Wikipedia:Teahouse

Dbfirs, a Teahouse host

Welcome to the Teahouse!
Your go-to place for friendly help with using and editing Wikipedia.

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

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

(Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.)

Photos

Hello. I have a question regarding photos of a subject. If the subject has a website with photos on, is it adequate to e-mail them to ask permission for photos to be used for an article? Or will I need to ask them to ask whoever took the photo, even if they have rights themselves to use the photos on their site and give me the okay?

I have tried sending an e-mail to ask and they said they are okay with it, however they want to know if they need to get permission from the person who took the photo.

Also, what if I used a photo that nobody can verify who originally took it but it is on their website? Or does that just make it impossible to use?

If the photo is freely all over the internet, doesn't that make it okay to use? Based on what I read in the guidelines it seems that does NOT make it so. It seems I do need to get at least written permission via e-mail regardless.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Camarmstrong (talk • contribs) 16:22, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Camarmstrong. The author needs to declare publicly that the image can be used on Wikipedia and must publish it under a license that Wikipedia allows such as public domain and Creative Commons. Check out the image use policy on what images are and aren't allowed on Wikipedia. Interstellarity T 🌟 16:45, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello Interstellarity. Sorry. I am quite new and green. I did read it but I wanted to make sure I did not misunderstand. So it seems like even if I receive an e-mail saying it is okay that will not suffice and even if they post online declaring it will not be okay without the CC0 license. Is that right?Camarmstrong T 🌟 17:05, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Camarmstrong, Correct. Interstellarity T 🌟 17:21, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Camarmstrong. I'm just going to slightly clarify something posted above. Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons only accepts free licenses or public domain licenses which place no restrictions on re-use; so, bascially, the copyright holder must agree to WP:CONSENT. Any license which states "for Wikipedia use only", "for non-commercial use only", "for educational use only", "for non-derivative use only", etc. is not going to be allowed. Such licenses might be fine for other websites, but they are too restrictive for Wikipedia's purposes. The main difference between a "free license" and "public domain" is that the former is typically used for content considered to be eligible for copyright protection, whereas the latter is typiclly used for content which is for some reason (e.g. too old, too simple) to not eligible for copyright protection.

So, if the creator of something agrees to release it under a free license, they retain copyright on their original work but are only making a version of it freely available for others to use. On the other hand, if the creator of something releases it under a public domain licenes, they are sort of relinquishing any claim of copyright over it or stating that what they created is ineligible for copyirght.

If you intend to contact a copyright holder, you might want to use Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission as a guide. If the copyright holder agrees that file can be uploaded, the best thing might be for that person to upload the file themselves to Commons as explained in c:Commons:Upload Wizard and c:Commons:Licensing. Commons is much better suited to host freely-licensed or public domain files and uploading the file to Commons will make it much easier for other Wikimedia Foundation project besides English Wikipedia to use the file. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:23, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for the info. So the situation is, I talked to the guy, he said the photographers give permission and say OK to use the images freely for anything, but people will not be bothered to have to go and do work to apply for a license, etc., when they're not the ones wanting to use the image. They just give him the OK and say "use it for whatever you like" but to them to go and sign up for a license is another story. So if he can provide me a copy of the conversation he had with them with them giving written agreement to use freely for any purpose, is that going to be possible that it can be acceptable?

The problem is, it is one thing to ask them and they happily agree for the pictures to be used, but that's all they will do. To ask them to go and do the work of uploading themselves or applying for a license is probably unlikely to happen. So what can I do in this situation?

Thank you for all the help so far. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Camarmstrong (talk • contribs) 19:20, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

@Camarmstrong: I would recommend having a look at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission, particularly the § When permission is confirmed section. Generally such permissions are sent to the OTRS so they can be stored there and confirmed later if needed.

To clarify, I believe the subject will have to directly email OTRS as described in the links above so that they can confirm the permission. Hopefully, that should be straightforward. Retro (talk | contribs) 20:02, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

However, Marchjuly, you appear to have more experience with this than I do, so I would welcome further replies to the latest question. Retro (talk | contribs) 20:09, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Generally, something more than verbal permission is required because verbal permission is pretty much impossible to verify. WP:CONSENT emails sent to Wikimedia OTRS can be kept on file and referred to if anyone challenges the licensing at a later date; you can't really do that with verbal permission. The types of free licensing that Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons accept basically let anyone anywhere in the world down load the file at anytime for any purpose, and such licenses cannot be revoked if the copyright holder changes their mind after the fact. So, anyone who downloads the file would be able to continue to use it as long as they continue to abide by the terms of the original license. If the copyright holder doesn't want to send in a CONSENT email, then perhaps they can follow one of the other options listed in c:COM:OTRS. They can upload the file to an official website that they control or an official account that they control (like Flickr, Twitter, or Facebook) and then clearly state that the file is released under one of the acceptable free licenses. As long as they are truly the copyright holder of the work in question (i.e. there are no license laundering concerns), this should be OK because it creates a record that can be verified. If someone still feels that's not enough for some reason (e.g. license laundering concerns), then further verification by email is going to likely to still be required. If the uploader is unwilling to do any of the things suggested above for whatever reason, then probably best to try avoid using that image since uploading it without a way to properly verify the copyright holder's intent is going to eventually lead to the file's deletion. The best place to probably ask any more questions about this kind of thing would be either at WP:MCQ, WP:OTRSN or even c:COM:OTRSN. An OTRS volunteer would probably be better able to answer any more detailed questions about what types of permission OTRS tends to accept. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:01, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

First article submitted for review

Hello I've just submitted my first article for review. It looks like getting a decision may take a while and I would like to write other articles while the first one is being considered. How can I free up my sandbox so I can write a draft for another entry? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EctopicOnSchedule (talk • contribs) 20:31, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

EctopicOnSchedule Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You could create another sandbox, say User:EctopicOnSchedule/sandbox2. 331dot (talk) 20:35, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

@EctopicOnSchedule: Just so you know, there's no obligation to have your artivle reviewed. If you believe the article is suitable for the Wikipedia, you can move it directly to mainspace. Review is optional Gumlau (talk) 19:08, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

@Gumlau: I had no idea that's possible, thank you! I have tried to move the page from 'Draft' to 'Wikipedia' through moving a page and I get a message saying 'You do not have permission to move this page, for the following reason: "Draft:Dumitru Bâșcu" cannot be moved to "Wikipedia:Dumitru Bâșcu", because the title "Wikipedia:Dumitru Bâșcu" is on the title blacklist. If you feel that this move is valid, please consider requesting the move first.' Any ideas why this title would be on the blacklist and how to move it to the mainspace? --EctopicOnSchedule (talk) 21:33, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you that worked! EctopicOnSchedule — Preceding unsigned comment added by EctopicOnSchedule (talk • contribs) 20:55, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello one of the pictures I posted has been nominated for deletion on the grounds that it isn't my work. This is a photo I took myself of a self-portrait of a painter who died in 1983. I have permission from the owner of the painting (the painter's heir) to take the picture and upload the file to Wikipedia but going through the OTRS process seems to take very long. Is there a way that I can upload pictures I took myself without licensing? I understand that licensing isn't needed if the pictures have been previously published on a personal web page such as Flickr. Please help! EctopicOnSchedule —Preceding undated comment added 16:41, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

How do I report a "sockpuppet"

I think I found some. :-o 5JVL9 (talk) 21:55, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

@5JVL9: You can follow the guidance at WP:SPI for this. RudolfRed (talk) 21:58, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. :-) 5JVL9 (talk) 22:00, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I reported the sockpuppet. The response I received: "All three account have been blocked long time ago. Nothing to investigate here". Since then, I found another sockpuppet from the same user. That would make three sockpuppets from the same user z554: 1_Z554 2_Z554 and now Z554-1. According to WP:SPI and WP:BAN the lead account and the sockpuppets are to be banned for repeat violations. I'm just trying to be a good citizen here. Thanks. 5JVL9 (talk) 14:57, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

@5JVL9: I do not see anywhere in Wikipedia:Sock puppetry that sockpuppets should be banned rather than simply blocked. Nor should they be: opening a full community ban discussion for every run-of-the-mill sockpuppet would be extremely cumbersome. (Non-blocked sockpuppets should still be reported to SPI, though.) Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:02, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

According to the policy I read, accounts that have repeated block violations are to be banned. That would be all offending accounts including the sockpuppets. 5JVL9 (talk) 15:29, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

For the archives, I'll note Vanjagenije provided an answer in this edit: See WP:THREESTRIKES. Retro (talk | contribs) 18:52, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Strange emoji things in signatures

Lately I've noticed small, colored icons appearing in users' signatures. Example:｜😹｜✝️｜. Is this a feature of Wikipedia? Are they encouraged? Does WP have a way of constraining their use, or, at least, preventing their display to certain users? Thanks, Quisqualis (talk) 23:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Quisqualis. All signatures need to comply with WP:SIG. Editors can customize their signatures as long as they do so per WP:CUSTOMSIG. There's nothing specifically mentioned about icons/emojies per se and I've seen then used quite a bit; so, they're probably OK. One thing to keep in mind though is that not everyone accesses Wikipedia using the same type of device, so what might seem fine on a lap top computer, might not work so well on a smart phone, etc. I'm not sure how icons/emojies affect accessibility. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:59, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

@Quisqualis: Call me old-fashioned, but I personally find them extremely annoying, irrelevant and intrusive. Please don't be tempted to move to the dark side. There are enough people over there already, and these signatures look 💩! Regards. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:17, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Was also not a fan of them till a wikiconference in Montreal were it was talked about like WP:Last word....as in they stand out and people generally take note..--Moxy 🍁 01:21, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't follow this rule myself but you generally find that editors and admins who have been here the longest, have the simplest signatures, usually standard font, no frills. I like a little style but if you want to imitate the long-timers, you'll have a simple signature. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:25, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Heh, those look like the ones from my signature. I've tried to remove the color since some find it a nuisance; sorry for the bother. From an accessibility perspective, they're just plain-text Unicode characters, so they should be fairly benign; I grant that being distracting is a valid accessibility concern, though.

