Wikipedia:Teahouse

Welcome to the Teahouse...                        

A friendly place to learn about editing Wikipedia.

Click here to
ask a question

Shantavira, a Teahouse host

Question forum

Host profiles

Guest profiles

Experienced editor? Become a host!

Learn more about the Teahouse

Articles to improve

Question archive

Guest archive

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

Help Wikipedia

Help with Philosophy's definition

How can I request someone(s) look at the Talk page for Philosophy? There's an argument about the page's first sentence; Philosophy's definition. It's not easy thing to define. Some more opinions maybe useful.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Liberty5651 (talk • contribs) 01:05, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

They may indeed be useful, provided they have been published in WP:Reliable sources.--Quisqualis (talk) 16:26, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Need help with requested articles with existing images

I put Wikipedia:Requested articles/Images together ages ago and maintained it for years. I haven't got the time these days.

Is anyone interesting in repopulating it with good items? It gets a solid 60 page views a day, so could mean plenty of new articles over time. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:55, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi! I'm brand new to the editing side of Wikipedia. I might be interested in this if you could explain to me how it's done. I'm looking for a regular maintenance project to take on. Oetc (talk) 06:24, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Welcome, Oetc. That sounds good. However, let's wait until you have at least a few hundred edits. Right now, you have 10 edits. Having a little more experience with markup would be good. Plus, before I teach you how to maintain the page, I'd like to know you will actually stick around. Please let me know at my talk page if/when you are ready. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:29, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Is there a way to tag drafts that have been submitted for consideration?

I'm curious why some of my drafts have been reviewed/approved within days and others are sitting many weeks. Are there reviewers for specific areas of interest and if so, is there a way to designate that in the article? I know I can't add categories yet. Or is it just luck of the draw? Thanks. Actaudio (talk) 00:50, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello Actaudio, welcome to the Teahouse! Drafts in the Articles for Creation process are generally reviewed in a random order. While others have made similar suggestions for subject-matter based reviewers, none have been implemented as far as I know. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 01:14, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello Actaudio. Each reviewer voluntarily chooses which draft to review and which to pass by. In my experience, drafts that are lean and concise, and lack any promotional content, and are referenced to indisputably reliable sources that clearly show the notability of the topic, will usually be reviewed promptly. Bloated promotional drafts loaded up with poor quality refererences that are ambiguous about notability are often passed by. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:37, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

deleting a copyrighted image

I uploaded an image not knowing the copyright. I would like to delete it. The page is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Begeman_profile.png

How do I delete it. It is a plot in a scientific journal which I have used in one of my own papers. However, it originated in an earlier paper referenced here: Begeman, K. G. 1989,A\&A,223,47

This is part of my first article which I have just started working on after a hiatus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbrout (talk • contribs) 03:32, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Bbrout. I have deleted the file as you requested. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:41, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Draft

Should I get a draft approved before I get started on writing or does an approval process occur after it is written up? I have been doing a lot of research on upcoming music platforms for artists and am thinking of writing about either Create Music Group (articles in Forbes, Billboard, Fast Company, Variety) or Stem (articles in NY Times, TechCrunch, Hypebot). The companies are similar to Steve Stoute's company UnitedMasters which only has a couple references and gave me the idea. Any help would be much appreciated! I took a look at GNG after I was told here and thought these might be good topics to propose. Sorry for the long message. Thanks again all for your patience and help with a noob! Grimothy29 (talk) 05:05, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Grimothy29. Drafts are reviewed once they are submitted, but I can imagine that it would be frustrating to spend time writing and submitting a draft, only to be told that the subject does not meet the notability criteria, so it might be worth asking for advice on that here once you have decided on your topic. I wouldn't use UnitedMasters as a template - just because one article exists with only a couple of sources, doesn't mean that others will be accepted on that basis. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:05, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Grimothy29, for Create: the Forbes article is a full article on a single subject and a completely reliable source. Ditto the Billboard article. Fast Company is just a short blurb, but doesn't hurt. Variety is a shortish article, but it's completely on Create and the source is reliable. I think you're good to go for an article on them. valereee (talk) 10:34, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

@Valereee and Cordless Larry: Thanks for the direction. I will go through the Article wizard to see if I can figure this out! Grimothy29 (talk) 20:03, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

What should I do with pervasive use of 2d and 3d for 2nd and 3rd?

Hi, I've been adding leads for a while and tidy up some things I find as I go along. Lately, I've been making leads for the various squadrons in List of United States Air Force squadrons. I corrected a few typos of 3d and 2d to 3rd and 2nd, but I'm now finding them everywhere, including here: 2d Airborne Command and Control Squadron. It's 2d throughout the article and there's a redirect from 2nd Airborne Command and Control Squadron. I checked the Air Force website, where it's called the 2nd (https://www.offutt.af.mil/News/Article/1163199/wing-makes-move-to-nebraska/). I'm hesitant about changing such a pervasive usage, and reluctant to have time-consuming edits undone if I should have just left it. Some advice would be most welcome. – Shillings1005 (talk) 06:17, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Shillings1005 welcome to the Teahouse. (Declaration: I know zilch about this topic) You do right to raise your concerns before diving in to make alterations. Like you, I am also somewhat bemused by this seemingly illogical naming convention, especially as all of the official websites I've checked thus far either use 2nd, 3rd, 942nd squadron etc in their homepage titles, or some very short abbreviation like 2ACCS. That said, I see both forms used by the 552nd Air Control Wing (see home page) versus (welcome page)

Now Wikipedia has a naming policy called WP:COMMONNAME, whereby the title of articles is decided upon by what independent published sources mostly refer to a topic, not what the subject calls itself. That said, I can see no rationale for using such incomprehensible naming like 2d for 2nd unless all the military operatives deployed there are distant cousins of Flat Stanley! We would not name articles by what a bunch of military insiders like to call something - and clearly they do do this, but by what other reliable independent sources (worth checking news media and military books) generally call it. Because this unusual naming has been used across so many articles, it's almost inevitable that these concerns have been previously discussed and agreed somewhere. I suggest you should wait a while to see if anyone more knowledgeable answers here first, and then go over to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history where you could search their archives before re-posting your question there. I see there is a style guide at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Military history, but I can find no answer to your question there. I agree with you that these odd namings are so widespread in titling and in content that it would be extremely unwise to unilaterally attempt to 'correct' them when there may well have been some previous WP:RFC on how they should be handled. But they seem pretty daft to me, and I would have expected the 'correct' name and then any insider abbreviation to be explicitly mentioned and emboldened within the lead paragraphs of the relevant articles. But my uninformed opinion doesn't count for much in this arena. It would be good to have feedback from you about how you get on. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 12:05, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Nick Moyes and Shillings1005, 2d and 2nd are both correct usage, choice is generally a matter of preference in general writing, but in this case we're talking about the names of something. If we look at List of United States Air Force airborne command and control squadrons we see the link to 2nd Airborne Command and Control Squadron written out with 2nd, but that link redirects to 2d, so I suspect there's been discussion and consensus somewhere. valereee (talk) 12:30, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

MOS:ORDINAL covers this. See discussion at WT:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers/Archive_158#MOS:ORDINAL and the related Milhist discussion at WT:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_147#AFSOC_353_SOG_correct_title_-_353rd/353d Martin of Sheffield (talk) 13:10, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Gosh, that took quite some reading through, but thanks, Martin of Sheffield for those links to really significant discussions which clearly shows that consensus was reached to change our 'Manual of Style to require 'nd' and 'rd' to indicate 2nd and 3rd or 552nd, and that this should be taken to include all the military article titles and their contents. (Pinging Valereee as this, I'm afraid, counters the advice you kindly gave in good faith.) Personally, I'm not going to wade through the lot and change them, but some Wikignome might well fancy the task (probably using WP:AWB than attempting it manually). Hope that gives you your answer, Shillings1005. And should you decide to make those changes, my advice would be to include in any edit summary reference to both MOS:ORDINAL, and also the military-orientated archived discussion that led to that near-unanimous consensus and re-wording of our Manual of Style. Thanks to all. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:34, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi again, and thank you very much Nick Moyes, Valereee, and especially Martin of Sheffield, for clearing that up for me. I've just been reading through all that and counting up how many articles need to be changed (a lot). A few more queries: in one such article where the title has already been changed, but not much in the text, I wrote in the lead The 33rd Fighter Wing, sometimes written 33d Fighter Wing, (33 FW) is a United States Air Force unit… I took my cue from Nick Moyes's suggestion to highlight the alternative in the lead, because there's plenty of inconsistency still within the article that can't be changed (refs for instance, and insignia) – any good reason why I shouldn't proceed in like fashion with further articles?; also, is there a simple way to get introduced to WP:AWB? – Shillings1005 (talk) 16:13, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

@Shillings1005: What you've started on 33rd Fighter Wing looks fine to me. (Offhand, I can't remember whether our guidelines require the acronym in bold too - I suspect it does, but would have to check). You can probably use 'Categories' as well as 'Lists' to help you find articles, even without AWB. You do have nearly double the minimum number of mainspace edits to be able request and be granted permission to use AWB - but it is a very powerful tool! When I had it installed on my last PC I only ever used it for routine finding things like finding and fixing typos, but even then, care is needed not to be gung-ho about accepting every suggested change you're offered without careful checking. Not liking to upset other editors, I still might, myself, be minded to drop by WikiProject Military and leave a note to say what you're proposing to do and show one 'fixed' example to get feedback - ensuring that you've addressed all the ordinal numbering right throughout the article. On the basis of our discussion above, I can't see anyone objecting - assuming you've done it all right - but it's always nice to explain what you're going to do if you are planning minor edits to innumerable articles to which someone might still have a strong - and now outdated - view about. Good luck! Nick Moyes (talk) 16:37, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

@Shillings1005: IMHO your approach in the lead satisfies both MOS and, more importantly, WP:RF. The principal of least surprise applies. Alternatively are there any WikiGnomes wanting to nip around the USAF with a can of paint? :-) Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:57, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Nick Moyes, oh, I didn't mean correct usage as WP's MOS, just in general writing using 2d vs 2nd are both acceptable. 2d is a bit obsolete, though, so I'm not surprised that MOS came to consensus on 2nd. valereee (talk) 17:44, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. To me 2d and 3d either refer to old UK currency (tu'ppence or threepence - pronounced throopence), or two and three dimensions. I chuckled at the comments from the American editors who thought it was a UK/European convention, whilst the UK/European editors was thought it was the Americans who were messing with the English language. Oh well, at least we know what Wikipedia thinks of it now. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:20, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Comment: for reference, here are some previous discussions of military unit ordinal indicators: 132nd Fighter Wing, 93rd Infantry Division, Naming conventions (military units), Manual of Style (dates and numbers). --Kkmurray (talk) 04:00, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

First publication was on 15th april or 9th april of Fagun newspaper

Hello !!

