
Should I copy the questionable lines onto the Talk conversation, and then delete them from the article? That way the sentences will be there if anyone can come up with a published source on what was typed on a 1960s manuscript cover page.
I've read various article Talk pages where editors are battling over lines that are constantly being deleted and then restored, and I don't want to make an enemy by eliminating another person's work. I only work on "low traffic" Wikipedia pages, but that un-sourced data may be someone's "baby" and I want to avoid possible hard feelings. Karenthewriter (talk) 17:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced information should not appear in Wikipedia articles. You may freely challenge any unsourced information; the initial level of challenge is the famous {{citation needed}} tag. (The rules for BLP articles are a bit more stringent, but I don't believe those rules apply to the article in question.)
You may also go beyond tagging. Bringing up a question about the edit on the talk page, as you have done, is a good next step. Removing the challenged material to the talk page while consensus is being worked on is also a good step, but if you think that the added material is likely wrong, you may simply remove it from the article (it lives on in the history and can be recovered if needed).
A Wikipedia article is not the place for someone's original research based on viewing unpublished manuscripts. The comments about the manuscript title page need to be cited to a secondary source.
jmcgnh, thank you for your advice. I have no idea who wrote the first novel in the Power Boys mystery series, so I don't think the article addition is likely wrong, I think it's likely unprovable. I will place a {{citation needed}} after the unsourced material, then come back in a week or two and move it to the Talk conversation. Karenthewriter (talk) 23:46, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've placed a welcome message on your user talk page with a bunch of links to helpful information. I suggest that you do the Wikipedia Adventure as a starter and then try one or more of the other tutorials. If you are thinking about creating a new article, please read WP:your first article before you attempt this. We usually suggest that new editors contribute by improving existing articles for a considerable time before trying to create a new article. One way to find small tasks that you can work on is to look at the WP:community portal, which lists pages that need various sorts of editing help, categorized so that you can choose which of your skills to apply. Come back here to the Teahouse when you have more questions! — jmcgnh(talk)(contribs)19:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, an article may be deleted if it meets the criteria. Please see WP:DELETE to learn what the criteria is. It also explains how to request a deletion, if an article qualifies. Desertborn (talk) 19:10, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For IPs like you + me, i.e., users without account or not logging in, I recommend to start with cleanup templates for two or three obvious issues. If nothing happened after about a year, or if there were already very old cleanup templates, check on the talk page if there was already an old deletion request or proposed deletion. If not check out {{PROD}}, it works like a charm on very old hopeless stubs. Of course you are supposed to do something to improve the article, just proposing deletion based on, say, missing references with no obvious attempt to find references isn't good enough. The magic word for this might be WP:BEFORE, and it's one of those things where I'm "sure" what it is without ever reading it. If "on someone" is a living person the WP:BLP rules are very strict, Copyvio (copy+paste from external sources) is also something where you can shoot first and ask questions later. –84.46.53.0 (talk) 17:29, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wiki page
I am really lost on how to create a wiki page; going through the help forums and links provided does not help; can you please give a tutorial video or link that will guide step by step on creating the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.115.176.67 (talk) 18:15, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What does one need to do when a question hasn't been answered by any host.