I've tried to change my signature to monochrome. I don't know if all computers/browsers respect the method I changed it with (variation selectors: see below if curious). I guess if it still shows up colored for anyone I can just delete them. Hopefully this signature's not an irritant now! —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/their)｜😹︎｜✝｜John 15:12｜☮｜🍂︎｜T/C 06:11, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Technical details and tips: The colors are actually colored glyphs in a typeface you have installed in your computer, or that is provided by your Web browser. A character that defaults to being colored can be requested to be monochrome by placing the character U+FE0E VARIATION SELECTOR-15 after it. Color for a monochrome-default one can be requested by placing U+FE0F VARIATION SELECTOR-16 after it, but not all characters support color. If you want to make this type of character monochrome everywhere, you could perhaps give a monochrome typeface including them higher priority than the colored ones (this can generally be accomplished by adjusting your fontconfig preferences in GNU/Linux; I'm not sure about other operating systems), or just uninstall the colored one(s) for the extreme solution. —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/their)｜😹︎｜✝｜John 15:12｜☮｜🍂︎｜T/C 06:17, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

@Liz: To me, your signature looks OK, and I can still see from its highlighting you're an adminstrator - unlike Lourdes whose admin status is not visible from their signature, which I find misleading (especially after what I seem to remember happening after their RFA.) Goldenshimmer's is pointless as far as I perceive it. Pretty, but totally not needed, and confusing to other editors. There - I told you I was old-fashioned! Nick Moyes (talk) 10:16, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Uhm, what is this "highlighting" you talk of that shows an admin's admin status? —Rutilant (talk) 10:32, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

@Rutilant: Sorry, I wasn't very clear. There are a handful of optional, user-installed scripts available for highlighting different users. I have installed User:Amalthea/userhighlighter.js which highlights every admin signature in bright blue (unless they've forced some background colour of their own which overrides it, as I think Lourdes and some others have done - there's no rule against it, I might add). I also have User:PleaseStand/highlight-comments.js installed which highlights parts of my own contributions in yellow, which makes them easy to find amongst all the others) You can find a huge list of other user-created scripts which you can try out at Wikipedia:User scripts/List. I often forget that as soon as one changes one's own scripts and user preferences it can make all of ones own Wikipedia pages appear completely different from how others see and use them. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 11:21, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Nick, your statement: "...unlike Lourdes whose admin status is not visible from their signature, which I find misleading (especially after what I seem to remember happening after their RFA.)" is spot on. My signature is like this because I want to mislead people, especially after what happened post my RfA. I'm pleased you've summarised it well. Thank you. Lourdes 14:55, 11 July 2019 (UTC) (Check the new blue color in my signature. I think it rocks. What do you think? Oh, I already have the answer. MISLEADING!)

LOL! Nick Moyes (talk) 23:10, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Nick Moyes: You mentioned my signature was confusing — does removing the color resolve that, or are there other issues? (Is it just too long? "T/C" abbreviations confusing?) I appreciate hearing your feedback if it's still a bother. (I'm leaning towards changing it to just "—{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/their)｜talk/contribs"; maybe that's better...) Thanks! —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/their)｜😹︎｜✝｜John 15:12｜☮｜🍂︎｜T/C 02:26, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

@Goldenshimmer: Well, as colourful as it is, I don't find it helpful. All this stuff is unclickable, and irrelevant to a signature: "(they/their)｜😹︎｜✝｜John 15:12｜☮｜🍂︎｜" So, seeing as how you asked, my view is that your religious views, and whatever the other stuff refers to, are best left for your userpage. The hyperlinked T/C bit works OK for me. But the view of this particular grumpy traditionalist is that clever emojis and other graphics have no place whatsoever in a signature, which should be designed to facilitate communication, not obfuscation. Nick Moyes (talk) 07:38, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Nick Moyes: Thank you for your feedback! My goal with that stuff was to make it seem more "human" and inviting by including some personality, but since it distracts people, then it hurts communication rather than helps... I've made some changes, so hopefully it's fixed now. (I left the "(they/their)" since I don't want people to have to click through to my userpage to know how to refer to me, so it seems practically useful for a signature.) Thanks again! —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/their)｜Talk｜Contributions 02:16, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

This is fascinating; I had no idea. I must be a very old editor (2005, tho not a heavy contributor); I still sign with my Real Name, which is also my login! Maybe I should add a little colour to my life? Thanks @Quisqualis for raising the issue. --D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 15:49, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

User talk

Can I block IP users from editing my talk page? Just ip users. Cambial Yellowing(❧) 09:38, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

You can post a request at Requests for page protection or ask an administrator to semi-protect your user talk page. Sorry you have been having those problems - the IP user who has been bothering you is actually a sock puppet of a blocked user, but since the IP changes it might not be worthwhile to ask for it to be blocked. --bonadea contributions talk 09:55, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

@Bonadea and Cambial Yellowing:: You know, this is a really annoying problem, and in the wake of discussions on civility and harassment re WP:FRAMBAN, and having experienced a multiple IP-hopping sock posting unpleasant remarks on my own talk page wishing me dead recently, I've been considering how it could be dealt with. I've concluded that one solution could be if every registered editor had the ability to self-protect their own talk pages against edits from non-autoconfirmed users for a period of up to, say, 24 hrs. It would auto-expire, but could be reactivated again. It would not need a page protection request to an admin, and I'm sure it would reduce the level of hostility from blocked users coming back as deranged or abusive IPs, yet still enable more genuine editors from posting as it wouldn't block autoconfirmed users. I can't really see any down side to it, so I wonder what you think to the idea, or whether it's been discussed elsewhere before, but summarily dismissed? Nick Moyes (talk) 14:20, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: I did a quick look around and found this has indeed been discussed before, and is actually a subset of a perennial proposal. Wikipedia:Perennial proposals § Grant non-admins admin functions within their user space says:

• Proposal: Allow non-administrators to administer their user space, with the tools technically limited to that space only. This has been proposed in a number of different ways, ranging from individual abilities (such as deletion), to full admin abilities.
• Reasons for previous rejection: Lack of need; admin workload is not high enough to justify this. There are possible security concerns; if users could delete pages in their namespace, they would be able to move pages to their user space and delete them. Gives the impression of user space ownership and has been rejected by the developers and the Wikipedia community.

It is my understanding that requests for page protection are generally answered within a few hours so I'm not sure if there's a large need for regular users to have this ability. Retro (talk | contribs) 19:41, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Dead Link Need Help

Hi, I fixed a dead link:

• 1959 BMW Isetta / Hot Wheels WHATTADRAG

after putting in the correct url, should I remove the dead link part:

Or should I leave that for the moderator to check the work and they'll remove that part?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helpful Hippopotamus (talk • contribs) 14:10, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Helpful Hippopotamus, welcome to the Teahouse! There are no moderators specifically checking everyone else's work. Editors are encouraged to be BOLD here. You do what you think will improve the encyclopedia. If someone thinks it makes it worse instead, they'll undo your work and then you talk it out with them and settle on an improvement that the whole community can get on board with. Having said that, rest assured, one of your fellow editors has the page on their watchlist, more likely than not, and they are going to check what you did.

Back to the matter at hand, make sure you've replaced that link with a link that's both live and verifies the exact same things that the previous link was cited for, then you must remove that warning as well, since that was exactly why it was placed there-- so someone sees it and fixes it. Once you've fixed it, it would be saying there's a problem where there isn't. What good is that going to do anybody ? Important: When you are saving an edit, you get a window that asks what you've done. Please be sure to fill in an accurate summary of exactly what changes you've made in that edit, so the other editors and even yourself coming back later have an accurate picture of what improvements were made in each edit. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 16:37, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for that explanation :)! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helpful Hippopotamus (talk • contribs) 22:57, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

@Helpful Hippopotamus: And please remember to sign your posts and comments here and on Talk pages. All it takes is four tildes: ~~~~. The automatic repair gets tedious to keep seeing, "Preceding unsigned comment added by...". Thanks in advance. --Thnidu (talk) 13:47, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@Thnidu: Yes, of course. Helpful Hippopotamus (talk) 12:18, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

How do I share a link to a page?

Refer to subject line please — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jetdeabq (talk • contribs) 18:19, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Share where? Ruslik_Zero 18:22, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

And what link, Jetdeabq? These issues matter a lot. We handle wikilinks differently than external links. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:36, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jetdeabq, by sharing if you mean, sharing a link to a Wikipedia article to a friend, all you have to do is to copy and paste the "link" (also known as the URL) in the address bar of the browser you are using. The article Wikipedia:Linking to Wikipedia, could also be of some help. The address bar usually is towards the top of the broser you are using. ( more on address bar here). However if you are talking about lining to another Wikipedia page within Wikipedia, please see the comments above. OkayKenji ^{(talk page)} 07:04, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Is citing a physical copy OK?

Is it OK to cite a physical copy or a physical DVD? Maxikray (talk) 16:40, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxikray (talk • contribs)

@Maxikray: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Yes, you may cite physical copies; there is no requirement that sources be online. 331dot (talk) 14:35, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Is it OK to cite a newspaper article that can be found on Newsbank? To find out what NewsBank is, check out the following link:

http://guides.ccclib.org/c.php?g=43943&p=277576

Maxikray (talk) 16:38, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

@Maxikray: Please sign your posts so we know that you wrote them; you may do so by typing four tildes(~~~~) at the end of your post, or by clicking the Signature button on the screen located above the posting area(it looks like a scribble) while your cursor is at the end of your post. 331dot (talk) 14:41, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

@331dot: No offense, but I would still like to know if it is OK to cite a newspaper article that can be found on NewsBank. To find out what NewsBank is, check out the following link:

http://guides.ccclib.org/c.php?g=43943&p=277576

Maxikray (talk) 17:46, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Maxikray. You can cite any source that has been published, and is in principle available for a reader to get hold of, even if it might be difficult for them. A newspaper that only a few libraries have copies of would be OK. Of course, it is much easier for readers if the sources cited are readily available, but it is not a requirement. Note that this implies that the important part of most citations is the bibliographical information: title, author, date, page number, what publication etc. A URL is a convenience, not a crucial part of the citation. --ColinFine (talk) 19:21, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

However, Maxikray, note that requirements for reliability vary with the type of article. A newspaper cite that is perfectly suitable for a history article may be unacceptable in,, say, a medical article. I learn a great deal about this by reading Talk pages whenever I browse an article--warning, it can become addictive--and by making mistakes & being corrected! --D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 16:11, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Am I able to create an article now?