I have been around this article for some time about a newspaper article Fagun, but the sources are different, which source should be preferred.

• In this article the date of publication of newspaper is given as 15th april 2008 but their is no mention in the reference listed here:- as given in this article as its source|Allindiaaseca.
• I have found a source which has mentioned The first publication of Fagun as April 9, 2008 source:-| Orissa post

But its not sufficient to prove that on which particular date it is published. what to do next ? --Rocky 734 (talk) 10:33, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Rocky 734. If you think that one of the sources is reliable and the other not, just ignore the second one. (If you think people are likely to come and change it, because the less reliable source is popular, you could discuss it on the Talk page, or put a comment in the source, or both). If both sources seem to be generally reliable, just quote both dates, citing each one, but you should not attempt to resolve the disagreement in the text. If you think neither is reliable, don't put the data in. --ColinFine (talk) 10:50, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Rocky 734. Another alternative is to state that the newspaper was founded in April, 2008, and omit the specific date. For the reader, that avoids a confusing presentation about a very minor point. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:49, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Publishing my wikipedia page - Akeem Griffiths

Good afternoon,

I was wondering if you could help me. I have recently published a wikipedia page for myself which i can visibly see. How do i publish it so when people type in my name on google my name appears ?

Many thanks,

Akeem — Preceding unsigned comment added by AkeemGriffiths (talk • contribs) 17:32, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

@AkeemGriffiths: You created a user page, which is not for promoting oneself.

Because you are Akeem Griffiths, read WP:COI and WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY to understand why we strongly discourage writing about yourself or even editing an article about you.

If, after reading those, you insist on trying to write about yourself anyway, follow the instructions on this page. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:37, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Oh, and another thing @AkeemGriffiths: Also read WP:OWN. Basically, it's not "your" Wikipedia page. It is our page about you (if we don't delete it). Ian.thomson (talk) 17:39, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Publishing our wikipedia page - Akeem Griffiths

Hi Ian,

Many thanks for the quick reply.

I really appreciate your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AkeemGriffiths (talk • contribs) 17:42, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Akeem Griffiths - Our Wikipedia page

Hi Teahouse,

I have now created my profile. I know i am asking several questions so apologies but is it the case of just waiting for our page 'Akeem Griffiths' to be published ?

Thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AkeemGriffiths (talk • contribs) 18:20, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, AkeemGriffiths. Did you read any of the information which you thanked ian.thomson for providing?

• Wikipedia does not contain profiles. Not one.
• You may not use your User page to create something that looks like a Wikipedia article: it is a place where you may if you choose some information about yourself as a Wikipedia editor. You can add a small amount of more general information about yourself there, but the purpose of the page is to make yourself known to the Wikipedia community as a Wikipedia editor, nothing else.
• You are strongly discouraged from writing or editing an article about yourself.
• You may not use Wikipedia for promotion of anything or anybody, commercial or not. Period.

Please read the links ian gave you, and come back if you have any further questions. --ColinFine (talk) 18:33, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

@AkeemGriffiths: As Ian and Colin pointed out, Wikipedia is not for you to promote yourself or your achievements. If you are truly notable (by our standards), someone will create an article about you sooner or later. That said, I moved your attempt of a draft in your user space to the draft space and entered it into the articles for creation system. You can now find it at Draft:Akeem Griffiths. You can edit that page and if an experienced editor finds the draft sufficiently establishing notability, they will move it to the main space. Regards SoWhy 20:05, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Colin,

I have read the content that was previously provided and the information was very useful. I completely understand that this is not a place to write an autobiography and it strongly advises that i should not publish an article about myself which i fully understand.

I don't know what the process is and my knowledge is currently lacking from a wikipedia perspective but i will do the relevant research as what i want if possible is an article written about me so when people type in my name in the google search engine a wikipedia page displays with information about me so basically wikipedia identifying who i am.

The reason for this is wikipedia is a great encyclopedia tool and i want the world to know what i have achieved so far.

Unfortunately i am not a wikipedia editor.

I hope this makes sense and apologies for the constant questions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AkeemGriffiths (talk • contribs) 19:56, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

@AkeemGriffiths: please don't start a new section when you want to reply to somebody else - just edit the existing section instead. As for what you want to do: if and when you become notable according to Wikipedia's definition of notability, somebody who is not connected to you in any way will probably create an article about you. It is not something you can have any influence over, however. Wikipedia only documents what has already been written about a topic in reliable independent sources, it is not a place to spread the word about topics that have not been written about. --bonadea contributions talk 20:01, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

@AkeemGriffiths: If you just want to tell the world about yourself on your own terms, you should use a personal website that you own, or social media. 331dot (talk) 20:09, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Colin did you the favor of moving what you created to Draft:Akeem Griffiths. This is a public place, in that other edits can add or subtract to it, but it is not in Wikipedia "Main Space" and thus does not turn up via Google searches. It has been submitted. I expect it to be declined. In addition to not creating proper references, I doubt you meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. Lastly, as noted above, People are STRONGLY advised not to try to create articles about themselves WP:Autobiography. David notMD (talk) 20:37, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you all i really appreciate the information that you havbe provided. I have a lot to learn about wikipedia. 21:15pm

Many thanks.

Host

How or when does one become an experienced editor? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MacDanson (talk • contribs) 20:21, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

@MacDanson: Becoming an experienced editor takes time, we were all newbies at one point. Keep using Wikipedia and overtime, you get more experience about how Wikipedia functions. Mstrojny (talk) 20:34, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, MacDanson, welcome to the Teahouse. Mstrojny has answered succinctly; I will do the reverse. I could reply by asking you how long is a piece of string? I genuinely don't know how to answer your question about experience. It almost depends who's asking! Even after six or seven years here, with some 30,000+ edits, and after a year of helping others at the Teahouse, I still feel I have much to learn about how Wikipedia works. Am I experienced? Personally, I've tried to gain experience of many different areas, and now I think I know the basics that keeps this amazing, wonderful encyclopaedia working, and I understand how I can best interact with, or maybe guide and support other editors. Perhaps I am experienced enough to know that I am not yet that experienced!

But almost every day I learn something new about how things work here, and I can look back to when I'd made just my first few, and then my first few hundred edits and can see how inexperienced I then was. But every one of us starts from that point, just as you are right now, and we welcome you. We need new editors like you to stick around, to learn and to do their best and to become the experienced editors of tomorrow. Take small steps at a time; don't rush. What brings experience is not time; it's not repeating the same old things; it's doing new things and learning from your mistakes, or from others who interact with you along the way, gradually realising that you can answer more questions than you find yourself asking. I can honestly say that watching, learning and occasionally helping others here at the Teahouse has taught me so much. It's been an honour to be able to help out. When I first started I didn't know there was The Wikipedia Adventure; nobody pointed me towards Referencing for Beginners or Your First Article, or even Articles for Creation or this Teahouse. (I wish they had!)

Of course, there are certain more stats-based indicators of 'experience' used as a base measure in determining whether an editor should be given certain roles and responsibilities such as WP:NPP, WP:ROLLBACK, or being a Teahouse host. But, maybe it'll come down to you being able to decide for yourself when and whether you feel you've become an experienced editor, and also how others come to judge the quality of your contributions and interactions. Listen and act on what others tell you. There'll come a time when you think you are there, and then along comes something that makes you realise there's still so much more to learn. If others here at the Teahouse can help you in that journey to becoming an experienced editor, we've done our bit to help Wikipedia, too. Oh, and next time, could you sign your talk page posts by typing four keyboard tilde characters right at the end (like this: ~~~~) - it helps others know who posted what, and in what order. Good luck! Nick Moyes (talk) 21:21, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

New article

How can I create a article on Wikipedia?

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for wanting to contribute. You can read about the new article process here: WP:YFA. This is not something easy to do for a new editor. The usual advice to is start by working to improve existing articles instead. You can also learn more at the WP:TUTORIAL or the learning game WP:ADVENTURE. RudolfRed (talk) 20:36, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

@MacDanson: Also, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts by typing four tildes (like this ~~~~). Mstrojny (talk) 20:41, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Marked for deletion ... how to respond?