I have posted a question 2 days ago on the teahouse and seeing it close to being archived with no answer, I am unsure whether posting it again is the best course of action.Sadenar40000 (talk) 20:33, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again Sadenar40000 and I'm sorry you're feeling neglected at the Teahouse. That's not our intention, but sometimes things get busy and questions get missed. Asking again, as you've done here, is perfectly fine. There are other venues as well, such as WikiProject talk pages, the Village Pump pages, the WP:Help desk, but sometimes it's unclear which one is the best one to use. — jmcgnh(talk)(contribs)20:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unable to add alternate-language link to wiki page
The following wiki pages cover the same subject (a Japanese television series) in two different languages:
I tried using the "Add Links" option under the Languages section of the sidebar, specifying both the language and the translated page title - however, the following error message appeared:
@David Biddulph: I saw the other editor's comments - basically, the English version covers only the TV series, while the Japanese version covers the larger media franchise. I'll have a chat with the other editor to see what we can do. Sumghai (talk) 06:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Darren Bailie
Need help getting this page ready for publication, if you google Darren Bailie you can get plenty of info on him, what should be included in the article.. he is well know for the Guru Josh Project and the Guru Project.. at the moment any mention of these on Wiki are wrongly re-directed to the Guru Josh article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dazperkz (talk • contribs) 00:08, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Dazparkz: Notability is weird sometimes. This isn't exactly the same as your case, but perhaps you've heard of Pentatonix? They're pretty famous, get loads of views on their article, yada yada. The thing is, not all the members have articles- some of them are only famous as part of the band, and not independently. Two of them are even part of another group, but still don't have articles. Just because someone's name is known among many people doesn't necessarily make them notable. One issue I see with the sources for Darren Bailie, though, is that many are primary sources. Wikipedia tends to want in-depth third-party coverage in a reliable source, which in regular terms just means that we want articles about them (and them, not another topic that mentions them in passing) in reputable sources, like the BBC or CNN, for example. In practice, most news sources work, as long as you're not trying to source a controversial political opinion with a partisan source (unless you provide both sides) or if the source is typically (on Wikipedia) considered patently ridiculous (probably not the best idea to source a controversial fact solely to the front cover of the Sun or the Daily Mail!) Pretty much all of the results that come up when I Google "Darren Bailie" are actually about Guru Josh- thus, not in-depth coverage. -A lad insane(Channel 2)02:10, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@A lad insane: what you are saying is not actually correct, it is the Guru Josh Project not Guru Josh results that come up when you google his name, this is because he created the Guru Josh Project in 2007 a separate entity, he then invited Paul Walden aka Guru Josh to join him in 2008 to be part of the Guru Josh Project, darren Bailie is solely responsible for the Guru Josh Project and any music produced for the Guru Josh Project, that is why when you google either Guru Josh Project or Darren Bailie is is Darren Bailies picture and details you will get. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dazperkz (talk • contribs) 10:19, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@A lad insane: Basically Darren Bailie is The Guru Josh Project, the name is only a confusion matter as he based his band as project on the old music of Paul Walden aka Guru Josh... if you you look up Guru Josh Project, Dome 49 it is darren Bailie live on TV, if you look at the Winter Music conference awards in 2008/09 it is Darren Bailie in Miami collecting the awards. By every mention being re-directed to the Guru Josh page is totally misleading and FAKE news. It is Darren Bailie who created the band, produced any music, made any TV appearances and collected any award and this is because Darren Bailie is The Guru Josh Project. I only need help rectifying this fake news on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dazperkz (talk • contribs) 10:32, 19 February 2019 (UTC)Dazperkz (talk) 11:00, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@A lad insane: and another huge misleading point that needs addressing, when Guru Project is searched it is also re-directed to the Guru Josh page, Paul Walden aka Guru Josh was and had never been anything to do with this band, he was never a member and never involved in any of its music, you guys whole police wikipedia need to check the facts before you you delete true factual, move or re-direct information. Darren Bailie once again is solely responsible for the band called The Guru Project, he is still the band owner and TM owner. So i think it's time you do a little help in getting the Darren Bailie draft ready to be published instead of ignorantly denying or removing its factual content Dazperkz (talk) 13:57, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Dazperkz: There is a great essay here that is relevant to your point. For a subject to have an article on Wikipedia, they typically should have been discussed in depth by multiple third-party sources as a standalone subject. Wikipedia goes off of what these sources say, and NOT what the source says. In other words, if every reliable source says that John Doe was born in Liverpool, but John himself insists he was born in Sydney, we will say that he was born in Liverpool. If you could provide links to third-party reliable sources backing up what you have said, the article may be fixed. If you haven't provided sources when there are sources to the contrary, you honestly might as well be building a snowman in Hell for as much you'll get done. Also, if you could refrain from calling many experienced editors "fake news" we would appreciate it. Please provide your sources. -A lad insane(Channel 2)18:59, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@A lad insane:thank you for the info i will include the third party links etc as you have suggested, as you can tell i am not experienced at this and your message is exactly the kind of help i needed. Dazperkz (talk) 21:55, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Adding to an existing template on Jefferson Starship Page
Greetings Teahouse
I've been trying to add Craig Chaquico to a template on the Jefferson Starship article that links to articles about his solo albums: Acoustic Highway and Acoustic Planetwithout success. Reading about templates has left me even more confused! It is the template at the bottom of the page which currently lists Paul Kantner, Grace Slick, Marty Balin, and Papa John Creach to their respective solo albums. Any and all suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Cheryl Fullerton (talk) 00:46, 19 February 2019 (UTC)Cheryl Fullerton[reply]
Hey Cheryl Fullerton -- I'm sorry for the delay in answering this question when you asked on the article talk page last week. I'm writing an answer back to you now on your User Talk page. But it's definitely a good idea to ask here at the Teahouse if you're having trouble finding an answer or if people aren't getting back to you! -- Cloud atlas (talk) 00:55, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question Re Proper Protocol - Adding a Section to an Article
Hello,
I am a new contributor and am looking for advice on adding a section to an existing article.