Hi - I just went through the Wikipedia Adventure, where I made 10 edits. Does this mean I am allowed to create and upload articles now? Thank you! A newbie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterb21 (talk • contribs) 00:17, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

You only created the account today, so you will need to wait four days until you can create a page directly; I'd recommend that you use the WP:AfC process, which you can do immediately, to create a draft and submit it for review. Ping me if you'd like me to look at your draft when you're done. GirthSummit _(blether) 00:26, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much! User:Girth Summit — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterb21 (talk • contribs) 00:29, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

One more tip, Peterb21 - if you want another editor to receive a notification when you mention them in an edit (as you did in your last edit here, and as I am doing in this edit), you need to sign your post. You can do that by typing four tildes (~~~~) after your message, or by clicking on the 'Sign your posts on talk pages' button beneath the editing window. If you don't add the signature like this, the notification doesn't get sent. Good luck with the article, and do let me know if you want any help. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 16:29, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Draft:William_J._Johnston_Community_Day_School

here is my draft, thanks! [[user:Girth Summit] Peterb21 (talk) 22:49, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Peterb21, I'm going to leave some comments on your talk page. cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 08:57, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

New pages needed for "Philosophies of Alek Sigley"

There have been many articles about the detention and release of Alek Sigley, yet there is little information available for the intellectual standing of Alek, about his philosophies of life, particularly regarding socialism. it seems the world is bend on Capitalism, and there is to be a greater acceptance and appreciation for socialism as a phiolosophy, especially if we are to understand and potentially accept the rationale of the Chinese political party approaches. Seeems we can not find devision, we must find common. Apppreciweating and understanding that may come from the likes of Alek, he may bridge the devide of these philosophies. Believe this is important work and there will be people knowledgable and able to facilitate this knowledge need, for the world. It is not only a challenge here in Australia, it may assist overcome the differences of trade concepts by the americanos. Maybe it could overcome the friction and the threat of going to blows over issues. Kind regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8000:1585:A700:A19F:B2CC:C1A:B27A (talk) 02:38, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello! Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which summarises knowledge that is already published out there. We can not let our contributions get tainted with our own worldviews and beliefs, nor can we cover subjects that we think deserve covering but have been ignored by other influential publishers. All information that's added into Wikipedia has to be independently verifiable. If Alek Sigley's philosophies have been noticed and published by reliable secondary sources, there is no reason that his philosophies can not be covered in Wikipedia. You can do it yourself by registering as an editor here. Alternatively, you can also drop a request for article at WP:Requested articles. Please note, however, that no one person can dictate what is covered in an article. The content is shaped by community consensus on due coverage of all facets of a subject as covered in reliable secondary sources. Not even Jimmy Wales, the co-founder of Wikipedia, has a single veto (except a minor vote as a fellow editor with a conflict of interest) on what goes into the article on him. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 07:13, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

He’s mentioned at List_of_foreign_nationals_detained_in_North_Korea#List_of_detained_Australians Courtesy link for others who are interested. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:34, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

His having been held briefly by North Korea in my opinion does not warrant an article about him, and definitely not a forum for his philosophies of life. David notMD (talk) 19:22, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Autobiographic content

What is the correct line of action when you suspect that an article is being written by the subject of the article? --Hecato (talk) 17:11, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Here's what I do: Go through the history of the page and see if the content that they've influenced has lost neutrality. If it has, that's enough evidence to raise the issue on their talk page. Leave them a cordial message saying that Wikipedia has a policy against undisclosed COI editing and that it is recommended that users do not edit their own article but request edits on the talk page of the article. Tag the affected article with NPOV tags if there's doubt, tag it with COI and AUTO tags if there's reasonable certainty. If they do not acknowledge the concerns and continue to edit the page, or engage in disruptive behaviour, report them at WP:COIN or WP:ANI.

No matter how far it goes later on, the first course of action is to bring it up with the user at their talk page, cordially. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 17:34, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. --Hecato (talk) 19:58, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

help me

help me through to make my company name and articles shown on every research and result — Preceding unsigned comment added by Betterseed119 (talk • contribs) 19:02, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

@Betterseed119: That's not what Wikipedia is for. This is an encyclopedia, not a venue for advertising or promotion. If you are editing any pages related to a company you work for, you must follow WP:COI and WP:PAID. RudolfRed (talk) 19:23, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

PS: the article American Seed Trade Association already exists.--Quisqualis (talk) 19:57, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Tracking Updates

Hi, this is just a general question, I've looked on wikipedia but can't seem to find an answer to this. I'm wanting to know if there is a way I can stay up to date with any new articles/categories/subcategories that are added to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Professional_wrestling? I managed to find this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AlexNewArtBot/ProWrestlingSearchResult but I don't know if this includes every update added to the overall Professional Wrestling category or not? Can you please help?

Thanks in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:3144:1B00:4C5E:7FE5:F138:1253 (talk) 19:49, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

@2A02:C7D:3144:1B00:4C5E:7FE5:F138:1253: To be updated about changes to the things in Category:Professional wrestling, visit the things there frequently. It may seem inconvenient, but the quickest way to monitor changes is with a watchlist, which is only available to registered users. If you sign up for an account, you can get a watchlist, and put the things there. --LPS and MLP Fan (LittlestPetShop) (MyLittlePony) 02:29, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Okay thank you for the response, I'll do that! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:3144:1B00:4C5E:7FE5:F138:1253 (talk) 02:35, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

BTW, when mentioning a category without intending to add the page it is mentioned in, to that category, a colon can/should be added before the word Category to disable it. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 06:03, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

LPS and MLP Fan suggested registering an account to get a watchlist, but I don't think that's going to help track when articles are added to a given category. A watchlist will tell an editor when an article is added to a category, but they need to be watching that article first. One can also follow categories, but they aren't edited when articles are added to them, so that won't show up on a watchlist. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:06, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Table deleting the following section header

I have inserted a table into the "Parishes, precincts, and new towns" section of History of Dedham, Massachusetts, 1635–1792. It has somehow obscured the section heading that immediately follows it. That section, "Other," appears in the table of contents, but not in the body. I'm not sure what I am doing wrong and would appreciate some help. Thanks! --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 02:09, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Greetings, Slugger O'Toole, and welcome to the Teahouse! The table looked great except for a "float: right;" style. Normally that should cause surrounding text to "float" around the table like the population table above; when I zoomed far enough out the missing text did appear, but if the screen was only wide enough for the tablet itself, some of the text had nowhere to float and was being lost behind the table. Removing the float style so the table renders inline with the text seemed to fix the problem. Take a look and see if that looks okay. CThomas³ (talk) 03:31, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Citation template problem

In Liberation and Freedom Day, note 5 is not displaying properly. I can't find the problem. Thanks. deisenbe (talk) 02:27, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Deisenbe I am glad you found that problem! I already fixed it, and check back with the article. It wasn't displaying properly because the parameters should be adjacent to each other. --LPS and MLP Fan (LittlestPetShop) (MyLittlePony) 02:34, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it, but I still don't understand what you did to correct it. Compare notes 1–4. deisenbe (talk) 02:43, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

This diff shows how I corrected it. Click on it to understand it fully. --LPS and MLP Fan (LittlestPetShop) (MyLittlePony) 02:48, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Admins

I was wondering is it rare for Administrators to get banned?Jack90s15 (talk) 04:07, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jack90s15. Administrators are human beings, and sometimes make terrible mistakes. Yes, I think that it is pretty rare. It is not common but it is also not unknown for administrators to be blocked or banned. If you have a lot of spare time, you can read all you want about the current controversy at Wikipedia:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:29, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

As a modest contributor to it, may I recommend the summary at WP:FRAM/S for a bit of lighter reading? Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 06:07, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the main page and its archives are around 3.5 MB, and there are related discussions in other places. The ban was not made by Wikipedia so it's an atypical case. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:19, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks I will read up on this !!!Jack90s15 (talk) 16:50, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Tool for viewing WP page hits to all the pages on a disambig page?

Is there a tool, administrator use or general use doesn't matter, for looking at all articles that disambiguate to a certain name, say Kumquat, so that admins or other might tell which of the many WP articles with Kumquat in the title or about Kumquats should perhaps be the main article (if any should)? Thanks. N2e (talk) 04:52, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

The best I know of, is a list of "External tools" at the history page of every article. Specially "pageviews" tool might serve your purpose. I haven't tried it myself but, IIRC, it says you can compare upto 10 pages. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 06:22, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Adding to the response above, you might have already saw this but there is a list of tools that could help in finding the primary article at WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY. However it cautions "There are no absolute rules for determining whether a primary topic exists and what it is; decisions are made by discussion among editors, often as a result of a requested move. Tools that may help to support the determination of a primary topic in a discussion (but are not considered absolute determining factors, due to unreliability, potential bias, and other reasons)..." OkayKenji ^{(talk page)} 06:47, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Went ahead and tried the tool anyway. Looks to me like someone's got some tough competition on the road to fame. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 07:53, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Meghan Markle is a redirect to Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. She gets more hits than the fruits.[1] PrimeHunter (talk) 09:06, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Guess that means more people come to Wikipedia from google search than use Wikipedia search. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 11:52, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Okay, last one. Gonna bookmark this one, LOL! And the fruits too, why not? Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 12:13, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Google's Wikipedia hit on Meghan Markle is the article and not the redirect. And Meghan, Duchess of Sussex is already the third search suggestion when I type meg in our search box. For some reason Meghan Markle doesn't appear until meghan markl. The misspelled redirect Meghan Markel already appears at meghan m. Readers may also follow internal wikilinks which vary between titles. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:59, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi

I am having trouble as I participate in editing through a mobile,so,I don't have any software in it.So, could you please tell me if there is an editing software in Wikipedia. G-Force234 (talk) 05:04, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, G-Force234. If you use an Android smartphone, I recommend that you scroll to the very bottom of a page, and click "Desktop site". That will take you away from the problematic mobile site to the fully functional desktop site. That is the best interface for serious encyclopedia editing, and works just fine on the 2019 generation of smartphones, despite that old school "desktop" name. Please check out my essay, User:Cullen328/Smartphone editing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:21, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

let the authors be the authors User talk:Citation bot

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

---

Hello! I have found a major problem with the citation bot. The citation bot doesn't respect the apostrophes as they appear in the title of original works and changes them to " ' " without any hint of remorse. In the novel novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, all words had to be simplified so that they can be easier to understand. The citation bot's policy is basically the same thing: ripping the original apostrophes out of the hands of the readers and handing them things that the authors didn't write. When the people of Taiwan type in English, they sometimes use curly apostrophes. I call on the community to assist me in making sure that we can let the authors be the authors- no need for help from a citation bot. "Fueled by texting, the anti-apostrophe movement seems to be gaining momentum, "[2] Yeah, but when it is being used, we don't need to jump on it and make sure it is in conformity with newspeak. Thanks for your time. Geographyinitiative (talk) 06:05, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative: the citation bot is correctly implementing MOS:APOSTROPHE. It's the agreed style not to use 'curly' apostrophes anywhere on the English Wikipedia. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:16, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead: I believe that the consensus must be reversed so that what the authors write can appear in the title/quote of citations and not something different that Wikipedia made up. Geographyinitiative (talk) 06:39, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Try suggesting it at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:44, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