My article is marked for deletion. Where do I enter a response? Do I edit the marked for deletion notice or do I respond directly to the editor? Is the notice the talk page itself? Article is here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roxy%27s_Ruler — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbrout (talk • contribs) 20:56, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

@Bbrout: There is a link in the notice at the top of the article: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Roxy's_Ruler. That is where you can respond and discuss the proposed deletion. RudolfRed (talk) 20:59, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

@RudolfRed: Thank you. The only link I can find is this: "Please share your thoughts on the matter at this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page." I assume I go there and edit the entry in order to respond? I am an absolute beginner to this. Bbrout(talk)

@Bbrout: That is correct. Read WP:YFA to learn what is needed for an article. It is not easy for a new editor, working on existing article's is a good way to get Wikipedia experience. You can also check out WP:TUTORIAL and the learning game WP:ADVENTURE RudolfRed (talk) 21:43, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

@RudolfRed: Thank you. I am now responding back and forth in what is becoming a very interesting discussion. Luckily I have a friend nearby who does a lot of editing on Wikipedia. Bbrout(talk) 21:53, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Why is not my artist profile published?

Hey,

I did our artist profile about 2 months ago and published it. But why is it not published yet? How long does it take?

Pleeeease help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobandJack (talk • contribs) 22:16, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Ummm, you mean User:RobandJack? I also see this from 2017.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:21, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

@RobandJack: I would add that usernames that suggest more than one person uses the account, or that are a group, are not permitted; you will need to visit WP:CHU for instructions on how to change your username. 331dot (talk) 22:30, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

This account wrote a highly promotional pseudo-article about a musical duet called "Rob & Jack", which was first deleted in 2017, and then again today. Please be aware that Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promotion, and does not publish "profiles". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:40, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Unable to log in with username

Hi I have been inactive as a contributor for awhile now, but I would like to participate again. The problem is I have found my. username which is User:Mayalekhni. but forgotten the password. Unfortunately the system won;t allow me to reset the password as it says my. UN does not have an associated email address. Can you please help me with recovering my account? My email add is [REDACTED-THEGOODUSER]

thanks!

121.45.92.68 (talk) 23:49, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately unless you added your email address to your account, (which it seems you did not) there is not much that can be done. You will probably need to create a new account and identify it as a successor to your old one. 331dot (talk) 00:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! I have created a. new account. (this time WITH an email add lol). Can you pls guide me to how I can link the two accounts? LekhniMaya (talk) 00:32, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

LekhniMaya You can't --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 01:49, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

LekhniMaya, I am sorry but Thegooduser is incorrect. You can edit your old userpage, adding a note stating that the account is inactive due to password loss, and providing a link to your new userpage. Similarly, you can add a note on your new userpage explaining that you formerly edited under the old account, and linking to the old userpage. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:56, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Cullen328 I thought they meant, that they wanted to add their new account to their old account, [ie log in to their old account with their new account.] --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 01:59, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

RationalWiki

Is the website RationalWiki related/connected to Wikipedia because the layout of the website looks identical. Same with Uncylopedia?

Stephengonzalez100 (talk) 01:06, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Stephengonzalez100, welcome to the Teahouse. Nope, no connection at all, apart from that it appears to use the same freely available mediawiki engine (see here), and thus has similar layout. We do have a neutrally-writtten article about it here on Wikipedia, if you're interested. See RationalWiki. I like the suggestion that, unlike us, it takes a SPOV ('snarky point of view'!), Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:17, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :Welcome to the Teahouse, Stephengonzalez100. Neither of those websites has any direct organizational connection with Wikipedia or its parent organization, the Wikimedia Foundation. However, they share the same freely licensed software platform called MediaWiki, which is used by thousands of websites. That accounts at least in part for the overall similarity in appearance among those websites. Developers of smaller wikis may also believe that resembling Wikipedia in appearance adds to their credibility. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:22, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

We also have an article about Uncyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:25, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Username vs User Page

I requested to change my user name but only wanted to change the title of my page because it had my username as the title. I still want my username to be what I log into my account with but my page name to be my real name since I am a notable recording artist. I researched how to rename it and I did do it. Did I do it correctly?— Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎7light7 (talk • contribs) 01:49, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, 7light7. I have moved your old userpage to Draft:Kristle Murden. You are attempting to write an autobiography, which is both strongly discouraged and very, very difficult. In most cases, I would advise you to drop the effort. You may well be a rare exception to that general rule, because you were one of the lead vocalists on Can You Feel the Love Tonight in the 1994 film The Lion King, and that is a strong claim of notability. That song won an Academy Award for Best Original Song, and you are the only one of the vocalists who does not have a Wikipedia biography. Please begin by reading Your first article and you may want to complete the interactive training called The Wikipedia Adventure. Please be aware that any Wikipedia article about you will not be your page that you control. It will be a neutral, well-referenced article that will summarize what reliable, independent sources say about you. All major assertions will need to be properly referenced to reliable sources. Please feel free to ask additional questions here at the Teahouse, or contact me on my talk page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:30, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Your draft has way too much information in the Early life section. In general, the article needs to be modeled on articles about other successful vocalists. With all the references and discography that involves. I also believe your career meets Wikipedia's definition of notability, but the draft needs help. David notMD (talk) 09:18, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Can you help me to validate my own page in the sand box. See the link above

Dear all, I try to create my own page in the Sandbox and I got an error message. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ukunsumo#Your_submission_at_Articles_for_creation%3A_sandbox_%28March_11%29 Hi all, I am a freelance web developer based in Japan. I wanted to create my own page in the sandbox as shown on YouTube. I received an error message: "Submission declined on 11 March 2019 by PrussianOwl (talk). This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources."

Can you give me some advices on how to resolve this issue. Cheers, Remi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ukunsumo (talk • contribs) 05:28, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Remi. It's not clear what you're trying to do with your sandbox. Are you trying to create a user page or a Wikipedia article? There's a big difference between the two and they are each subject to separate policies and guidelines. If you can clarify which of the two you're trying to create, it will be much easier for someone to help you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:55, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

First, please do not ask same questions at Teahouse and at Help desk. Your User page (see the link MarchJuly provided) is for a short description of your intentions as a Wikipedia editor. It is not supposed to be about you/your career. Wikipedia is not social media. There is no such thing as "my own page." On the very, very small chance you are famous/notable enough to be worthy of an article, Wikipedia strongly advises against trying to write about yourself. See WP:Autobiography. And sign your comments by typing four of ~ at the end. David notMD (talk) 09:25, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Coding on table

I just did the 2019 lineup table on BBC Radio 1's Big Weekend and for some reason, it looks all messed up. Does anyone know how to fix it? It’d be a great help, thank you! – DarkGlow (talk) 12:26, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@DarkGlow: Hi, possibly you just need to add some spaces between internal links? Something like this:

[[Stormzy]] [[Mumford & Sons]] [[Bring Me the Horizon]]

Or, even better, add explicit line breaks:

[[Stormzy]] <br/> [[Mumford & Sons]] <br/> [[Bring Me the Horizon]]

CiaPan (talk) 12:36, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Waiting since months...

Dear helpers, I have posted and, after rejection, substantially updated two articles. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Complexity_Science_Hub_Vienna&action=history https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Stefan_Thurner&action=history

I am convinced they fulfil the Wikipedia criteria (especially when compared to other similar pages). I totally understand (and do not mind) some weeks of waiting; but meanwhile it is months, for one of the articles even half a year since I wrote it... Is that normal? What should I do to advance the process? (This is a rather frustrating experience, to be honest...). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avecaesaria (talk • contribs) 13:05, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Avecaesaria it appears that you submitted Draft:Complexity Science Hub Vienna for review on February 15, 2019 but it hasn't been reviewed yet. The AfC submission template states, "Review waiting, please be patient. This may take more than two months, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 2382 pending submissions waiting for review." So, it can take a couple of months before an AfC reviewer gets to it. Try and remember that every editor (including AfC reviewers) is a WP:VOLUNTEER and sometimes editors get WP:BUSY with other things.

Draft:Stefan Thurner, on the other hand, does not seem to have been submitted for review since it was last declined in November 2018. Drafts are not automatically reviewed by AfC reviewers to check for improvements after they've been declined; they need to be actually submitted by their creators for another review.

There's no real way to speed up the AfC process, but you can ask for feedback at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk. Perhaps one of the editors helping out on that page can offer some more specific advice about the drafts. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:17, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Avecaesaria: In the case of Draft:Stefan Thurner, you have not resubmitted it for review. Still, I would not do so yet. While you do cite independent sources ([1], [2], [3], [4]), they are not specifically or primarily about Thurner, just one thing he happened to be connected with (see WP:BLP1E). The rest of the sources are affiliated or connected with him in some way.

In the case of Draft:Complexity Science Hub Vienna, many of the sources you added either only mention the subject in passing (the primary subject of this source is Facebook, not CSH Vienna) or don't mention the subject at all (such as [5], [6]). The latter kind of reference is just a waste of everyone's time and bandwidth.

All you need to do is find a least three professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources that are specifically and primarily about the subject but not affiliated with, nor connected with, nor dependent upon the subject, and summarize those. You can find more detailed instructions here. If there are not at least three totally independent sources specifically and primarily about the subject, then the subject is not notable. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:19, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello Teahouse, please help me write a properly page as I am a very new and not experienced on this. I am trying to create a page but I do not know how to do it.

Please help!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loc - Xinchao (talk • contribs) 13:25, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@Loc - Xinchao: Hi, I suppose the WP:YFA page could give you some useful hints. --CiaPan (talk) 14:00, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@Loc - Xinchao:,You can also refer to Wp:ACR, but I believe the best is to get the help of a friend who is also a wikipedia user. Alex-h (talk) 14:08, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Infobox Song problem

When I use {{Infobox song}}, and use the "tracks" parameter, the "prev_title" and "next_title" don't show. I don't know why this is. Catinthedogs (talk) 13:44, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Catinthedogs. Have you tried checking the template's documentation at Template:Infobox song#Track listing examples? There seems to be some discussion there on the use of the "tracks" parameter. Moreover, if This Is Lit is the article your trying to use this template in, then I'd be more concerned as whether the album meets WP:NALBUM instead of the the formatting of the infobox template because the article is likely going to end up nominated, tagged or proposed for deletion if you're unable to more clearly establish the album's Wikipedia notability. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:03, 11 March 2019 (UT

Need navigational template help

Please look at Template:Michael Jackson and see why group21 at the bottom doesn't display. I can't figure it out. Thanks. deisenbe (talk) 14:05, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@Deisenbe: Probably it's because {{Navbox musical artist}} handles groups up to number 20. --CiaPan (talk) 14:21, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@Deisenbe: How about this approach? I grouped four groups into a nested navbox: Template:Michael Jackson/sandbox. Some styling still needed. --CiaPan (talk) 15:01, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Templates meaning

Can someone tell me of the template below?