The article is scientific, and contains a References section that list technical books the reader can refer to.
I feel the article could benefit from another section at the end of the article titled "Readings for a General Audience".
Would it be appropriate to use the article's Talk Page to ask if others agree that this new section is warranted?
Hi Evan2184. When you edit, you can either be WP:BOLD or be WP:CAUTIOUS. If you're bold and somebody reverts the changes you made (and the revert is not a clearcut case of vandalism), then you're going to be expected to follow Wikipedia:Bold, revert, discuss cycle (BRD) and try to establish a consensus for the changes. Sometimes when you're bold, especially on articles which don't attract lots of attention, your edit might go unchallenged for quite a bit of time; however, when it is challenge (regardless of how much time has passed), you're going to be expected to still follow BRD. Generally, Wikipedia wants editors to be bold; sometimes, however, when you're planning on making a major change to an article, or you want to edit an article with lots of activity (maybe because it's perhaps about a controversial subject or something recently in the news, etc.), it can be a good idea to be a bit CAUTOUS to avoid any issues with others working on the article which might lead to edit warring. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:21, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Evan2184: Which article are you talking about? References are used to support statements in an article, but "Further reading" is for material not referred to, but nevertheless helpful to readers. If it doesnt already have one, I'd advise adding a new section with that title so as to follow the format of all other pages in this encyclopaedia. Although I dont remember ever seeing it done, I dont see why you couldn't split that into two - Introductory and Technical. Or simply put a comment in brackets after the source's details to indicate its technical level. See Wikipedia:Further reading. One other thing to say is that, yes, if you are ever worried about making a change to an article, you could, indeed, always post your proposal on its Talk Page and see what response you get from other editors. You should leave it a few days to a week to give peole a chance to reply. But organising a 'Further reading' section doesn't sound very contentious to me. It all depends on what article you're referring to. Hope this helps. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:37, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Are there guidelines about notable/relevant numbers of social media followers in existing BLPs?
If you've read the NUMFRIENDS essay, you already know that we don't put much stock in social media numbers. Trying to report the raw numbers is completely useless and the only way such numbers might be admitted is if reliable secondary sources say enough about the numbers to make them noteworthy. In other words, we do not directly report the number of subscribers or friends or followers as reported by the social media sites. Some other published source has to consider the numbers worth mentioning before we report them here. — jmcgnh(talk)(contribs)08:03, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but that doesn't explain why there are number of followers + combined views in {{infobox YouTube personality}}, but no equally relevant (wrt influencer marketing) or irrelevant numbers of Twitter followers in {{infobox person}} or in the prose of BLPs about "influencers", broadly construed.
Is more than 1M notable, assuming the BLP exists and is notable? And where exactly is a policy or guideline about this, one WP:NUMFRIENDS essay stamped as "NA" and not answering the question can't be all. –84.46.53.0 (talk) 14:39, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is not a particular number that is notable. You could have 10 followers, a 100,000, or all 7 billion on this planet, and it still would not be notable if no independent reliable sources write about it. Subscriber numbers are also easily gamed, as a single person can create multiple social media accounts and like/follow a subject to increase its numbers. 331dot (talk) 14:41, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is a sub-population of Wikipedia editors who get into the "influence marketing" issue and want to pull the reported numbers directly from the social media sites. This tendency is evidenced by the way the YouTuber infobox has been used, following after wanting to report Alexa ranks in the web site infobox to show how influential a site is. I think this behavior should be discouraged. Just because we have a slot where the information could go does not mean that it's legitimate to pull it from any old source. A reliable secondary source needs to deem the subject and the statistic noteworthy first, then it can be reported on Wikipedia. — jmcgnh(talk)(contribs)17:54, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
.0, no idea, mobyklick is an ISP in Hamburg, at least no broadcast address .255 (today I'm using ffhh, another ISP). Somebody put {{infobox YouTube personality}} on TFD, I wish them good luck with that. The musician will be presumably also happy, if she gets a decent infobox for a singer instead of this oddity: The maintenance effort to check followers and page views annually is too much. –2A03:2267:2:0:B84C:2193:8951:3E9D (talk) 14:46, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Disclaimer: reproductions are allowed for newspapers and periodicals
Dear Tea House
When an image (movie marketing material image from 1987) has this text "reproductions are allowed for newspapers and periodicals" does that disclaimer include the internet (which was post 1987) and can this apply to creative commons for uploading to Wiki? To get approval from the image maker and/or the company may be impossible and the image could be useful to wiki and the existing wiki article that was already approved here..... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doin%27_Time_on_Planet_Earth.