The font used by authors is not reproduced by Wikipedia, and I see no reason why it should be. Wikipedia does not change what authors write, just the font in which it is reproduced. Dbfirs 06:51, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Geographyinitiative. Are you fully conversant with the concept of a Style guide, also known as a Manual of Style? Please read this: "Because practices vary, a style guide may set out standards to be used in areas such as punctuation, capitalization, citing sources, formatting of numbers and dates, table appearance and other areas." We are discussing apostrophes, which are a form of punctuation, and because "practices vary", Wikipedia's Manual of Style has very specific conclusions about using straight apostrophes instead of curly apostrophes. This is not something "made up" but is instead a perfect reasonable standardization of a typographic variation. If you believe that this consensus "must be reversed", then you must build consensus among a group of editors who have been working on Wikipedia's Manual of Style for 18 years. Good luck to you in that venture. Do not be disruptive in your quest.Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:01, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Hello- I must try to make my point as stridently and poignantly as I can so that I can hope to change your hearts, please don't be offended. All I am trying to say is that the content that an author types up should not be countermanded and overruled by you (or me, or anybody!). In truth, I don't see any need to negotiate or find consensus between myself and the editors of Wikipedia- there is a consensus between the author of the work I am citing and my eyeballs. Whatever the author used in the title of their work, I shall use in "title=" of the citation I add on Wikipedia. Whatever the author actually typed and is relevant to the article I am editing, I shall copy-paste and put in the "quote=" of the citation. The only problem is that there is some kind of ridiculous policy that has been extended to changing what authors have written just because some apostrophes are inconvenient. If you need consensus to copy-paste, there is something wrong. Let the authors be the authors. What they have written stands for itself. How dare you interfere between the authors and the readers of Wikipedia. We are the greatest generation of humanity- let this encyclopaedia be the greatest, and let us quote authors without any adding any interference. Thanks for your time and work on this website. Geographyinitiative (talk) 08:22, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't really understand what the problem is here, Geographyinitiative. A straight and a curly apostrophe don't differ in meaning, so why would we want to use a mix of both rather than be consistent across articles? Cordless Larry (talk) 08:25, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry:Thanks for your time. I know that in normal experience, a curly apostrophe and a straight apostrophe are almost the same. But in point of fact, use of the curly apostrophe is a stylistic difference and must be respected. It tells you something about the author- for instance, it may tell you that the author may not be a native English speaker (potentially). The only consistency we need is consistency between the literal text of the authors and what is quoted on the website. Yeah, I'm okay with banning the curly apostrophes in the main text of Wikipedia. But in quotations in which the curly apostrophe is used, you're playing with fire to change what authors have written into something else. If I can't win you over, I understand. Geographyinitiative (talk) 08:31, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

This is so not what these good people meant by building consensus. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 08:39, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

You only need to find consensus between yourself and the editors of Wikipedia when you're writing on Wikipedia. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:55, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I may only need to have consensus between myself and the editors, but I want consensus between the literal text that the author gave us and the quotations I make of those works on Wikipedia. Where's the harm in letting the author be the author? Why change a text like that? Crass.Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:08, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I see no harm in it, the "don't mess with a quote"-argument is valid. But it's not the only argument, and I see no good enough reason to change WP-practise here. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:18, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes it is. The text is what we need- not lies. When I lived in Wuhan, I would edit English language texts produced by people who were not native speakers. To my ire, they would often use the curly quotation marks in their word documents. The curly apostrophe is a sign that the person is not using the normal keyboard when writing English. Yes, it shouldn't be that way- yes, no one should use curly apostrophes- but it is and they do. Let reality in. You have admitted the strength of my argument. I don't see the value of the search argument vis-a-vis preserving the literal text of quotations. I have a consensus between my eyes and the works I quote. When you are ready to accept reality, let's stop the nonsense- allow people to quote the works literally. No more playing with people's texts. Including changing how I wrote my post. I hereby add the accursed ‘’ to my post- scary huh? Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:34, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Are you not aware that curly quotes has been an option in Word for the past 20 years at least? Some people set that option and some people do not. It's a matter of taste. I've had the option set for 20 years, but when editing Wikipedia I just follow the manual of style and use straight quotes. I recommend that you do the same and don't try to impose your personal preferences. For most authors, it will be the editor who decides what style to use in the published version, so we do not know what the author chose. Dbfirs 11:25, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Since this isn't a request for help or advice but a discussion, onein which the OP already knows what to believe/do, this thread should be moved to the talk page of the page where that particular MOS guideline is. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 11:32, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

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

Leon Battista Alberti, De re aedificatoria

(PDF) BUILDING CODES IN THE ARCHITECTURAL TREATISE ´DE ... https://www.academia.edu/.../BUILDING_CODES_IN_THE_ARC...

Magda Saura. Proceedings of the Third International Congress on Construction History, Cottbus, May 2009 BUILDING CODES IN THE ARCHITECTURAL ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.83.116.172 (talk) 07:14, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello, anonymous editor. What is your question about editing Wikipedia? --ColinFine (talk) 23:21, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Community Radio Browser Radio-browser.info

Community Radio Browser

http://www.radio-browser.info/

This is a community with the aim of collecting as many internet radio and TV stations as possible. Any help is appreciated!

Details about the service collapsed by Usedtobecool (not OP)

Statistics Station count at the moment: 24524 Station clicks last hour: 3339 Station clicks last day: 70478 Distinct tags: 6368 Distinct countries: 296 Distinct languages: 310 Free for ALL! Everyone can use the station board in their software freely. Just have a look at the API documentation. Everyone is free to use the collected data (station names, tags, links to stream, links to homepages, language, country, state) in their works. A daily backup of the MariaDB tables is at www.radio-browser.info/backups/ and latest. To play the stations, you need some media player software like: Winamp (Windows, OS X) VLC (Windows, Linux, Android, OS X) Clementine (Windows, Linux, OS X) many many more.... yes, maybe Windows Media Player works too :) It is used by the following projects: Rhythmbox-Radio-Browser - A plugin for rhythmbox Rhythmbox-Radio-Browser Fork for GTK 3.0 Odio - Graphical player for windows,mac,linux StreamTuner2 (Contrib-Plugin) RadioDroid (Android: Google Play / F-Droid) - Source on GitHub DreamBox Plugin Musicbox (Android) Gradio (Linux/GTK/Gnome) - HowTo Install Kodi/XBMC Plugin Official Kodi Addon Repository, source: Github NetRadio, source: codeplex (Windows) Gnome Shell Radio Plugin Official Gnome Addon Repository, source: Github AllRadio (Jolla SailfishOS phones/tablets), source: Github A plugin for the Python-based extendable tool Pext (Python) Radio-li-se is a beautiful web based client. (gitlab) Radio Bempa is a nice web based client. MusicCenter for DreamOS enigma2 OCSP Source (Maemo) Ziptuner (Zipit) Internet Radio (F-Droid, Android) DOKK 335 - Radio app for android for visually impaired people Source PlayStore RadioS2S - Radio app for android PlayStore Source code Shortwave (Successor of Gradio) - gitlab Radioplugin for NextCloud Castro (Chromecast Radio) - Playstore Radio FM Player - TuneFM - Playstore Instaradio iOS app - website - AppStore Web client for Mopidy and MPD - Website - github .. and of course this little angular webpage too :) which can be forked on github Libraries radiobrowser4j Java library - github NodeJS module - NPM - github Python module - pypi.org - github GraphQL radio-browser module - github

https://bitpage.de/gradio-radio-hoeren-unter-linux-leicht-gemacht/ https://www.androidpit.com/best-android-radio-apps — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A04:4540:6406:3C00:717A:BEAE:4FE4:F4EC (talk) 10:08, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Apologies! Was there a question, or is it just spam, or something in between perhaps? Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 11:34, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Old account, lost email

Hello,

I've got an old account PrimusUnus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/PrimusUnus) which I evidently used an old, forgotten, email for.

I can no longer login and when I try sending "password reset" emails, I don't get them.

I understand that it's possible to migrate the history off my old user to this new one. I'd like to return to wikipedia editing, with my old history.

How can this be done?

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flyingbarron (talk • contribs) 11:43, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

@Flyingbarron: If you no longer have access to your old email address and did not specify another method of recover, such as committed identity, there is no way to recover the old account. Just start editing with the new one and you can add a link to the old one on your user page. Regards SoWhy 14:25, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Question on a punctuation issue that prevents a wikpedia link from working in Gmail.

Links for these two pages...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_F._Ware_Sr. and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_F._Ware_Jr.

...are not working when used in a Gmail. The link is made with a Command C, copies well including the period at the end, but when a receiver clicks on the link, it doesn't work because the period at the end is not being included in the link.

Does anyone know how to make this work?