Brohoof!

Thanks. --TheWinRatHere! 16:19, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Thewinrat. I'm pretty sure {{brohoof}} is something to do with Bronies. It has plenty of uses on User and talk pages: if you pick "What links here" you can look at some of them and see how it is used.--ColinFine (talk) 17:15, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism

Why has vandalism been so high for the past few months. I'm pretty new here so I am wondering if this is normal. Doublethink1954 (talk) 20:31, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@Doublethink1954: Are you talking about a certain page? If the vandalism is coming from one user, warn them and report to WP:AIAV when needed. If it is coming from multiple users, you can request that the page be protected here. Does this answer your question? Mstrojny (talk) 20:34, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Not really I meant that the vandal EnterpriseyBot has been reporting high vandalism for a while. Doublethink1954 (talk) 20:39, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@Doublethink1954: The user you mentioned is a bot. You may want to contact the operator Enterprisey to express your concerns about the editing of this bot. Mstrojny (talk) 20:45, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@Doublethink1954:, are you talking about {{Vandalism information}}? You can see a history of vandalism levels here. I checked real quick, and for the last 500 updates, this is the data: 3 times at level 5, 114 times at level 4, 204 times at level 3, 136 times at level 2, and 42 times at level 1. This doesn't take into account how long it's been at that level; it looks like the bot checks every hour but only updates when the level has changed.

The level is based on how many reverts per minute there have been on average over the last hour. If you're interested, the code for the bot is available here. rchard2scout (talk) 12:09, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Quick question about Twinkle

I noticed that Twinkle doesn't have all of the warnings listed at Wikipedia:WARN. Why is that? Is it possible to configure Twinkle so that all of the warnings listed on the page are available for me to use? Also, does it matter whether I ask a question at the Teahouse or the help desk? Mstrojny (talk) 20:31, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Mstrojny. I'm guessing that Twinkle was set up just to offer the most frequently used notices. However at Wikipedia:Twinkle/Preferences#twinkle-config-section-11 you can custom edit additional warnings, and also custom welcomes. (I have one for Women In Red, for example that I use now and again, plus a couple of additional warnings I like to use.) It's fine to ask either here, or at The Help Desk, but we do frown on editors who ask the same question in two places at once. Give it six hours or more between asking elsewhere, so as not to waste volunteer effort in giving two identical replies. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:55, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: I understood before you told me that asking the same question in two different places is not acceptable. I have seen editors asking the same question in two different places and they were told not to do that anymore. Mstrojny (talk) 21:06, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: I think it would be a tedious process to add all of those warnings not listed in Twinkle. Is there an easier solution to this? Mstrojny (talk) 21:14, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Can we not have an option to specify a custom warning list, like we can article tags? Adam9007 (talk) 21:19, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you, Adam9007. I would recommend bringing that proposal up on Twinkle's talk page or Wikipedia:VPT. Mstrojny (talk) 21:56, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Adam9007: Sorry if my answer was unclear. What I was trying to say was that there already is an option, and that you can select and paste in the ones you feel you might want to use from other pre-existing templates in Twinkle's Preferences page, thus creating your own custom list of extras to pick from. You will find all the different types of templates at Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace, and more within that page's subpages. Or have I misunderstood what you are suggesting? @Mstrojny: you are right - it would be tedious to add them all to Twinkle. But do you really need them all? Bear in mind that there are also single issue notices, and single issue warnings and multi-level warnings for quite a range of common vandalism styles and other issues, I've never yet found myself wanting access to a massively long list of esoteric warnings which might even make the task of finding and selecting the commonly used ones much slower. I agree, that suggestions for making things even more effective should be raised at the Twinkle talk page. Finally, Mstrojny, I'm sorry if I misunderstood your question regarding WP:TH and WP:HD. In general, the Teahouse is probably better (and friendlier??) for newcomers to ask the simpler, less technical questions about editing on Wikipedia, whereas the Help Desk tends to get the slightly more difficult ones. After that, the really technical stuff can be asked at Village Pump (technical). And for those who can't be bothered to use Google of even Wikipedia to find stuff out for themselves, there's always a wide range of answers and opinions of varying quality on offer at the WP:REFDESK. Hoping this helps. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:10, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: I missed the option to add custom uw templates to Twinkle . I added some templates. Have I done it right? Is there a way to sort them? Adam9007 (talk) 22:20, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@Adam9007: Stop putting me on the spot! I'm really not brilliant at interpreting the .js file. But here's a diff after I successfully managed to add a custom warning to my Twinkle settings recently - mainly as a test to help another user. They don't quite look the same, but I guess one could reorder them within the .js file - I'm honestly not sure as I've never tried. But feel free to test it out by leaving me any warning notices you want to on my user talk page over the next few hours - I won't take it personally, and far better than doing it to an unsuspecting user. Just remove them all after you've finished testing -perhaps with an edit summary such as "removing test warning templates per Teahouse discussion with user". I'd hate to wake up in the morning and find myself indefinitely blocked by half the admins here! Nick Moyes (talk) 22:34, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Editing articles

When editing articles, I know "Publish changes" means to save the edits, but what's the difference between "Show preview" and "Show changes"?

97.90.47.253 (talk) 21:24, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi IP 97.90.47.253. "Show preview" shows you the entire article or section you've edited as it would appear to the reader after you click "Publish changes", while "Show changes" shows you a side-by-side before and after comparison of just those things you've changed with your edit. If you try it out on any page, even the Teahouse or your user sandbox, you should see the difference. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:34, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Good answer. I rarely use "Show changes", except to help me describe my current edits in the 'Edit summary'. Sometimes I've spent so long that I've actually forgotten what changes I've just made! Seeing just those, as-yet-unpublished edits highlighted in bold can be really useful. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:14, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

How to create new articles and protect them from new editors

How to protect your new articles from new editors so that it’s safe the way you create it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Citylightson (talk • contribs) 21:58, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, @Citylightson: that wouldn't be Wikipedia, the Encyclopedia Anyone Can Edit. There are probably other Websites that make you the sole, uneditable author of an article. Not Wikipedia, however. Jim.henderson (talk) 22:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Karen Hoyos International - Why is the article not being accepted?

I AM CURIOUS WHY THIS IS NOT CONSIDERED NOTABLE FOR WIKIPEDIA AT THIS TIME. THE ORGANIZATION HAS RECEIVED PRESS FROM THE NEW YORK TIMES, HUFFINGTON POST, AND THE FOUNDER HAS BEEN PUBLISHED BY SIMON AND SCHUSTER AND POST HILL PRESS.

Extended content

Karen Hoyos International Karen Hoyos International, also known by the acronym KHI, is a global motivational speaking and coaching, equity, inclusion, and diversity management company headquartered in Miami, Florida, founded by Colombian born entrepreneur and motivations speaker, Karen Hoyos. Hoyos, the CEO, identified the need for motivational speaking to have a world wide presence with a significant focus in the Latin American marketplace. The business provides resources for business professionals, entrepreneurs, women, and diverse nonprofit leaders worldwide. KHI was originally headquartered in New York, New York until its current move to Miami, Florida in 2017. The company has significant staffing in Latin America, North America, and the Caribbean, with a smaller presence in Africa, Europe, and Asia. KHI Philanthropy KHI has been significant in providing ongoing global support and humanitarian aid. Hoyos frequently travels to the country to provide outreach and her philanthropic and business endeavors are covered heavily in both print and digital media. Additionally, she and her executive team of Chief Operations Officer - Tiffany Edwards, CFRE and Team Leader - Juan Restrepo are heavily involved in the implementation of philanthropic projects, with a focus on domestic violence, equity, editorial discrimination, diversity and inclusion, poverty alleviation, and youth initiatives. KHI provides leadership support and resources for Milagros Day, the NAACP, and the Diplomats Diversi-Tea Gala. Hoyos is one of the co-founders of Milagros Day with Dawn Diaz. The KHI Milagros Day collaboration was featured in Huffington Post, on CBS, and NBC. KHI Ambassadors Program KHI offers and ambassadors training program to help individuals become entrepreneurs and motivational speakers with the opportunity to learn and expand their knowledge with hands on training from KHI executive team members and volunteers. KHI Consulting KHI Consulting works with many corporate, nonprofit, and government entities on their marketing, human resources, training and development, equity, fund development, and educational programs. KHI Consulting is known for aiding entrepreneurs with corporate and nonprofit growth and expansion strategies, breaking through barriers to progress, and creating partnerships. Media KHI provides over 1000 hours of training content – originating for KHI’s executive management team across all forms of media including TV, audio, fixed media, and mobile. The company’s multimedia product offerings include programming such as the Magic of Manifestation, Living Your Purpose. It provides online coaching and training sessions along with on demand training programs in English and Spanish. Hoyos’ first book, Purpose: The Ultimate Quest, was published by Post Hill Press and distributed through Simon and Schuster. The book's Foreward was written by Ambassador April Sutton, founder of the Diplomats Diversi-Tea Gala and youngest Inductee into the Broadcasters Hall of Fame. Hoyos and the transformational work of KHI has been covered on Fox News, CNN, and the United Nations. References https://www.huffingtonpost.com/amber-browningcoyle/survivors-of-domestic-violence-walk-for-change_b_7253448.html https://newyork.cbslocal.com/2013/05/12/domestic-violence-victims... http://nbclatino.com/2013/05/06/latina-leaders-turning-abuse-into-success/#s:milagrosday4 https://miamidiario.com/mariposa-films-presenta-historias-de-grandes-mujeres-en-miami/ https://www.prlog.org/12403251-milagros-day-worldwide-celebrates-five-years-of-turning-abuse-into- www.lacosmopolatina.com/karen-hoyos https://vdocuments.site/impact-positive-change-magazine-mar-issue.html https://www.karenhoyos.com/ https://posthillpress.com/book/purpose-the-ultimate-quest https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Purpose/Karen-Hoyos/9781682618073