@Josephintechnicolor: It's never Creative Commons unless the author explicitly marks it as such. The "newspapers and periodicals" thing is probably a bit of a stretch, but luckily your usage probably falls under fair use (a provision of US copyright law that allows use of copyrighted works in some circumstances which are fairly complex, but generally use on Wikipedia in a way that doesn't compete with the original work is fine—the movie poster is fine, the whole movie isn't). The File Upload Wizard should guide you through the process—in step 3, select "This is a copyrighted, non-free work, but I believe it is Fair Use." then "This is the official cover art of a work." I'm not a lawyer, yada yada yada. Gaelan💬✏️05:20, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
I have created a draft for Tasty Tibet, since my previous attempt was labeled promotional content can someone review my content and give me feedback about what is needed for it to not be promotional. Here is the draft of Tasty Tibet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mot1992 (talk • contribs) 05:22, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again Mot1992 and welcome back to the Teahouse.
I can't read your earlier article on Tasty Tibet but I see that it was deleted for being too promotional. Now that you have created a draft at articles for creation, I can read it - but it's very short and does not appear to even attempt to show how this restaurant chain meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability of companies. The references in English are very brief publicity blurbs and are completely unable to establish notability. I can't directly read the reference in Bengali, but based on the very mangled Google translation, it appears to be a short restaurant review and also does not go very far towards establishing notability. If you were to submit this draft for review, I would expect it to be declined.
I realize this may be disappointing news to you. You have not responded to the request on your talk page to clarify whether you have a conflict of interest regarding your chosen subject. The fact that you've had two submissions deleted for being promotional means that you should probably stop trying to create new articles until you have learned more about how Wikipedia works. Creating new articles is quite difficult. Spend some more time improving existing articles and remember that any facts you add must include a citation to a reliable source. — jmcgnh(talk)(contribs)07:39, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Based on what the reviewers have said after looking at your draft, you have chosen a subject who does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for being included. Unless there are some more prominent roles than the ones you have presented, we can't have an article about Hyman. You've been directed to look at NACTOR to see the criteria that the reviewers applied. — jmcgnh(talk)(contribs)07:14, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Block?
I need an administrator to look into the actions of a user. He/She is doing constant disruptive edits to a page and using derogatory language. To me, I think it warrants a block. Snickers2686 (talk) 05:23, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Snickers2686: Who is the user? I (or someone else here) would be happy to report them for you. Alternatively, you could report them to WP:AIV (Administrator intervention against vandalism, for clear cases of vandalism where the user has already received several warnings) or WP:ANI (Administrator's noticeboard: incidents, for more involved cases). Gaelan💬✏️05:28, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies: The very first edit that account made was probably a pretty good indication what was to come. I think it's also safe to suggest they they are not really going to need user talk page access after seeing the unblock request they left on their user talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:01, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Italian account — forgetful issue or security issue?
Hi! I am a long-time, infrequent editor here at English Wikipedia. Today I got an email from Italian Wikipedia because someone at it.wikipedia.org had put a friendly “welcome newcomer” on my user page over there. But I don’t remember ever signing up over there (and the Katsam over there hasn’t made edits).
The most likely explanation is that I made the account and forgot about it — I do speak some Italian - but I just wanted to check in with you guys and make sure this story doesn’t resemble any known hack/phish/whatever.