Hathalm (talk) 14:56, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Try adding a slash(/) at the end; like so: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_F._Ware_Jr./ The hash sign (#) might work too, instead of slash. If it's practical, you can link to the first section of the page instead like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_F._Ware_Sr.#Early_and_family_life/ If that doesn't work, try posting the question atWP:RD/C. That's where technical questions are answered. In here at the Teahouse, editors share their experiences in editing Wikipedia. There is no guarantee someone who's adept at technical things will pass by. Good luck! Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 15:17, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Hathalm, welcome to the Teahouse. You can also percent-encode the period as %2E. I guess https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_F._Ware_Sr%2E works in Gmail. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:18, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I have made an edit [3] to Template:No article text which looks for a page name with an added period. It means that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_F._Ware_Sr now displays "Did you mean: Joseph F. Ware Sr.?" PrimeHunter (talk) 20:42, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Writing links with possessive apostrophes

Kind of a pedantic question, but what would be the right format with links that have a possessive apostrophe: "Elton John's house" or "Elton John's house"? Alivardi (talk) 15:11, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I was about to give you 2-3 reasons why I think the latter has got to be the preferred choice. But then I checked India, arguably the most seriously maintained featured article in here, and the former wins out in that one 2-0. So, I'm guessing it's either the community consensus/ common sense that the former is the choice, or nobody cares, not enough to enforce it even in the best maintained articles anyway. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 18:30, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Honestly, out of sheer laziness, I'd probably prefer to do the first option too. Thanks bro Alivardi (talk) 19:54, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Newcomer here

Hello I'm Eden and I would like to ask regarding the edit filter. I've been reverting edits which triggered the edit filter (I observed it through the filter logs). The question is, is it allowed for me to revert edits which triggered the edit filter? And what are my limitations on reverting this thing? Thank you. EdenNgiamba07 (talk) 15:52, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello EdenNgiamba07, and welcome to the Teahouse! Edits that trigger the edit filter are usually disruptive (e.g. vandalism), so you can revert them. However, edits that trigger the filter, may be false positives, so before reverting, assess whether or not the edit was disruptive. LPS and MLP Fan (LittlestPetShop) (MyLittlePony) 17:44, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Failed verification tag

What should I do if important part of article has failed verification tag next to reference? This is article in question Capitalism and Islam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aocdnw (talk • contribs) 18:15, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

You can either add a different source that does verify the content or check the source and explain on the talk page why the verification doesn't fail (so why the content is supported by the reference). --MrClog (talk) 23:16, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I would add to that that you can also remove the content, Aocdnw, particularly if it has been tagged for some time. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:51, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry: What's the most common value of 'some time' – a week? a month? half a year? --CiaPan (talk) 07:57, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I would say a few months, CiaPan, but it depends on the context. If the material seems likely to be false then it should be removed immediately. Ultimately, per WP:BURDEN, the responsibility for providing verifying citations is on the editor who adds or re-adds the material, so we shouldn't be shy about removing non-verified content. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:01, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for clarification, Cordless Larry. --CiaPan (talk) 08:08, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

How to edit?

Hello, I'm trying to edit an article, "Human sexuality" and I don't think I did it right. I have all my information in a google doc but i'm still confused in how to publish/add my work into the article.Varzolao (talk) 19:58, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Copy and paste what you wrote in the Google Doc into the article by clicking the "edit" tab on desktop or the pencil icon on mobile. You need to make sure the article is not protected, which might be why you did not do it right. When you are done with the addition leave an edit summary if you wish, then click "publish changes". Your edit will be saved. I hope this helps answer your question. LPS and MLP Fan (LittlestPetShop) (MyLittlePony) 20:25, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

To others, see my reply here. The editor is being reverted. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:21, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

How long does it take to become an admin

Hi, I have been editing for years as an IP and I’m ready to take the next step so I recently registered an account. But I was wondering, how much work and time does it take to be promoted to administrator? What kind of activities should I focus on to boost my chances? I’ve heard a lot about participating at AfD but I don’t know what that is. Also, which user rights would be the best to work on obtaining in the meantime? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zach of the cosmos (talk • contribs) 20:36, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, a user is required to have a few thousand edits to be an admin. I plan to become an administrator, so my goal is to have at least 2000 edits before application. I recommend reverting vandalism and warning vandalizing users using WP:RCP. If you have at least 200 mainspace (article) edits, apply for rollback before becoming an administrator. --LPS and MLP Fan (LittlestPetShop) (MyLittlePony) 20:43, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. 2,000 edits doesn’t sound too difficult - I could probably knock that out in a week or two. Is there an area or a type of edit you would suggest that takes minimum effort and can be done rapidly? Also something else I’m curious about: Do you think that being an adult and broadcasting your fondness for My Little Pony is going to help you achieve adminship? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zach of the cosmos (talk • contribs) 21:03, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, Zach of the cosmos, but I disagree with LPS and MLP Fan. You should probably be aiming for closer to 10,000 edits before considering running to be an administrator. More importantly, though, the quality and variety of the edits matters just as much as the number. Rapidly "knocking out" easy edits to hit a target is exactly the wrong way to go about becoming an admin. See Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship for further guidance. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:11, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

• Zach of the cosmos I wouldn't worry so much about "becoming an admin" and just worry about areas of the project where you want to help out the best that you can. You can do 95% of things on Wikipedia without being an administrator. If you just concentrate on doing good work in areas that interest you, you will develop an edit history of good contributions, be noticed, and should you show a need for admin powers, be nominated. They aren't given as a "promotion", they are given to people who the community believes would benefit it by having the powers. As noted above, it takes several thousand edits over months, if not years. Any nomination without that is likely to fail. 331dot (talk) 21:16, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Zach of the cosmos, the notion that you can quickly "knock out" a few thousand edits and thereby become an administrator shows a deep misunderstanding of the process and what is required. You need to make edits that are thoughtful, careful, and productive. Your participation must show a deep understanding of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and you must have a strong record of collaboration and building consensus. You do not just "knock out" that type of work. It takes serious, sustained effort for a long time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:19, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Zach of the cosmos, Yeah, I'm over 10,000 edits, and I still doubt that I'd pass an RfA. RfA is by its nature a subjective process. If you encounter behavioural problems, it takes longer (people need to trust that the issue is resolved).

it used to be that 500 edits as a "good vandal fighter" would get you the "mop", but those days are long gone (partly because rollback got "unbundled" - anyone with an can apply for it).

Adminship follows most naturally from an interest in maintenance areas of the encyclopedia. For that, Twinkle is a very useful anti-vandalism tool (it actually gives you a form of rollback). You need to wait for... all of 4 days and 10 edits to use Twinkle. Reporting vandals to WP:AIV is a good indicator of how you'd use the block tool if given adminship. Engagement in deletion debates - WP:AFD for articles, is another good indicator (as deletion is a big admin responsibility). Particularly, you could try WP:NPP, the new page patrol. Here, you can try using Twinkle to tag pages with "Speedy Deletion Criteria", see WP:CSD (or mark them as good, nominate them for deletion...). This is particularly an area of focus in RfA, as it signals where you might unilaterally delete an article. Twinkle helpfully keeps a log if you enable it - e.g. my CSD log.

Furthermore, if you're technically minded, I'm a Template Editor. This means that I can edit heavily transcluded pages (sometimes, like Template:Infobox, the number of articles that use it is in the millions).

Basically, there are loads of areas where you can help out, with a bit of experience. Adminship is no big deal, but it does have very high entry criteria (and it's very much a responsibility, it doesn't grant any special privileges beyond technical abilities). Some very prolific contributors (writing Featured Articles, for example) never become admins, by choice. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 21:26, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi 331dot, I get what you’re saying, that “it’s not a promotion” and I understand that you have to say that in order to maintain the illusion of solidarity with lesser editors. Cullen: does Wikipedia not need admins? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zach of the cosmos (talk • contribs) 21:35, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not saying anything to maintain any "illusion"; it's the truth. Administrators are no better than other editors, they just have some extra buttons that would be irresponsible to the project for all users to have. If you see it as a promotion over 'lesser editors', I'm not sure that works in your favor. 331dot (talk) 22:11, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, Cullen328 is not saying Wikipedia doesn't need admins. Admins can do things normal editors cannot do like block problematic editors and protect pages. Admins are important to Wikipedia, basically. PS: About your reply to me earlier, I need to tell you a secret: I am only in middle school. LPS and MLP Fan (LittlestPetShop) (MyLittlePony) 22:05, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

@LPS and MLP Fan and Zach of the cosmos:, which isn't a definite barrier to adminship (there have been teenage bureaucrats before), but there's some level of opposition in any RfA due to that fact. 2000 edits almost certainly wouldn't cut it. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 22:12, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

That is disappointing to hear. I was recently diagnosed with glioblastoma multiforme and I was hoping that I might be able to achieve some status with the limited time I have left. Can an exception be made in my case? Zach of the cosmos (talk) 23:25, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

To add to the age-related question: the question is not if someone is an adult (e.g. 18+, though age differs per region), but if someone behaves in a mature way. Their behaviour must show at least a level of maturity expected from adults.

Now, here are my 2¢ on the "How long does it take to become an admin" question: generally, people tend to oppose candidates for adminship for users who are too new. "Too new" is deliberately vague, because different users may have different standards. In addition, not just how many edits count, but also the quality of the edits.

Also, administrators aren't "better" than other users, they simply have some buttons the community trusted them with. In the end, they're equal. --MrClog (talk) 23:34, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

@Zach of the cosmos: Adminship is not based on personal circumstances, so sickness does not allow for fast-tracking. I think you are giving too much value to adminship, the real fun of Wikipedia is writing articles. --MrClog (talk) 23:37, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry for your condition, but just as the Boston Red Sox, Manchester United, or New York Giants aren't going to let you play for them because you have a illness, you aren't going to be given admin powers because you have an illness.(you aren't the first to ask that) Illness leading to adminship would just lead to others lying about being sick to get admin powers, as we have no way to confirm any illness by a user. I would agree with MrClog above. Just concentrate on doing good work here. That's a great legacy. 331dot (talk) 23:46, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

"Not in reference" template?

Portmanteau § Examples in English includes

(e.g., Renault markets its Twingo, a combination of twist, swing and tango).

The title of the cited article is nothing like that, just "Renault Twingo hatchback review", and these words do not appear in the article itself. (In fact, the article and archive links go to two entirely different texts in different journals, but that's another can of worms.)

I'm sure I've seen a template to tag a footnote with something like "Not supported by reference", but I can't find it. Where is it, please?