— Preceding unsigned comment added by April2019 (talk • contribs) 23:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@April2019: You have asked the exact same question at the AFC Help Desk, so I doubt you'll get an answer here. In future, never type in capital letters. We regard it as SHOUTING!, yet ironically it won't get you more noticed. Please also, in future, sign every talk page post with four keyboard tildes right at the very end (like this:~~~~) Many thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:56, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Getting an article approved

Hello, I am Veronicah

I am really looking for the day I will get an article accepted and approved by Wikipedia. I have submitted several and every time I get a decline message. So disapointing. but I am so much into this and I need to get the skills to get an article approved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vkangethe (talk • contribs) 01:26, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, @Vkangethe:

I have written a set of detailed but simple instructions that cover everything you need to do to write a successful article, which you can see by clicking this link. In short, all you really need to do is cite and summarize at least three professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources that are specifically and primarily about the subject but not dependent upon nor affiliated with nor connected to the subject.

Addressing some specific issues with the Gill draft, Gill's own profile on a site is not independent, while this article only mentions him in passing but really is not about him. This source is closer to what you need but it would be better if it was not an interview and it'd also be great if you had sources about other things he has done.

As for your other draft, there's really only two sources with one repeated. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:39, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Help with Talk Page

Hello,

I edited a talk page that got flagged for being a page that was previously removed. I'm working to get it looking right and could use some help making sure I am on the right track. Made the mistake of deleting the warning about speedy removal when I thought I fixed the issue. The page is Alan Tafoya (actor) in Talk.

Thanks in advance for any advice on it.

Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jay Odin (talk • contribs) 04:44, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jay Odin. I'm not sure exacty what you're trying to do, but it looks like you're trying to create/recreate an article in the talk namespace at Talk:Alan Tafoya (actor). This is not really something you should be doing in the talk namespace at all and is not how the talk namespace is intended to be used. I would suggest that you move the content from that talk page to a user space draft as soon as possible before the talk page is deleted per WP:G8.

There was an article titled Alan Tafoya (actor), but this was deleted per the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Tafoya. This doesn't mean that an article about Tafoya can never be created again, but it does mean that you're going to have to follow proper process if you want to do so.

Sometimes an article is deleted because at the time it was too soon for one to have been created in the first place; over time, however, things can change and the subject may subsequently receive the significant coverage in reliable sources necessary for an article to be written. So, if you feel that's the case with Tafoya, you should probably create a draft first and submit it for review via WP:AFC. This will give an AfC reviewer a chance to look over the article and determine whether Tafoya now meets Wikipedia:Notability. Another option would be for you to work on a draft for the article and then request that it be restored via a deletion review. You can explain in your request that you've addressed the issues which previously led to the article's deletion and would like the article restored. The deletion review might not immediately restore it to article status, but it might restore it to draft status where you can continue to work on it. Please be advised, however, that simply trying to submit the previously deleted version of the article either verbatim or with only some minor tweaks (i.e. cosmetic improvements being made that don't address the reason why it was deleted in the first place) will only lead to whatever you created being re-deleted per WP:G4. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:15, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. I moved it from Talk to Draft and will now look into submitting it for review. --Jay Odin (talk) 05:31, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

At Draft:Alan Tafoya (actor) one step needed is to convert all of the references from naked URLs to references in accepted Wikipedia format. David notMD (talk) 10:44, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

U.S. history of alcohol minimum purchase age by state

I would like to correct the capitalization of this title of this article, but I have been unable to discover the approved method to get to the title. I believe it should be written thus:

“U.S. History of Alcohol Minimum Purchase Age by State”

SOMETHING FOR MY FELLOW VOLUNTEER EDITORS TO CONSIDER: Left to my own devices, I would seek to bring Wikipedia into the new millennium by changing “U.S.” in this instance to simply “US,” but I am aware that it is not my right to make that change for everyone else.

Please consider these examples: Mrs Anna C Miller, 1101 Rochester Blvd, Charles T Yackel, USA, Dr Angus MacClellan. I don’t suppose anyone reading this was confused by the lack of period in the foregoing examples, so why should we persist in this ancient and unbalanced tradition. I believe that within the next 10-20 years, dropping superfluous periods will be widely approved because it makes sense, looks better because it is balanced and simple, and certainly has a more modern appearance. According to my brother, a US Army Lt Col, at least some parts of the military have already jumped onto this bandwagon with me, and with great enthusiasm! Is this written by a young person? No! I am 63 years old (or perhaps I should use the “63 years young” instead — naw!). Y’all just wait and see if I’m correct in my assertion. Feel free to share the bandwagon with (some parts of) the US Army and me! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lacemaker427 (talk • contribs) 08:39, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

No. Headings are written in sentence case, see MOS:HEADINGS. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:08, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Lacemaker427. The way to change the title of a Wikipedia page is explained in WP:MOVE, but moving a page can be tricky and sometimes contentious; so, I would not recommend that you do so without first proposing the change at Talk:U.S. history of alcohol minimum purchase age by state to see what others think and whether you can establish a consensus to make such a change.

As for the other parts of your post, English Wikipedia is edited by people from all around the world who use different national varieties of English; so, Wikipedia doesn’t have one preferred version as explained in WP:ENGVAR. Wikipedia does, however, have a manual of style that all editors are encourage to try and follow as much as possible. This MOS is designed to try and ensure that there is at least some project-wide consistency when it comes to articles for things like formatting, article titles, image use, etc. Article titles are covered in WP:TITLE; so, you might want to take a look there for more information on why Wikipedia prefers sentence case capitalization for such things. As for the US without the periods, this is covered in MOS:NOTUSA.

Finally, the way people read, speak and write in English is constantly changing with each generation; so, if you’d like to propose ways for changing some of Wikipedia policies and guidelines related to such things, you can do so on the talk page of whichever policy/guideline you think needs to be changed. — Marchjuly (talk) 10:29, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

How to link to a place in a Wiki article with Visual Editor

VisualEditor toolbar. Switch editing tools using the pencil icon next to the blue 'Publish changes' button

Hi All,

Quick Q. Using the visual editor, how do I link to a specific place in a Wikipedia article? For example: List_of_Latin_phrases_(full)#quod_vide

I know how to do this in the basic editor but also cannot find a quick way to switch from Visual to Basic editing.

Best wishes, TomboPC (talk) 10:36, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi, TomboPC - welcome. I can answer your second equation by pointing you to the thick, dark pencil icon in the top right hand corner of either editing window which allows you to switch between Visual Editor and Source Editor when editing any article. (In VE, it's right next to the blue 'Publish Changes' button.) To be frank, I don't know the answer to your first question - an douibt there is one - but would simply switch over to source editor to add more nuanced content, such as links to sub-sections, templates, refnames, interwiki links etc. That said, you will never be able to link to one specific row like 'quod vide' in a list or a table, but you could get closest by linking to the top of the relevant sub-heading. I this case List_of_Latin_phrases_(full)#Q. Does this help?

@TomboPC: Oops - fixing my failed ping. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:16, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi, TomboPC, as far as I know there is no specific function to add such a section or anchor link in Visual Editor. But you can simply create a standard Wiki-link in VE just for "List_of_Latin_phrases_(full)" with the chain link symbol next to "Cite". Then edit this link again in VE and expand it manually with the "#quod_vide" part. Visual Editor will create a correct and functional Wiki-link to #quod_vide (assuming a section or anchor with this name exists). GermanJoe (talk) 11:37, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Perfect answers - thank you both very much indeed. CASE CLOSED! TomboPC (talk) 16:56, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Question asked @ Teahouse, then the search for those replies goes on, and on, and on!

I asked a question @ Teahouse, then started getting emails about replies to that question. I used the link in the email, but it didn’t take me to the reply. What am I missing here? Since I’m having this particular issue, I don’t know if I’ll ever see any replies to this question. What a conundrum! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lacemaker427 (talk • contribs) 11:33, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you would have received emails. There is a notice on your user talk page at User talk:Lacemaker427#Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!, and that gives a link to your previous question and answers at WP:TH#U.S. history of alcohol minimum purchase age by state. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:52, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Another notice on your user talkpage, at User talk:Lacemaker427#Signing comments, points out that you should be signing your messages here, either with 4 tildes or with the signature button on the edit toolbar, see WP:Signature. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:57, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Lacemaker427 You probably have your Preferences set to receive emails every time someone posts to your user talk page. You can go into your Preferences and turn this off if you wish. 331dot (talk) 12:42, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

331dot, I'm thinking she may not have found her talk page or realized there were alert notifications at the top of the page yet. I sent her an email explaining it. valereee (talk) 13:29, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Article rejected because reference behind paywall. How to resolve?