(edit conflict) Hi Katsam. I believe some other language Wikipedias are set up to send out automatic welcome messages to any registered accounts who access their pages for the first time. This has happened to me before when I've looked at an article on one of the non-English Wikipedias. I think it might have something to do with WP:SUL. If you've set your preferences to receive email or global notifications, then that might explain you getting the email. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:54, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. That bot left a ton of messages, each signed by a different name. Something is wrong. Do we have a steward on this page, or an it-wiki administrator? Cullen328, do you have someone like that in your Rolodex? Drmies (talk) 05:55, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies, I am quite disgustingly monolingual although I have dabbled with attempting to study other languages such as German, Spanish, French and Hebrew. So, I occasionally look at articles in those languages with the help of Google Translate. I remember looking at a Portuguese article a few years back and being besieged by notifications in that language. But the only "bosses" I know are former ArbCom members here on English Wikipedia. Cullen328Let's discuss it07:03, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Amusingly, a few hours after I clicked a link in this discussion, I got a message from the same bot. Anyway, there's a page seemingly associated with the bot (it:Wikipedia:Benvenuto_Bot/Firme) with a list of usernames—I'm guessing (with 0 Italian knowledge) that that's a list of users who are willing to help new users, and the bot sends welcomes in their name. Gaelan💬✏️09:08, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is indeed....many other-language Wikipedias leave automated welcome messages (I think I got one in Thai once) when you just go on a page over there and look at it (no need to edit at all). Seems the Italians try to be a tad more friendly and have linked Users who signed up for it to the welcoming bot. Lectonar (talk) 10:40, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Katsam: In it-wiki, as like as many other language Wikis, there are bots used to welcome new users, even who auto-create their account by SUL. It's a kind gesture from IT community to new users. At the end of the welcome-message there is a sign randomly picked up from it:Wikipedia:Benvenuto_Bot/Firme. It is a protected page where only administrators can add new signatures by the users' own proposal; in this way we are sure to get trusted signatures, who will surely be able to give indications to new users. --.avgas10:57, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Foreign language referencing
Hello, i am trying to write an article about a business in Kuwait but have faced the problem that there aren't many reliable English references available to use. Is it possible to use Arabic references from reliable sources (news articles) or would i have to first write an article on the Arabic Wikipedia then request for that to be translated to English?
Thank you for your time and advice, MahmoudGohary96 (talk) 07:09, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Would really like somebody's help with this as we were told to add more references into our draft page for it to be published. We added references in and now we have been told it is not acceptable as the references are not suitable. Very unsure as to how we are able to going to publish this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.244.179.46 (talk) 09:00, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm not sure who "we" is, but from the edit history of your IP I think you have an account but are logged out of it, as there are no recent edits to a draft logged under the IP. To better help you, we will need to know the name of the draft you are talking about. If by "we" you mean that you are attempting to create a draft about your own group or organization, you will need to review WP:COI and WP:PAID; it is usually inadvisable to edit about one's own organization. I can't give more specific information without knowing the draft involved. 331dot (talk) 10:40, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How to add the box with image and information on the right side?
I am about to publish an article on wikipedia. I really wanted to know how to add that box on the right that contains the summary of bio and pictures of people.
I couldn't find such information myself, please help me. Horses With Angel Wings (talk) 11:22, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, PartapSBimrah and welcome to the Teahouse. I have no idea what you mean by "with delegation article within a minutes". But if you want to have a go at the difficult task of writing a Wikipedia article, then please start by studying Your first article. My personal view is that not only will it help you to write an article if you spend a few weeks or months improving existing articles before you try, but you will also probably be adding more value to Wikipedia in that way. --ColinFine (talk) 14:41, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Cogital page - factual inaccuracies
Hi there, I was just wondering how to update some of the facts on the cogital page? I am a part of their PR team from the company Celicourt Communications.
The changes that need to be made are:
1. change from cogital to CogitalGroup (one-word)
2. the subsiduaries include Azets, Wilkins Kennedy, Blick Rothenburg, Campbell Dallas
3. CogitalGroup are an 'international business services group' rather than British ....
4. The founding partner and former CEO of Deloitte held the positions of Deloitte global Managing Director between 2003 and 2007. Then he was made Deloitte global chairman between 2007 and 2011.
5. Cogital group has 6,000+ staff, 175 offices and 90,000 clients
Please let me know how I can arrange for the page to be updated and include this information as opposed to the current one. Thank you so much and I look forward to hearing from you. All the best,
My company has acquired a company and I need to update the title of the article
hello team,
we have acquired Console Connect Inc and now the article should read Console Connect by PCCW Global. I am new to wikipedia and I can not find how to update this part.