* I found {{Failed verification }}. Thnidu (talk) 22:04, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

References

--Thnidu (talk) 21:28, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Greetings, Thnidu! That's the right template to use in that situation. I was able to locate a replacement source for the portmanteau (the Renault UK press office) and I went ahead and replaced the failed source with the new one. CThomas³ (talk) 06:44, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

The OP found an answer to their question after having asked it here, added that answer and tried to mark this thread as resolved. So, we can safely consider this one closed, unless someone has an insight to share, of their own volition. Cheers! Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 06:47, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Speaking of insights, Thnidu, it is recommended that editors don't refactor comments not even their own without explicit explanation because that could be very confusing. For example, there are two signatures from you there. It looked as though someone had asked a question and forgot to sign and you had added two replies trying to help them, before I went through the history. In this case, a lot less confusing would have been if you'd just added that information about what you found at the bottom of your comment, in a separate comment. If you have to change what you've said in your comments itself, it should accompany an explanation. Put the words you need to erase between <s></s> tags and add substitute words next to it. If you need to add without erasing anything, it's better to do it in a new comment, or maybe write an explanation in parenthesis at the beginning of the text that's newly added. Not saying there's a problem here specifically (you don't need to do anything about it in this thread), just a general note for the future. Happy editing! Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 06:58, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@Cthomas3 and Usedtobecool: Thank you both! Usedtobecool, I'm going to copy your advice about not refactoring to save with my useful wiki info. --Thnidu (talk) 13:56, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Thnidu, haha! I recommend adding this to your list then: WP:RTP Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 16:17, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Finding wiki terminology

Early last month, after seeing an obituary for Dr. John, I added to the article about his first record, Gris-Gris, that its title was printed as "GRIS-gris". But I couldn't remember whether the term we use for such modifications is "fashioned", "styled" or "stylized". I tried to find it in the "Help" namespace, without success. I finally thought to look in Nine Inch Nails, where I read

Nine Inch Nails, commonly abbreviated as NIN (stylized as NIИ)

so that's how I noted the form of the album name:

Gris-Gris (stylized as GRIS-gris)

But how is such a term to be found, if anywhere?

--Thnidu (talk) 21:30, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

It is mentioned at MOS:TMSTYLE. Such rules regarding style can most easily be found using the search box at Wikipedia:Manual of Style. --MrClog (talk) 23:13, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I feel your pain - once you know the right key word, it's so much easier to look up. These aren't great references, but it is mentioned at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Abbreviations#Acronyms and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters. --Gronk Oz (talk) 23:25, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Italicizing an article title

I created an article for a film, but in the article title I did not italicize the film title and cannot figure out how to make that edit now. Please advise, thank you! MBAWilbins (talk) 22:28, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

To make the film title italicized on the page, put ten "straight" apostrophes (five on each side of the film you are writing about). --LPS and MLP Fan (LittlestPetShop) (MyLittlePony) 22:50, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

When the editing tool comes up, I’m only seeing the body of the article and not the article title. Does that make sense? MBAWilbins (talk) 22:56, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I made an article about a book, Fuzzy Mud, which has an italicized article title, because books and films need to be italicized. Visit the aritcle, and look at this diff to see how I made the book's title in italics. Do the same for your article. --LPS and MLP Fan (LittlestPetShop) (MyLittlePony) 23:03, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks for your help! I’ll check that out! MBAWilbins (talk) 23:06, 14 July 2019 (UTC) If I’m only trying to make a change to the article title (italicizing the article name), do I have to “move” the page? MBAWilbins (talk) 23:33, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

No, simply add {{Italic title}} to the page (at the top). --MrClog (talk) 23:43, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, MrClog is correct. The full documentation is at Template:Italic title. I made the edit. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:45, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I thought {{Infobox book}} and {{Infobox film}} were supposed to italicise the title anyway, Cullen328? --ColinFine (talk) 23:49, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Cheers, and many thanks for your input and help! MBAWilbins (talk) 23:59, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct, ColinFine. Use of certain infoboxes will automatically italicize the article title. But infoboxes are optional, not mandatory, and often contentious. Best to offer a broad answer that works uncontroversially in all cases. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:54, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

A query about the meaning of some phrases in the entry about Emperor Nintoku.

"The achievements of Nintoku's reign which are noted in the Nihon Shoki include: constructed a thorn field bank called Naniwa no Horie to prevent a flood in Kawachi plains and for development. It is assumed that this was Japan's first large-scale engineering works undertaking established a thorn field estate under the direct control of the Imperial Court (mamuta no miyake) constructed a Yokono bank (horizontal parcel, Ikuno-ku, Osaka-shi)"

What is a 'thorn field bank'? Obviously the sentence refers to some kind of earthen bank or wall to divert flood waters, but what does 'thorn field' mean in this context? Similarly, what does 'thorn field' mean in the phrase "thorn field estate"? And what is a 'Yokono bank'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sclamaneen (talk • contribs) 02:00, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Those are very good questions, Sclamaneen! I suspect the Emperor Nintoku article was primarily translated from Japanese (not very well). I tried a little digging, and most queries pointed to the Wikipedia article (or banking establishments in Thornfield, Missouri). The last question, surely relates to the Yokono River; although not listed in the List of rivers of Japan, I found a reference here: [4]. But the usage of the word 'bank' is not very clear in this context. I suggest posting a query on the article's talk page (Talk:Nihon Shoki[oops] Talk:Emperor Nintoku ). Although waiting for a response on an obscure article's talk page can literally take years, your query might someday prompt somebody to improve the article. I recommend also bringing your query to Wikipedia: Reference desk {probably the language desk, or perhaps miscellaneous desk); they are usually excellent at finding referenced answers to obscure content-related questions. I hope this helps! Otherwise, another helpful and courteous editor will reply soon. —2606:A000:1126:28D:E5B5:B088:3A46:1619 (talk) 05:07, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Add a {{what?|date=July 2019}} next to that word/phrase to bring attention of other users to that issue. To find out the answer for yourself, ask at the reference desk. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 05:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

It seems there was some civil engineering done to control seasonal flooding of the Okono. A type of thorny plant may have been grown on the dikes to stabilize them, such as barberry or plum. My insight comes from this source ("Construction of Dykes") which does not mention thorns, but does mention human sacrifice as an alternative to dike construction.--Quisqualis (talk) 05:42, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

You might also post the article at pages needing translation, in the cleanup section. But progress there is very slow. Lectonar (talk) 08:59, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Squash

Why Don't. Squash page is build a — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.225.243.254 (talk) 03:33, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Squash redirects to a list of pages that have "squash" in their names/titles because there is no way to tell exactly what a person could be looking for when they say squash. I think this has been done mainly because there is no way to decide which is the most looked for topic among squash, the sport, the plant and the drink. You'll need to clarify your query before any more can be said. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 05:35, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

How to get a new page searchable

Dear Folks,

I have created a new page entitled Sugarloaf Creek, Victoria. It happens that formal research that I have just had published indicates that the Sugarloaf Creek pastoral station, founded in 1837, was more notable than has ever been recognised. There has never been a Wikipedia for this Sugarloaf Creek.

But I cannot get the title searchable. If I search google with 'Sugarloaf Creek, Victoria' (without quotes of course), I do not get it.

How do you fix it.

Thanks,

Mwill66 (talk) 06:02, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi! Wikipedia is free to create articles and edit for all. This means that sometimes malicious agents may create bogus pages that can have harmful effects in the world and to Wikipedia's credibility. So, new pages don't get automatically indexed by search engines. They need to first be vetted by trusted users with special rights, according to this. There is usually a backlog as there are more editors creating pages than trusted editors who have the right to approve these pages for indexing, and this is entirely a volunteer-based community. As such, all you can do is wait. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 06:14, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@Mwill66 and Usedtobecool: I'd also add that Wikipedia can tell the indexing machines whether specific page sould be indexed or not, but it's always the indexing machine's decision whether it fetches some page or not. And Wikipedia has no way to enforce one action or another on indexing machine. So ...you can only wait. :) CiaPan (talk) 08:05, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Of course! I tried searching for 'Sugarloaf Creek, Victoria wikipedia'. Google knows what it's doing but Bing and Duckduckgo list the talk page pretty high up even though they know the article isn't ready for listing yet, so, LOL! And wait. Google trusts wikipedia implicitly, at least officially, so although they can ignore, they won't. So, wait for the page to be approved by Wikipedia and google will oblige. Haha! Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 08:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

All new articles have a "noindex" tag attached to them that tells Google not to index them. The tag is removed when a patroller reviews the article, and experience tells me that once that is done, it will be indexed by Google within minutes and you can then immediately find it by searching.

There is a large backlog of articles waiting to be reviewed (as in several months long), so Wikipedia is also set to automatically remove the "noindex" tag after 90 days, even if the article has not been reviewed by anyone, and in theory, this should make it available for indexing by Google. However, this doesn't actually seem to make Google index the article - even after the 90-day mark passes and the tag comes off, I have found that they still won't index my articles until a patroller marks them as "reviewed", anyway.

Long story short, as others above said, you just have to sit tight and wait (usually for several months) for a patroller to get to your article and review it. I have several articles that have been waiting 3 months already and still aren't indexed by Google because they haven't come up for review yet, so be patient. It takes a while due to the backlog. Lilipo25 (talk) 10:12, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

reasons

Hi to the editors who have deleted my first submission. I note that the reasons deletion are all general. I would greatly appreciate some specific details. For example, every source I used came from established newspapers or broadcasters. How can I improve on this? I gather headlines are required for those sources and perhaps the urls should be shortened. If this would help it iseasiuly done. Anything else you can tell me in detail would be amazing. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beautiful Smokey (talk • contribs) 08:09, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@Beautiful Smokey: welcome back to the tea house. The link to your deleted sandbox is User:Beautiful Smokey/sandbox, and it looks like that is the only page you have created (twice). Since only administrators can see deleted pages, most of us here at the tea house won't be able to comment on the contents, but the deletion reasons had nothing to do with the sources or the formatting, that much I can see from the deletion log. If you click on the link to the deleted page you will see the user names of the administrators who deleted the page, and you can contact them on their respective user talk pages. Please make sure to include information about which page it is you are asking about. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 08:19, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Polish Chicken_is the current content of the page presenting biased information?

The Polish Chicken Wikipedia page <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_chicken> contains a whole lot of speculations about the origin of this breed of birds. I understand that this breed has been bred for a long time in Holland and eventually registered in the US as of Dutch origin, but that doe's not mean that the information recorded in US poultry association is reliable, valid, and relevant.

Somewhere in the second paragraph, I found something a somewhat ludicrous revelation, that the bird's name Polish (or Poland) is derived from the Middle Dutch word "pol". Let's be serious. Similarly, the author of the note might want to derive the name of the country of Poland from this Dutch word. Is this the standard we a hoping to provide in Wikipedia? My belief is, that as long as the authors speculate their statement is burdened with many risks of cognitive distortions that result in the circular logic type of argument, where conclusion becomes its premise. In my opinion, this kind of speculations should not be included in a text that has the ambition to serve as a source of popular knowledge. I am asking the editors to critically review this thread.