@Curb Safe Charmer: I had an article rejected because its references were behind a paywall: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Michael_Twomey

This seems unfair: Wikipedia wants credible references, and actual, real newspapers are precisely the places that are behind paywalls. I have an image of the article; might submitting this be acceptable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siliconemango (talk • contribs) 13:46, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

You seem to have ignored the actual important part of the advice given to you by the person who reviewed your draft. "the other references do not provide the in-depth, reliable, independent coverage about Twomey necessary for there to be an article about him." Even if that one other reference was readable, there just isn't enough reliable, independent source material about the full bredth and depth of Twomey's life and career to build an article around. The paywall isn't an issue, and has nothing to do with why Twomey doesn't merit an article. You can resolve the problem by gathering more in-depth source text about his life. If that text doesn't exist, then there shouldn't be an article about him at Wikipedia. --Jayron32 13:51, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Siliconemango, the problem is more that a single reliable source isn't enough. In general you need at least three from reliable sources. None of the other sources are good enough. Source 1 is the speakers list for a conference, source 3 appears to be a press release in a blog, source 4 is a twitter account, and source 5 is a youtube video. None of these represent significant coverage in reliable sources, so the fact source 2 exists wouldn't matter, even if we could see it. We do accept relliable sources from behind firewalls, but in this case it doesn't matter because there's only a single source and you need more than that to prove notability. valereee (talk) 14:57, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@Jayron32: Thanks for the reply. I can see how the other references don't provide "the in-depth, reliable, independent coverage about Twomey necessary for there to be an article about him." But there is plenty of "reliable, independent source material about the full bredth and depth of Twomey's life and career" in the article behind the paywall. The reviewer wasn't able to access this, and hence couldn't consider this material. Fair enough. But this had everything to do with why he didn't think it merited an article, as he mentions in his comment. I'm asking if there's any way for me to show @Curb Safe Charmer: the article in another way, so he can then judge for himself whether it constitutes enough of a reference. Or are you saying that, however good the material there might be, one source isn't enough? Is there is a certain number of credible sources (even paywalled sources) at which a subject becomes worthy of a Wikipedia article? If so, do you know what that number is? Siliconemango (talk) 14:22, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

It's likely that one source isn't enough, Siliconemango - or at least where that source is a newspaper article (it would be different if it was a whole book, per WP:SIGCOV). That's why the summary provided by WP:GOLDENRULE specifies that multiple sources are required. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:30, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Cordless Larry. Makes sense. Those links are super helpful. I'll hold out until more sources emerge. Siliconemango (talk) 14:34, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Editing tool

Why in mobile browser I can’t find section “more” but in browser version I can find that section? Ни дебил 14:08, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Not debil welcome back to the Teahouse. Now, in the absence of anybody else replying to you, I'm simply going to suggest that what you see in mobile view is inevitably a cut down version of the full functionality you get in desktop mode on a mobile. The "More" Tab at the top of the viewing screen is not that essential to viewing, so almost certainly was left out for simlper viewing. (I've been editing via a mobile for well over a year now and have never used mobile view. It may be great for reading stuff, but not for editing as far as I'm concerned.) By the way, do please be careful to sign your posts with 'four' keyboard tildes (like this: ~~~~) to ensure your username and hyperlink to it appears properly. I think you typed five, which only added the date, so it was hard to know who had posted this question. Alternatively, you may have set your signature to include a Russian(?) phrase which it is not hyperlinking to your username. This is a requirement, so you might wish to uncheck the box in the signature section at Special:Preferences so that the hyperlink is included. Thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:34, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Am I vandalising?

Begoon (talk · contribs) reverted all my work from the past few days on James Arthur and left a message on my talk page. He also removed my thread on his talk page with no explanation. Now, I'm no expert Wikipedian, but I'm pretty sure you're not allowed to do this unless it's highly offensive content or copyvio. I'm geniunely confused – first he removed some stuff I'd put up about James Arthur's pets, fair enough (although he just put the rather confusing explanation er, yeah - no, which pissed me off more than it should've), and then reverted all the other stuff I've spent hours on that seems pretty encyclopedic to me. Now I'm afraid of making a new thread on his talk page due to the message he left on mine. --Biscuit-in-Chief ^{(Talk – Contribs)} 15:05, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

What you added to that article was badly sourced gossip on a WP:BLP. Your account has a history of trolling and sockpuppetry. What has changed that means we should trust you when your edits appear to fit the same pattern? -- Begoon 15:16, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I took the information from a book written by the man the article is about. Could you clarify what you mean by badly sourced gossip, then?

I've spent possibly hundreds of hours in total learning about (and editing) Wikipdia since I vandalised (and I regret that I did, a lot), both on dawiki and enwiki, and also a bit on nowiki. I also spent hours gathering the information I then provided in his article. --Biscuit-in-Chief ^{(Talk – Contribs)} 15:41, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

And what has changed? Well, I love Wikipedia and I spend many hours a day on it, up to about 8-9 hours even.--Biscuit-in-Chief ^{(Talk – Contribs)} 15:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

"Eye injury" and "Foster care" seemed the most problematic. That's like if you went to any other celebrity and then added a section called "Paper cuts" and wrote about each paper cut they received throughout their livelihood. StaringAtTheStars (talk) 16:01, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

The problem with "eye injury" I see now. However, that's an honest mistake and a lack of encyclopedic understanding, not a bad faith edit. How would it be, is my question – why would I spend hours on researching about stuff I knew wasn't for Wikipedia? Please, see WP:FAITH2#What "Bad Faith" Is NOT. And about the foster care part: Stuff about him being in foster care was there before I started editing. If you're only referring to the "Arthur punched a boy in the face part", I felt it was encyclopedic to explain why he left foster care. I guess I'm wrong. But again, Begoon threatened me with blocking me due to this, which I find unfair. I might have written some unencyclopedic stuff, but removing my thread without any explanation is, I'm pretty sure, against Wikipedia's rules. Again, assume good faith. --Biscuit-in-Chief ^{(Talk – Contribs)} 16:19, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Actually, other than some specific types of warnings, editors are free to delete whatever they want from their own Talk pages. Some prefer to archive, but not required. AND, the place to take up a dispute about article content is on the Talk page of the article. You could describe what you want to add back to the article and invite Begoon to discuss. David notMD (talk) 01:13, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

are my articles ok?

hello!

i just made Bethan Wright a few minutes ago, and i was just wondering if experienced editors could check over it for faults/anything to be improved. i have a feeling the categories may be wrong but i’m not sure? another of my articles, Sam Retford, also had maaaany categories and i was wondering if it’s too much? any help on them would be much appreciated! – DarkGlow (talk) 15:58, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Judging off of other WP:BLP's, the amount of categories are fine. Fine article – lacks text but well sourced (although, no reference in Bethan Wright#Modelling) and NPOV. --Biscuit-in-Chief ^{(Talk – Contribs)} 16:08, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

However: The ref to her birthday is not reliable. From where do you know she was born in 1996? And how do you know that the guy on Twitter published it on her birthday? --Biscuit-in-Chief ^{(Talk – Contribs)} 16:22, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

the twitter source was posted by her co-star who lives in the UK, so the timezones and everything are correct. she also responded to several birthday tweets on that day so i’m taking it as a common sense source if that makes sense. thanks for checking it out! – DarkGlow (talk) 16:55, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I understand the temptation; unfortunately, you are not allowed to do this. WP:SYNTH states: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. It's incredibly annoying, yes, but it's all a part of the endless quest to making Wikipedia as reliable as possible. --Biscuit-in-Chief ^{(Talk – Contribs)} 17:46, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi DarkGlow. Some other things to considered here are WP:DOB, WP:BLPSPS and WP:BLPSELFPUB. Tweets, Facebook posts, etc. are for the most part considered to be self-pubished, user-generated content which are generally considered to have questionable reliability. An actress tweeting about herself and saying "Today is my birthday" might be considered OK to cite in some contexts (though people do occassionally lie about their age or dob for personal and professional reasons), but generally tweets about other people (no matter how benign they seem) are not usually considered OK. An official website listing her birthday is probably OK (again to a certain degree), but it would be better to find secondary reliable sources which corroborate her dob and cite those as well. FWIW, it's OK for a BLP to not have the subject's dob listed, especially when it's information which cannot be supported by a citation to a reliable source. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:52, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

image into an info box help

Hello Im new and trying to create a page for a car but cant figure out how to get an image to show in the info box. Would appreciate help, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JaunWhick01 (talk • contribs) 17:02, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

JaunWhick01, I've fixed it. In infoboxes you only need the filename --valereee (talk) 17:06, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

JaunWhick01, not sure whether it actually is already covered here, though: T20 Medium Tank ? --valereee (talk) 17:08, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

This T23 is a seperate project. Thanks for the help — Preceding unsigned comment added by JaunWhick01 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Pitot/Static System Malfunctions

An area that most technicians and maintenance organizations overlook regarding the Static ports on aircraft is the type of covering on the ports during maintenance/painting etc. In many, if not most, cases the ports are covered by masking tape to prevent the holes from being contaminated by paint or other solvents. If using a masking tape or other material that leaves a sticky residue you must assure that the sticky glue residue is completely removed from the surface of the port or contamination could be a problem due to the sticky residue collecting debris on the surface of the ports and will deteriorate the pressure sensing of the ports. This could lead to inaccurate instrument reading and in the case of ADC's affect other automatic aircraft systems such as autopilot etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.1.252.60 (talk) 17:20, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

No doubt you are right, but The Teahouse is a venue for newer editors to ask questions about the mechanics and approaches of how to edit Wikipedia. As such it is not an appropriate venue for you to record your observations about aircraft maintenence.