Name change done. See answer to the other part of your question at your talk page, copied from the Talk page of the IP address that had previously asked questions about Cogital. P.S. Sign all comments by typing four of David notMD (talk) 17:17, 19 February 2019 (UTC) at end. David notMD (talk) 17:17, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I created a profile about my grandfather, i also created a similar profile at imdb webpage, and when i tried to complete it here it was rejected automatically by bot (or marked) and rejected by Dan Aart.
Could you please help with this issue?
THanks in advance.
@Tigresj: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Your draft has no independent reliable sources in it to support its content and indicate that he meets Wikipedia's special definition of notability for actors, written at WP:NACTOR. It seems like he might, but you need the sources. While I believe you, we cannot simply accept any user's word on anything, as verifiability is an important principle of Wikipedia. Don't feel discouraged, successfully writing a new article is probably the hardest thing to do here. Please read Your First Article for more information. 331dot (talk) 17:30, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I am a complete amateur at wikipedia. I have set up an account and would like to edit a few paragraphs in an existing wikipedia page. However I am not being given the option to edit-can someone please assist? Thank you genetic2019 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Genetic2019 (talk • contribs) 17:23, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Genetic2019. Given what you describe, it sounds like the article is protected from editing. That might be full or semi-protection. If the latter, you can edit the article after your account becomes autoconfirmed. Either way, you can make a request on the talk page for a specific edit to be made. (In my experience, a common mistake when making edit requests is not being specific enough. Requests that, for example, say "It should describe more about X", will fail. Instead it should say something like "Please add this sentence to this part, with this cited source: Suggested sentence[cite].) See Wikipedia:Edit requests for how to request that an edit be made. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:09, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am wondering what to do when there is incorrect information on a Wiki page for a company that I work for. We are trying to remedy the incorrect facts on the page, but our edits either get rejected, or they're accepted and edited incorrectly in a short period of time. What do companies do with their incorrect information if this happens to them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.54.105.125 (talk) 17:26, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. We don't usually add entries in list articles if there isn't an existing, stand-alone article on the subject to link to. You'll note that every entry at Lists of film archives is linked to an existing article. Where we do include a red link, it must be clear that an article is warranted but just hasn't been created yet, such as through pointing to reliable, secondary, independent sources treating the topic in substantive detail, that could be used to support the notability of such an article, and to add verifiable content. Doing so here would require some leg work-- to look for sources and cite them and the burden of doing that is on the person wishing to add it, which is you. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:54, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Protection Of Newly Created Drafts
How to protect your newly created drafts from vandalism, Beacause Creating anything in this world requires time and patience but when unnecessarily some new editors try to spoil your hardwork by toppling in With nonsense doesn’t left good impression and doesn’t inspire to work again or contribute again.
I looked at the drafts you've worked on, and neither of them seem to have been vandalized. That being said, if you do find that a draft (or any article) has been vandalized, every version of an article is archived. So you can get your version back by going to the "view history" tab in the top right of the page and clicking "undo" on the vandalizing edit. If there have been multiple edits, the process is a little more complicated: click the date on the version you would like to go back to, then click "edit" at the top of the page and save. Gaelan💬✏️19:39, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jenifer Intiha: May I politely just add that it would be preferable to wait before adding the names of new notable alumni into articles until those draft pages have been created and accepted here? Wikipedia doesn't generally regard any person as notable until they have a page here, though I thank you for including a citation, and wish you luck with your editing. I've added a welcome message to your talk page which mentions the "Women in Red" project that you might be interested in. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:13, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Started a page, and am only serious editor on it. Can someone check/edit my work?
Having attended the annual arts fair in Carbondale, CO called Mountain Fair multiple years in a row, and seeing it had no page on Wikipedia about it, despite being a popular event compared to the areas population, I decided to make a page for it. Presentlty, I am one of only three people to have edited the page, and the only one who has edited it more then a few times. I've been working on the page for a few months now, and have a decent page created. However, I have had extremely little amount of people editing my work, and I want to make sure it is all good, grammatically correct and is in proper Wikipedia page style for a page about an annual fair. Could someone check out the page Mountain Fair, check if you think it needs any editing and if so make those edits?