Another weak thing is supporting the text with popular guides' references. Look, we live in times of print-on-demand and self-publishing, and every literate layperson person can at any time become a self-made expert in popular knowledge. That's what some references provided here look like. Let's have a look at the first sentence: <The oldest accounts of these birds come from The Netherlands; their exact origins are unknown, however.[1] (Carol Ekarius, 2007)>. The Ekarius book is very carefully published but it is by a small Publishing house. Ekarius is their livestock expert with diverse interests <https://www.storey.com/author/carol_ekarius/>. In the second paragraph of her book <https://archive.org/stream/Storeys_Illustrated_Guide_to_Poultry_Breeds_Complete/Storey's%20Illustrated%20Guide%20to%20Poultry%20Breeds%20Complete#page/n3/mode/2up>, p.145, Ekarius explains that "In spite of the name, the Polish breed is not from Poland" (no reference), and further: "The breed as we know it today comes from Holland,..." (no reference, no details) and further: "... (where Polish birds show in paintings dating back to the fifteenth century) but its beginnings are unclear." (no references about the source form Mrs. Ekarius, no particulars about aforementioned paintings or painters). This is unsubstantiated claim and is an unsupported opinion, and even if printed in a book, I don't think it fits the standard, Wikipedia should be aiming at.

I do not know where this breed comes from. I am Polish and, of course, it would be nice to feel a historical-cultural relationship with this bird that is loved my so many. I know that it appeared here and there in Polish literature and visual art (at least in what was not damaged during the two world wars and the country partitions during the entire nineteenth century, i.e., at the time of the documented breeding in Holland), but it would not be acceptable for me, to force in my beliefs and wishes where I don't hold strong evidence.

Please, take a critical look at the Wikipedia text on Polish Chicken, and where possible, please verify the references, add a relevant in-text citation or revise the text deleting the information which is not evidence-supported. We cannot post unsubstantiated statements, are we? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kasia Polish (talk • contribs) 08:16, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Kasia Polish This page is for new users to ask questions about using Wikipedia, not to bring up concerns with an article. You should do that on the article talk page. You can even make such a comment as a formal Request for Comment. 331dot (talk) 08:19, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

The article's Talk page has two (!) extended debates on the origin of the name. Not saying not to start a new discussion, but read the existing ones first. David notMD (talk) 10:12, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Editing protected (locked) articles.

Hi. I am a new member and hopefully editor of Wikipedia. Sometimes I come across articles that need to be updated with new information but they are locked and therefore I am unable to correct them.

Is there any solution to that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oveis67 (talk • contribs) 08:31, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Oveis67 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You may use the article talk page to make an edit request.(read that link for instructions) 331dot (talk) 08:37, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Citation

Hello.

I wrote a article about Simona Cerutti. It was critized because not all of it has citations. The reason is that the information without citation was sent to by Email directly by the person I'm writing about (as it wasn't possible to find it online. Can I use the Email as a citation or how should I handle this problem?

Kind regards Mikro is MikroMikro is Mikro (talk) 09:35, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi - I'm afraid that you can't use that information, anything you write must be sourced to a reliable, secondary publication. It doesn't have to be online - books, newspapers and magazines that appear only in print are also viable sources, but an e-mail from the subject of an article is not a published source, and it's not independent, so it is not usable for our purposes.

If you are in e-mail communication with the subject, it's possible that you may have a COI with regard to them - you should review the guidelines and take the necessary steps if so. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 10:09, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Page validation

Hello,

Can you please tell me if this page is good to go online ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:MissWrite

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by CommErt (talk • contribs) 14:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@CommErt: You may simply put this code: {{subst:submit}} at the top of your draft and see what feedback you get. :) However, I think it's better to move Draft:MissWrite to Draft:Eurailtest before submitting. --CiaPan (talk) 15:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I have moved it to Draft:Eurailtest.   Maproom (talk) 15:35, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@CommErt: IMHO the draft is far too promotional in tone to be accepted as an article. I have marked some of the expressions, whose tone does not sound 'encyclopedic' enough for me. --CiaPan (talk) 16:10, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Henry

Is this the same sweet young name that does cameoes on the Korean variety show Home Alone, and what is the name of the Chinese historical drama he stars in as a king,? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.23.229.126 (talk) 16:16, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi! You are at the wrong address. The place you are looking for is WP:RD/E. Good luck! Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 16:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Getting Into Wikipedia

Hi! I'm, pretty new to Wikipedia and was wondering if there was anyone I could talk to to get a better understanding of how everything works. I'm considering starting a research-based club at my school and was wondering if Wikipedia would be a good place to post our findings. How do you become better at editing pages? Do you do research with the sole intention of adding to a page, or do you only edit pages where you have background information? (sorry I haven't made my profile page yet) Owenwitt (talk) 16:56, 15 July 2019 (UTC)Owenwitt

• Is Wikipedia a good place to post findings?
• How do you become better at editing pages?
• You should start out editing pages to learn the basics, then consider adding an article to Wikpedia. In both cases, you must cite WP:Reliable sources for your edits/additions to the encyclopedia.

• There is no requirement for a profile page on Wikipedia. In any case, it should be concise and describe your editing intentions on Wikipedia.--Quisqualis (talk) 19:19, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Keep in mind, no original research. All editing based on reliable sources as citations. Advice is to start by editing existing articles before ever trying to create an article. Helpful links posted on your Talk page. David notMD (talk) 22:05, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

My edits - Are they trolling?

I was reading User:Jimbo Wales and saw a word in a sentence that added nothing it. I removed it with an edit summary of better. User:Serial Number 54129 reverted the edit with no explanation as to what was wrong with the edit. I restored my edit and used a better edit summary, "unexplained revert, no need for either of these words, they add nothing to the sentence" Serial Number 54129 again reverted the edit without explaining why. I went to User talk:Serial Number 54129#User:Jimbo Wales and asked for an explanation why they reverted the edits. The response was that user pages shouldn't be refactored. I discussed that doesn't apply to that page as Jimbo has specifically said that he wants people to edit his page. Their response is that you can edit but the edit might not stand. I responded that I accept that but not that no valid reason is given to revert the edit. The response is a huge picture of books. With that being their only response I removed the word again. This time the revert had a reason, "rm trolling". As this was their 3rd revert in 3 hours, I left an edit warring template on their talk page and explained I was not trolling but making an edit I thought was an improvement and no one had countered. Those two edits were reverted by User:Bonadea with an edit summary of "Well, this is certainly trolling". I left a message for Bonadea asking how that is trolling (they have yet to edit since they reverted the edits). Then over an hour after Serial Number 54129 made their last revert, they left a warning on my talk page calling my edits; "test edits". I would like someone else's opinion. Are my edits trolling? And if you feel they are trolling, please explain how they are trolling. 155.178.180.12 (talk) 17:10, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

If you make one edit, and it's reverted, that's not trolling. If you make it three times, and it's reverted each time, then you aren't listening. As Administrator Iridescent advised you, in the case of this particular paragraph the wording was carefully chosen by him to address particular issues (that sources differ regarding his name and date of birth, which causes obvious issues when it comes to being the figurehead of a project based on only reflecting sources), and probably shouldn't be changed without good reason ([5]). Not me, not Larry Sanger, and not you. Incidentally, Bonadea was referring exclusively to your edits on my talk, which by then was patent trolling. ——SerialNumber54129 17:27, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Like I said, I want someone else's opinion. 155.178.180.12 (talk) 17:40, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

When you make stylistic changes to the prose on a user page, you have not improved it. By insisting on repeating that change, you become a pest. Please do not persist.--Quisqualis (talk) 17:57, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129, what would you have done if I had logged into my account and made the same edit. ~ GB fan 18:07, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Filed against you at WP:ANI, GB fan, probably. After all, logging out and making disruptive edits is not exactly approved of. I'm far more lenient with transients. How goes the retirement? ——SerialNumber54129 18:14, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129, What I am asking is if I had made the exact same edit from my logged in account as I made from the IP, what would you have done. Would you have reverted the edit with no edit summary? I have not made any disruptive edits, I am not avoiding scrutiny. I made an edit that improved the sentence and you disruptively reverted without explaining why. ~ GB fan 18:20, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

You keep telling yourself that. You really think you know better than Iridescent? One does not "disruptively" revert an unnecessary edit to another user's talk page. ——SerialNumber54129 18:26, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I didn't say that the revert was disruptive. I am saying reverting without an adequate explanation why you are reverting is disruptive. ~ GB fan 18:31, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Would you have reverted the exact same edit made by this account without explaining why you were making the revert? ~ GB fan 18:33, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

So, to clarify, you thought it would be a good idea to log out and then edit the most high-profile user page on the project? Incredible. ——SerialNumber54129 18:36, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I logged out over a month ago except for a single edit. I was reading and noticed the extra word and removed it. I did not log out to edit the page. You still haven't said if you would have reverted without explanation if my account had made the edit. To me that indicates you wouldn't. ~ GB fan 18:39, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello IP user, as per our article on the subject, Application of the term troll is subjective. Some readers may characterize a post as trolling, while others may regard the same post as a legitimate contribution to the discussion, even if controversial. Like any pejorative term, it can be used as an ad hominem attack, suggesting a negative motivation... If you would like to further explore the topic, you can raise the question at the reference desk. The Teahouse can only tell you what you can do with the issue you have encountered. When someone reverts you for the first time without a summary, you are within your rights to revert it back and ask for an explanation in the summary. But, if it's reverted again, you have found yourself in a content dispute and are advised to follow dispute resolution procedures, even if the other user doesn't give a reason for the revert. At the very least, this gives you a highground if you end up having to seek third party intervention. You should not violate the WP:3RR rules, and can report the other user to WP:AN3 if they do. Keep in mind though that, in a highly vandalised page like User:Jimbo Wales, experienced editors of good repute might have a valid case for violating 3RR, as vandalism is an exception to that rule. The WP:TALK could be invoked and work in their favor as well, despite the fact that the user specifically asked you to edit (Note that the user has also said that vandalisms will be reverted promptly by watchful others.). Now, with regard to the content dispute, per WP:BRD, you should take the matter to the talk page of the relevant page, which is user talk:Jimbo Wales. Taking it to the editor's talk page had better be done only if the editor doesn't respond to a call for discussion on the relevant talk page. Note that a user talk page could be watched by many of their friends, and you might find yourself a minority pretty quickly. Alternatively, they might have pissed off a lot of disruptive editors in the past, and the opposite might happen. As such, that is not a neutral ground for seeking consensus over a dispute. When and if you can't resolve the dispute between yourselves, you can ask for a third opinion, and if that doesn't work, you can start a formal Request for comment. Refer back to WP:DR for full details and procedures. If the other editor is uncivil or displays disruptive behaviour during your attempt at dispute resolution and consensus building, you can seek administrator support at WP:ANI. I would add that WP:POINT and WP:IAR also exist and should be kept in mind when you enter a formal process in Wikipedia. Good luck! Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 19:03, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