If you have a query relating to the above, you might more appropriately enter it on one of our Reference desks. If you think the above merits inclusion in an appropriate article, you could select such an article, go to its Talk page, and suggest this for the consideration of other editors. Please note, however, that material can only be added to an article if it is backed by proper citation to a published Reliable source. An unreferenced synthesis by yourself (or anyone else), however pertinent or correct, would constitute Original research and is not allowed – Wikipedia only summarises (without copying) already published material. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.123.27.125 (talk) 17:59, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Person Messed With 2019 India-Pakistan Standoff Page

Help! Someone messed with the link to 'Part of the indo-pakistani conflicts' and when you hover over it shows a nude man. This is on the 2019 India-Pakistan standoff page.

Hover over the link to the Indo-Pakistani conflicts page and you'll see what I mean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.123.150.46 (talk) 22:23, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. Thank you for pointing this out, apparently the vandalism has already been removed by another editor. If you still see the vandalized version, please try to refresh your local browser cache or purge the article in question. GermanJoe (talk) 22:44, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

It's still there. Second line of infobox on 2019 India–Pakistan standoff. Trying to figure out the source. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:47, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

One target was Template:Campaignbox Indo-Pakistani Wars (already fixed and protected), if that helps with the search. GermanJoe (talk) 22:49, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Also second line of infobox in 2011_India–Pakistan_border_skirmish TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:53, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Also 2011 border skirmishes in events and conflicts section of Template:Indo-Pakistani_relations TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:55, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

You can see the effect by mouseovering 2011_India–Pakistan_border_skirmish. I have no idea where this would be coming from. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:44, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@Timtempleton and GermanJoe: Having checked and mouseover-ed every links at {{Kashmir conflict}}, {{Indo-Pakistani relations}}, {{Military of India}} and {{Military of Pakistan}}, I've now found this issue with only the following pages.

• Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts
• Simla Agreement
• 2011 India–Pakistan border skirmish
• Operation Gibraltar
• Operation Grand Slam
• 2011 India–Pakistan border skirmish

I'm surprised that I can't find any common denominator or odd and recently inserted image links, so think this needs reporting asap to WP:VPT. Do one of you want to do it, or shall I? Nick Moyes (talk) 23:52, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: That's a great idea - go ahead. Thanks for hunting these all down - very odd. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:55, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

OK, will do. I'm fascinated, but I didn't want to steal your thunder. And a big thanks to the IP for reporting this. It's really appreciated. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:58, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

UPDATE:  Done Issue now reported over at WP:VPT. Watch that space! Nick Moyes (talk) 00:13, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Apparently now fixed. I'm not sure what the issue was but the image is gone on the mouseovers. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 01:08, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Is it OK to cite a YouTube as a reference?

I wish to add a notable case to another wiki entry, and the best reference I can find for it is actually a video of the individual I am referencing, telling the relevant aspect of his life story in a 10 min. YouTube, published by a third party in 2010. Is this a legit source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ConsumerWithSpasmodicDysphonia (talk • contribs)

@ConsumerWithSpasmodicDysphonia: Please supply the subject name/article title. Please supply the YouTube url. Please sign your posts so we know who is asking the questions. Then we can more effectively answer your question. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:57, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@ConsumerWithSpasmodicDysphonia: It's not expressly forbidden, but there are some guidelines to follow. See Wikipedia:Video links#References. One issue is the deep fakes coming out. Also, you should sign your posts using the four tildes ~~~~ so your name appears. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:59, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi ConsumerWithSpasmodicDysphonia. In addition to the advice you've been given above, you might also want to take a look at WP:YOUTUBE and WP:COPYLINK. When it comes to YouTube, people often seem to upload content to that they didn't originally create and have no copyright ownership over. So, just because something is uploaded to YouTube doesn't mean it should've been uploaded to YouTube.

Some other things you might want to look at are WP:BLPSELFPUB and WP:BLPSPS. Interviews (video or print) are generally considered to be primary sources. This doesn't mean they cannot be cited as a source, but it does mean that they need to be used with care. So much, as explained in Wikipedia:Interviews, depends on who is conducting the interview, whose publishing the interview, the format/setting of the interview, etc. For example, if the interview is simply nothing more that the interviewee simply speaking at length about themselves or their experiences in which the interviewer basically nods in agreement with respect to everything that's said, makes a few casual comments, and asks a few softball questions, then the "interview" amounts to bascially really nothing more than a video public relations piece for the interviewee. On the other hand, if there's some kind of fact checking going on where the interviewer is actually challenging some of things being said, then it might have more a critical commentary feel to it. The reputation of the person/organization conducting the interview is important to consider because reliable sources with a strong reputation for editorial control are probably less likely to alter or change any content than perhaps some unknown person who might see the interview as a chance to gain some sort of notoriety to help further their career or agenda, even if it means editing the content a bit to present it in a certain context. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:38, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Infobox not displaying correct information

Im finishing up an article but the main info box will not show Armament and Armor data underneath even after removing and re adding. And yes I added the information to it twice but it refuses to show any new data.JaunWhick01 (talk) 00:47, 13 March 2019 (UTC)JaunWhick01

Hi JaunWhick01. Assuming you're talking about User:JaunWhick01/sandbox, then try looking at Template:Infobox weapon. Often problems with infobox templates are the result of someone trying to use an non-existent parameter or a typo in the paramter syntax. Templates will only work properly when you format them properly; so even a simple thing as forgetting to add an underscore or capitalizing a letter which shouldn't be captialized can cause a problem. Another thing that sometimes works is to look at how the same infobox template is being formatted in existing articles. Since you're writing about a tank, then articles like M1 Abrams, M4 Sherman or Panzer IV might provide a clue as to what the problem is. Certain template parameters might have been been deprecated or changed at some point, so trying to use them no longer works. For example, none of the three articles I've referenced above seem to use |primary_weapon= in the infobox, but use |primary_armament= instead. One mistaken parameter can sometimes cause others to not work properly. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:12, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Adjustment to time framing of nuclear red level event

I am requesting a change to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Calhoun_Nuclear_Generating_Station section "2011 flood and cold shutdown" paragraph 2. The requested revision is to change "The fire impacted pumping of coolant water through the spent fuel pool. Cooling was interrupted for 90 minutes while the estimated time for the pool to reach boiling temperature was over 88 hours.[28] In response,"

To:

The fire impacted pumping of coolant water through the spent fuel pool. Cooling was interrupted for 1.5 hours while the estimated time for the pool to reach boiling temperature was over 88 hours.[28] In response,"

The reason I ask for this revision is because to the general onlooker, this event might have seemed more dangerous to the public than what is stated. The original indicated 90 minutes and the margin to failure is 88 hours. Your normal person is going to say well... 90 is greater than 88 so could something have happened? Then they read ahead and see it was 88 hours not minutes, but unfortunately this sentence has the word "hour" appear on the next line which may create an unneeded panic for the nuclear industry and how it approaches nuclear safety.

I understand if this is a mundane request, but I just wanted to reach out to clear the name of nuclear as a professional myself in this field and that Fort Calhoun was a successful use of our FLEX systems even just after the Fukasmima flooding and nuclear event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.168.25.131 (talk) 01:06, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done I made it an hour and a half rather than 1.5 hours, which was awkward phrasing. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 01:15, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Trying to remove a duplicate reference

I am trying to change a citation to link to the proper reference. ConsumerWithSpasmodicDysphonia (talk) 01:17, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@ConsumerWithSpasmodicDysphonia: It will be easier for others to help you, if you can be a little more specific. Which article are you trying to edit and which citation are you trying to change? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:41, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@ConsumerWithSpasmodicDysphonia: Is the article in question Spasmodic dysphonia? I can see you had a battle with the reference in Thyroplasty, but it looks like you worked that out - is there still a problem we can help with? --Gronk Oz (talk) 01:58, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey there!

Hi guys I’m trying to create a page but When I search it on google I can’t see anything what’s the matter..? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nic korha (talk • contribs) 01:20, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Nic korha. The only edits made by your account so far are to this Teahouse page and your user page. Looking at your userpage, it appears that you might be misunderstanding a few things about Wikipedia. A user page is a place where you can briefly introduce yourself and your Wikipedia activities to other Wikipedia editors; it's not a place to try an create an online profile about yourself or a place to try and write a Wikipedia article about yourself. Generally, only subjects deemed to be Wikipedia notable are considered OK to write articles about and then it's preferred that those doing the writing be unconnected to the subject matter as much as possible. So, before you continue on with your attempts, you might want to carefully read through Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide, Wikipedia:Ownership of content, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Law of unintended consequences, Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing and Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles. These pages (the names in blue) will explain some things about Wikipedia which you might not know, and which might point out how trying to write about yourself is not always a great idea. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:55, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

You attempted to create an article about your self at your User page (wrong idea, and tagged for Speedy deletion), and recently put the identical content in your Sandbox. The latter is the right type of place for a work in progress - it exists in Wikipedia - but does not appear through Google or other search engines. As Marchjuly mentioned, you may not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. And autobiography is frowned upon. David notMD (talk) 02:04, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

How do I request a neutral editor to review several completed articles and how can their neutrality be ensured?

I had been compensated to write several Wikipedia articles by a particular client without knowing that I had to disclose this fact on Wikipedia. Two editors recently pointed this out to me and I now have inserted the Connected Contributor tag on the appropriate Talk pages. However, in this case, the problem is not about adding new edits to these articles, since I have finished my work on them. Rather, the question is what will happen to these articles and all the edits that have already been made to them?

One of the editors who had questioned me in the first place about the paid edits suggested on the articles' Talk pages that a neutral editor volunteer to review these articles I had worked on... and actually, I agree with that.

So I have two questions: a) what is the procedure for having a neutral editor review these articles?; and b) since the first editor's comments on the articles' Talk pages were so sneeringly (and in my view totally unfairly) insulting about the articles in question, how can I prevent the reviewing editor from being biased by those comments?