Also note, that I definitely think it is an annual fair that is worthy of a page on Wikipedia. This is because it has had tons of news coverage from local newspapers and news sources over the years, and there is plenty of sources to use to back up information used in the article. Greshthegreat (talk) 19:41, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You can submit it for review at Articles for Creation which you can do by pasting {{subst:submit}} (with the double curly brackets) at the top of the draft. However, if you submit to AfC it will be declined, as none of the references meet Wikipedia standards. Not the band's website, not GDPC (their record label), not YouTube, not BandLab. Can you find published refs at which the band has been written about in a significant way? David notMD (talk) 21:36, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Hello, Scurvy G. You can submit your draft by pasting {{subst:submit}} (with the double curly brackets) at the top. But don't bother yet, as it will certainly not be accepted. Not one of the five references is an independent, reliable source. Wikipedia is basically not interested in anything said or published by the subject, their friends, relations, employers, employees, producers, publicists, or associates. What you need is places where people who have no connection whatever with the band have chosen to write about the band at some length, and been published somewhere with a reputation for editorial control and fact-checking, such as a major newspaper or a reputable publisher. If you cannot find such sources, then the band are by definition not notable in the way Wikipedia uses the word, and working on the draft is a waste not only of your own time, but that of anybody who has to review it. The same is true, by the way, of Draft:GDPC music hall of fame: Wikipedia is only interested if people unconnected with it have chosen to write about it. --ColinFine (talk) 21:52, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am interested for now in reading the articles and checking for spelling and grammatical errors. Is this type of task available?
Yes! Thanks for offering to help with this neverending task. See WP:TYPO to start. In the see also section there is a link to other projects related to cleanup like this. RudolfRed (talk)
...and gals, don't forget! ... Hi Enrique94834, welcome to the Teahouse. I'm a bit unclear what you're asking. The page you mention appears to have been protected by Lectonar because of disruptive editing (though for some reason the 'protected' icon isn't showing), and some of that appears to have happened after you contributed there, but I see you were warned last month about contributing hoax content. I'm completely unfamiliar with the topic, and without wading through huge numbers of edits it's hard for me to work out what exactly you mean. Just be careful in future only to add content that you can prove is reliable. If you feel that errors remain in the article, would you please raise this on the article's talk page? It has 46 editors watching it, so you're bound to get a reply there. Sorry this isn't more helpful. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:44, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a list of prohibited websites for citations?
I swear I read somewhere here in Wikipedia a list of websites that were prohibited or blocked for using as citations. I remember gofundme.com was one of them. I've spent hours searching for that list and can't find it again. Does anyone know where it is, please? Nomopbs (talk) 00:40, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks but no, that's not it. But it gave me a new search term ("blacklist"). But still no joy. I swear it's out there somewhere. Nomopbs (talk) 02:39, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Fug: Another good link (but not the one I recall) to keep and read. Gee, I could spend all day and night reading good shit in here. Oh wait! I DID spend all day and night in here. Nomopbs (talk) 05:33, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thegooduser. It depends on if the user removing the speedy tag is or is not the creator of the page. A creator is not permitted to remove the speedy tag. Revert as many times as necessary, while warning with the escalating template warning series, {{Uw-speedy1}}, {{Uw-speedy2}}, {{Uw-speedy3}} and {{Uw-speedy4}}. 3RR is irrelevant as to this. If the removal happens after the last in the series, report for a block at WP:AIV. Generally speaking, good faith removals of speedy tags by non-creators makes speedy deletion controversial, i.e., no longer appropriate, and thus the page should be taken for consideration on the merits at an XfD discussion forum. However, this does not include blatant copyright violations, attack pages and obvious vandalism. This means, of course, that for a U5 or G11, if the removal is by a non-creator, and not in bad faith, you should not be reverting that. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:21, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all, how should I go about dealing with a biased editor? I am trying to make edits to my alma mater's page, but a certain editor continually reverts the edits to inaccurate information. This person is a former student that was expelled and legally banned from the campus, so he has is obviously biased against the university. How can I correct this issue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Southernhunter (talk • contribs) 15:26, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Wisconsin Jewish Chronicle, though, should have spelled it "Maoth", with the 'a' and 'o' transposed. Does this warrant a " [sic]" notation, or does this qualify as what MOS:QUOTE calls a trivial typographic error that should simply be corrected without comment? Or something else? Jkgree (talk) 15:33, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is image for a Polish RAF Pilot I would like to upload.