Thank you for your feedback. Dylanexpert (talk) 02:10, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Refs 5 and 9 are dead. Refs 2, 7 and 8 written by QuisLex staff. The content may be true, but you will need to find independent sources to cite, or else delete the content. In general, descriptions of details on how a company has gotten bigger over time do not make it notable. And do not put the list of awards back in. David notMD (talk) 03:02, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Matthew HK and Raiffeisen ZentralBank and Raiffeisen International

Dear Tea house,

I feel we have a biased wikipedia editor in the house and I really need your help to curtail his actions. There is an apparent lack of neutrality and destructive actions on his part. His name is Matthew hk (talk)

History: 1) I first bumped into Matthew HK when I added Raiffeisen news related to the Holocaust and Mafia to this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raiffeisen_Bank_International The same news was already on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raiffeisen_Zentralbank (the parent company of Raiffeisen Bank Intl). I determined that the content should be on both pages since they are IN FACT the same company / owner. I pointed out that many companies in Germany who had Holocaust news e,g, Bayer, Hoechst, BASF and other subsidiaries of IG Farben https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IG_Farben followed the same treatment. Matthew HK deleted my edits and brought this issue to the dispute board and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Robert_McClenon User:Robert_McClenon presided. Matthew HK never responded to my point about IG Farben and now I cannot find the original dispute on the board. It seems to have disappeared mysteriously.

2) Now Matthew HK is trying to change the name of Raiffeiisen Zentralbank to disassociate itself from Raiffeisen Bank International. Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Raiffeisen_Zentralbank He is trying to use 2 sources do do this never mind there are thousands of tier one sources and wikipedia article sources that refer to Raiffeisen Zentralbank as the parent company of Raiffeisen Bank International. We have to question Matthew HK independence on this Raiffeisen issue.

3) To further censure my work Matthew HK is now trying to bring Sock Puppetry violations against me. I have had the same IP and same account, nothing has changed. If he can prove that I used another account while I was using my current Josephintechnicolor account I would like to see the proof. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mohamed_Ouda [[Sockpuppet_investigations/Mohamed_Ouda ]]

4) A smaller issue came up when I created the RZB Securities LLC page which was a subsidiary of Raiffeisen Group of Companies (Raiffeisen Zentral Bank and Raiffeisen Bank International) and Matthew HK placed a deletion tag on the page. I accepted his deletion and offered a solution to add RZB Securities to the Raiffeisen Bank International page, this has not been done yet.

Conclusion: Matthew hk does not seem like an independent person on the topic of Raiffeisen wikipedia articles and he needs to declare himself as such. He is trying to change the Raiffeisen name and corporate structure with 2 ambiguous sources where there are thousands that say the opposite. He is not following normal wikipedia protocol with regards to the parent companies / subsidiaries and their shared news. He has aggressively been harassing my attempts to put properly sourced news on Raiffeisen's wikipedia articles. Matthew HK does not follow up on statements I made to defend my actions on the dispute board when it was HE Himself who made the disputed page on Raiffeisen in the first place. Matthew HK is overtly defending and removing Raiffeisen wikipedia pages of content/news sources. My news sources represent millions of people and many reporters who have been affected by Raiffeisen past actions and the truth should be upheld as it is for IG Farben and many others like them. I feel matthew HK is disruptive to wikipedia and should be banned.

All of these entities are related and their news is related. Matthew HK has a HIDDEN agenda to clean up Raiffeisen's past. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raiffeisenbank https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Wilhelm_Raiffeisen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raiffeisen_Zentralbank https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raiffeisen_Bank_International

02:43, 13 March 2019 (UTC)Josephintechnicolor (talk)

Hello @Josephintechnicolor:, and welcome to the Teahouse. Please use talkpage discussion or one of the venues listed in WP:Dispute resolution to resolve such disputes. The Teahouse is not one of these venues and is primarily aimed at help with editing-related questions and general advice for new editors. Thank you for your understanding. GermanJoe (talk) 11:08, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

OK Noted. Thank you. I will move the discussion to the talk page & dispute resolution. GermanJoe (talk11:34, 13 March 2019 (UTC)Josephintechnicolor (talk)

wikipedia with gadgets / explorables / interactive content

Reuleaux triangle based film advance mechanism in the Soviet Luch-28 mm film projector

I don't know the best place to ask this question, but I wanted to know is interactive content on wikipedia not allowed? if it is not, what is the policy for linking such content? I would believe that explorables would greatly aid in understanding explanations in math and physics. If they are not ok in wikipedia, then would WikiBooks or wikiversity a good place for them? --My Sistemx (talk) 02:50, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Sistemx. Welcome back to Wikipedia and to the Teahouse. Things have not changed much in that regard over the years, and we still discourage excessive animation on our pages. See WP:IUP#ANIM. I'm honestly not sure on policy in linking to external animations, but External Links should only be included if they add genuine value to an article, provide further content that can't be included on a page, and should not be promotional, nor pointlessly repeating what has been covered in an article and, like all content linked to from a page, should be reliable and safe to view. Not all of the world's Wikipedia viewers are sitting in a comfy room with a super-whizzo computer connected to high-speed broadband connection. If this encyclopaedia's purpose is to make knowledge and information available to everyone, it's important our pages can be viewed by anyone, anywhere, and on simple devices. I understand where you're coming from, but I don't think big animations within articles wouldn't be appropriate. That said, there are quite a lot of animations already on Wikimedia Commons - have you looked for them?. If not, try c:Category:Animations of physics or its parent: c:Category:Animations by subject? Hope this helps answer your question. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 12:00, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

BRODY STEVENS

BRODY STEVENS, A VERY POPULAR, PAID REGULAR COMEDIAN AT THE COMEDY STORE AND ACROSS THE COUNTRY AS WELL AS STAR OF HIS OWN SHOW ON Comedy Central COMMIT SUICIDE FEB 22, 2019. WHY ISNT THERE A PAGE FOR HIM. THIS GUY WAS IN THE HANGOVER 1 & 2, BEST FRIENDS WITH ZACH GALIFINAKIS, BRADLEY COOPER AND A MILLION OTHER COMEDIANS, MOVIE STARS, AND THERE IS NO PAGE FOR HIM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:9346:9E00:8F3:E7D6:14B:6568 (talk) 05:00, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi IP 2605:E000:9346:9E00:8F3:E7D6:14B:6568. There is an article for Brody Stevens and was added to Wikipedia in March 2010. So, I'm not sure why you weren't able to find it. Perhaps you misspelled his name when you were searching for it? Finally, please don't type in all capital letters when posting. It's considered to be the equivalent to shouting at someone when posting online, and there's no real need to "shout" at the Teahouse. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:15, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Teahouse

Thank you for inviting me to the Teahouse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpiritofAccuracy (talk • contribs) 11:00, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome, SpiritofAccuracy. If you ever have any questions as you start out learning how best to contribute here, just pop back and ask for guidance. I'll leave a few helpful links on your talk page. A great place to start is by taking our interactive tour called The Wikipedia Adventure. There are 15 different badges to collect as you learn the basics of how things work around here. We do ask everyone to 'sign' their posts on talk pages, which you do by simply typing four keyboard tilde characters (like this: ~~~~) right at the very end of the last sentence in your posts. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 11:24, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Help with dealing with "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject." flag

Hey, the "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject." flag is on the page of the band i'm working with as i see it's a problem for the community and i will stop updating their page. can someone help with getting the flag down? thanks

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lola_Marsh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anovamusic2013 (talk • contribs) 11:19, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Doubts in the creation and publication of a biography.

Good afternoon.

Great day for all

Excuse. A few days ago I started reading about Wikipedia because I have a job that I would like to create here in this vast encyclopedia, but when I try I do not succeed. I want to create the biography of a Model Mozambique more following the rules of Wikipedia is not possible, I would ask for your help to carry out this task. He is a public figure known and admirable because he has struggled to innovate the fashion world in Mozambique. so I'd like people to find some good information about it in this encyclopedia. when I try to insert the information that I have about it does not accept, I follow all rules to be able to create an article, I make the citations from where can be found this information of sites that are genuine. Please if anyone can help me, I appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cristo J. Toqueleque (talk • contribs) 11:35, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Please read the advice against creating an autobiography. The content of your user page was inappropriate and has been nominated for speedy deletion. Your sandbox draft is presumably written in Portuguese, and doesn't belong on the English Wikipedia. If the subject satisfies the criteria for inclusion in the Portuguese Wikipedia, you will find that Wikipedia at pt:. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:43, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@Cristo J. Toqueleque: (edit conflict) Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I would note that you seem to be writing about yourself. I'm glad you are doing good things for the fashion industry in your country, but you should not be the one to write about yourself on Wikipedia. You might misunderstand what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia is not social media like Facebook to tell the world about yourself. This is an encyclopedia, where we are only interested in what third parties state about you in independent reliable sources. We are not interested in what you want to say about yourself. Further, autobiographies, or writing about yourself, is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. This is because people naturally write favorably about themselves. If you are written about in independent, third party sources, eventually someone will take note of you and write about you. If you just want to tell the world about yourself, you should use social media.

Also please understand that a Wikipedia article about yourself is not necessarily a good thing. Please read this page for more information.

I would also note that you wrote in Portuguese; this is the English Wikipedia and contributions need to be in English. There is a Portuguese Wikipedia: Portuguese Wikipedia 331dot (talk) 11:48, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@David Biddulph Thank you very much for your answer. Apologize for the confusion in the languages, to say that I first wrote the biography in Portuguese with another quota after I gave it to my account, I know that this seems strange to me. this biography is not mine and a Mozambican Model. I understand that it is against the rules of Wikipedia to create matters of personal interest. Taking advantage of the occasion how can I ask to create a biography?