The pilots name is Tadeusz Koc I'm not sure if copyright rules apply to old images from the 40s of military personal of the RAF I've found two images I had added a box to his page but not an image. Here is a link to one image the image for this one is above the name and here is the other one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jediaj02 (talk • contribs) 16:39, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your User page is a place to write about your intentions as a Wikipedia editor. Your Sandbox is a place you can work on drafting an article. As DB wrote, advice is not to try to write an article about yourself. David notMD (talk) 20:49, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Some days later, I passed by the main English Wikipedia page, where I read the 'Did you know...' line of the OK_gesture. In its Talk:OK_gesture page, I started writing an observation related to it (you can read it here). While I was still writing it, it was deleted from the page.
Both texts that I wrote were meant to highlight an objective observation of each article, but one was taken as rumination and the other one was deleted. In this sense, which one of them was edited right? I tried to ask each editor but I stopped hearing from them. I want to be completely clear so I don't make incorrect assumptions next time.
Hello, JoseEduardoTR, and welcome to the Teahouse. Please read about original research. No opinion, argument, conclusion, comparison, or theory is ever appropriate in a Wikipedia article, unless it is wholly contained in a single reliable source, which is cited. Talk pages are for discussing the corresponding article and how to improve it, not for discussing the subject. So it is sometimes permissible to argue or theorise about the reliability or interpretation of sources on the talk page, but not about the subject itself. --ColinFine (talk) 17:11, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What you told me makes complete sense to me. First, I am not making an opinion ("I believe that this text is appropriate for this article..."), or an argument ("I disagree with you because my text is better..."), conclusion ("my text is the best..."), or a theory ("I believe in what I wrote, and so you should too..."); and second, I am not using the Wikipedia article, but the talk page.
What I wrote was meant to highlight an objective observation of each article. If both have the same purpose, I still don't know why one was added with the text 'Ruminations' and the other one was deleted.
Hello, JoseEduardoTR. As far as I can see, your "Ruminations" are 100% original research. They are your theories, opinions, and conclusions about the subject matter. As such, they can never go into the article, and I cannot see how they comply with WP:TALK#USE, so they do not belong on the talk page. (See particularly "Do not use the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic: the talk page is for discussing how to improve the article, not vent your feelings about it." in section TPNO.)
As for why one of your contributions was deleted and the other not, that is because Wikipedia is a volunteer project with many different editors, who don't always interpret the guidelines the same way. I don't think DavidWBrooks was right to delete your section - TPO as I read it says that collapsing the off-topic section would have been more appropriate. I have collapsed your Ruminations section for that reason. --ColinFine (talk) 20:20, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hey ColinFine, thanks a ton for your clarification.
In the sense of 'original research', I will give it a thought, mainly because both texts that I wrote were based only on observation. I didn't research anything and I didn't come up with something original; I am inclined to think that someone with unbiased observation will watch this painting pretty similar as I do. Which is why I think they should at least be read and considered, not deleted.
Besides, they are not 'my' ruminations, the title 'Rumination' was added later. Those are only the result of my observation without evaluation, which I also consider the highest form of intelligence.
If you think that you are right by collapsing my observation, will you also be right by telling me to write back and collapse my observation on the OK gesture's talk page without the unfortunate to be deleted?
I've been deleting pure nonsense drafts and reverting vandalism as well as editing articles. However, an admin told me I don't have enough experience to do that. Why is that the case if so? --One Blue Hat❯❯❯ (talk)18:25, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What the VERY experienced editor wrote on your Talk is "Don't tag any more pages for speedy deletion." As you have been an editor for only a month, valid advice. Sometimes, inexperienced/new editors create an incomplete article directly in Wikipedia rather than submit to Articles for Creation, with intention to come back to the article and improve it. Rather than slap them with a SD, perhaps offer advice on how to improve the article, or just do nothing, with hope it will be improved. There is no need for rush to judgement. David notMD (talk) 21:13, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
--CiaPan (talk) 17:10, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't know if I will be able to solve your problem in full, but I do have a work-around to offer: have you tried adding that page to your Watchlist? Not as good as a notification, but at least it might stop updates from going un-noticed.--Gronk Oz (talk) 01:26, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
–84.46.53.0 (talk) 15:38, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
–84.46.53.0 (talk) 17:29, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Resolved