User:GB fan, if you are indeed the one who was asking the question as an IP, I would remind you that the Teahouse is a place for novice editors to seek guidance, and definitely not one to make a wikipolitical WP:POINT. I advise you to seek resolution through the channels I advised of above, which you might already know of as well. Good luck! Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 19:03, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@Usedtobecool: Whilst the Teahouse has been specifically designed to make it easy for new users to ask questions, it is not solely a place for novice editors to ask questions. In fact, anyone can ask a question. Also, this (to me) seems WP:NOTPOINTy (making a point is different that disrupting to show a point). --MrClog (talk) 22:24, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree you have a point, but I also stand by my original remarks, LOL! Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 22:31, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

How can i make my page visible /

How can i make my page visible on search engines and create exact page as the link below: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akinwunmi_Ambode

Thank You

Destiny — Preceding unsigned comment added by Destiny Chiamaka Emmanuel (talk • contribs) 17:13, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Destiny. The user page autobiography you have created will not ever be visible on search engines because it is not visible to them. Instead, you must create an article on Wikipedia, in a similar format to the article on Akinwunmi Ambode. Please read the following articles and note carefully their major points:

• Wikipedia:Your first article
• Wikipedia:Autobiography
• Wikipedia:Notability
• Wikipedia:Citing sources
• Wikipedia:Manual of style

Also note the helpful articles listed on your Talk page Best of luck to you.--Quisqualis (talk) 17:40, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

It appears that what you did is use your User page to create article-like content. This is not what the User page is for, and has been deleted. You can attempt to create an article in your Sandbox, or as a draft. Neither of these will appear in search engines. Only if submitted and then approved by reviewer would an article move to main space, and be searchable. Quisqualis gave you informative pages to look at, among them that Wikipedia strongly advises against attempting an autobiography. David notMD (talk) 19:20, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Is that intended by MediaWiki

Is this an intended thing by the software. I mean, that you create a div that is above all content of the page and blocking clicks as well as scrolling? 85.199.71.123 (talk) 17:23, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with MediaWiki. It is normal behavior of the your browser: fixed positioned div occupies the whole viewport. Ruslik_Zero 19:04, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I think the question is: "why does MediaWiki allow malicious divs like this?" (For what it's worth, in my browser I can still click on "edit" and "history"—so it's not difficult to revert it.) Eman235/talk 19:18, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Software intentions are better explored at WP:RD/C, although I am curious why it is what it is. Despite what it's doing, the page is seems to be working just fine, as it pertains to fulfilling its prime directive, unless it behaves differently with IPs. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 19:27, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Kundan Srivastava Human Rights activist

Hi Team,

I came to know that some people tried to submit an article about Kundan Srivastava and the article was rejected 3-4 times a few years before because of lack of resources.

Now he has handsome of sources. Can we have a Wikipedia profile of Kundan Srivastava? Can you verify his reliable sources are mentioned below. I’ll be highly grateful to you.

If you will allow then will submit the article about Kundan. He’s a noted Indian human rights activist. Below is the google knowledge panel source.

Google: https://g.co/kgs/xPUYac

Bio:

https://www.celebrityborn.com/biography/kundan-srivastava/15801

https://popularwikibio.com/kundan-srivastava-bio-wiki-human-rights-activist-more/

Interviews:

https://writingtipsoasis.com/an-interview-with-kundan-srivastava-activist-and-author/

https://www.bepositive.online/kundan-srivastav-human-rights-activist/

Mentions:

https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/International-relations/South-Asia-shares-blame-for-Gulf-migrant-abuses

https://www.tagesspiegel.de/gesellschaft/panorama/moderne-sklaverei-in-indien-verschwinden-jedes-jahr-rund-100-000-kinder/13690830.html

https://www.tagesspiegel.de/gesellschaft/panorama/moderne-sklaverei-in-indien-verschwinden-jedes-jahr-rund-100-000-kinder/13690830.html

Awards:

https://www.internationalnewsandviews.com/a-human-rights-activist-wins-veer-putra-samman-award/

Works:

http://www.ptinews.com/news/8174159_Man-held-for-beating-septuagenarian-mother.html http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/man-held-for-beating-septuagenarian-mother/1/831889.html

https://www.americanbazaaronline.com/2017/03/02/indian-american-girl-racially-abused-in-new-york-train423030/

https://www.dnaindia.com/world/report-indian-origin-physiotherapist-harassed-on-new-york-subway-2339919

https://www.hindustantimes.com/india/sushma-takes-up-indian-worker-s-ill-treatment-with-saudi-authorities-after-video-plea/story-EkN4Kpi8Z33gVlOqZnSwrL.html Sushma Swaraj

https://www.indiatoday.in/world/story/indian-migrant-jail-saudi-arabia-working-conditions-314379-2016-03-22

https://www.thenewsminute.com/article/cheated-exploited-and-trapped-untold-stories-indian-migrant-workers-saudi-arabia-43048

http://indianexpress.com/article/trending/this-is-serious/watch-70-yr-old-delhi-woman-brutally-beaten-by-son-helped-by-neighbours-video-goes-viral-4417492/

http://metro.co.uk/2016/12/10/horrific-images-show-70-year-old-woman-brutally-beaten-by-her-own-son-6314076/

https://www.mid-day.com/articles/viral-video-pune-back-bank-of-maharashtra-fastest-cashier-social-media-social-activist-kundan-srivastava-news/17726180

https://www.deccanchronicle.com/lifestyle/viral-and-trending/311016/the-reality-behind-a-viral-video-mocking-a-bank-cashier-is-inspiring.html

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/hyderabad/The-good-people-of-internet-take-down-the-video-mocking-Pune-bank-cashier/articleshow/55185926.cms

https://www.chron.com/news/nation-world/article/Scary-video-Indian-woman-beats-chokes-mother-in-6758996.php

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Shocking-video-of-woman-assaulting-mother-in-law-emerges-online/articleshow/50537993.cms

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/lucknow/Woman-arrested-after-video-of-assault-on-mum-in-law-goes-viral/articleshow/50552827.cms

https://www.hindustantimes.com/india/up-police-arrest-woman-for-torturing-beating-up-mother-in-law/story-fuesuogpgxe16eYzRnaoyH.html

https://www.huffingtonpost.in/2016/01/12/woman-assault-mother-in-l_n_8959668.html

http://www.asianage.com/india/woman-held-beating-law-420

Social Media Profiles:

https://www.facebook.com/thekundansrivastava/

https://www.facebook.com/engineerkundansrivastava/

Surbhi20 (talk) 18:15, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Surbhi20, this appears to be reference bombing. Many of the sources you cite do not mention Srivastava at all, and those which do (at least on a spot check) seem only to be a name drop or brief mention. No number of mentions or name drops results in notability. The requirement is that multiple independent and reliable sources (which your top two are not) cover the subject in depth, not just mention them. That still does not seem to be the case here. If you have some sources you believe satisfy that requirement, please note two or three of those and those particular ones can be evaluated, but a bunch of passing mentions won't do the trick. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:43, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Seraphimblade,

Thankyou for your reply. Sir, all the sources I cite do mention Srivastava’s works.

I understood your words for the independent and multiple sources that you mentioned.

Out of these 6 sources mentioned below ..how many you consider as reliable sources for Wikipedia?

Google: https://g.co/kgs/xPUYac

Bio:

https://www.celebrityborn.com/biography/kundan-srivastava/15801

https://popularwikibio.com/kundan-srivastava-bio-wiki-human-rights-activist-more/

Interviews:

https://writingtipsoasis.com/an-interview-with-kundan-srivastava-activist-and-author/

https://www.bepositive.online/kundan-srivastav-human-rights-activist/

Awards:

https://www.internationalnewsandviews.com/a-human-rights-activist-wins-veer-putra-samman-award/

Surbhi20 (talk) 02:31, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

New Entry - Artwork

Hi-

I researched in grad school who does not have a Wiki entry and I feel should have one, and I joined so that I can write one, since I've accumulated more than enough resources about him and his work. Much of his work I have seen either in person or in photo documentation, and I'm wary of how much of my own observations, if not included in the verbiage of one of my sources, I can include in my entry.

Can descriptive observations of a work of art be included in a wiki entry if they are made either in person by the writer of the entry, or from images and documentation for which there is no accompanying text?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmerringer (talk • contribs) 18:37, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

In answer to your questions - no, no, no, no. Your own observations are considered original research, which is forbidden. All content has to come from reliable sources. David notMD (talk) 19:15, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Ben Lee Violinist Page

Could you please help me with the afd deletion notices on this page. Ben Lee (violinist) the page.Or how one would go about finding help with editing the page, so it may be saved from deletion. Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Armstrong21 (talk • contribs)

Armstrong21 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If you click on the link in the Articles for Deletion notice, it will take you to the discussion page created to discuss the deletion proposal. There, you can see and respond to the nominator's concerns. What is your interest in "saving" the article(not just "page") from deletion? 331dot (talk) 19:12, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I would add that, at the bottom of the AfD notice, there is a list of links under "find sources". Open each of those links in new tabs and explore a little to see if you can find new WP:RS that have WP:SIGCOV of him. If so, the article can be saved, if not, it's better to let it get deleted if community deems it necessary and recreate it once such sources become available to address all concerns that are raised in this AfD. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 19:35, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Reporting vandalism

The Build a Bear article was vandalized. I know a bit about reverting, but if I revert, am I responsible for placing a warning on the user talk page of the vandal? Thanks. --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 19:45, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

DiamondRemley39, you don't necessarily have to warn a user if you revert vandalism, but it's a good idea to do so. I've reverted the vandalism and given the warning in this case. Take a look at WP:TWINKLE for a tool to help in giving warnings, as well as many other things, if you like. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:48, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

The Page For Card's Against Humanity Needs An Update

Specifically the section of packs they've come out with.

I've never edited an article and have no intention to but the pride pack, college pack, and many others aren't showing up and should be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.108.233.83 (talk) 22:44, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Hey! You state you have no intention to edit an article. In that case, you may make an edit request at the article's talk page by following the instructions here. --MrClog (talk) 23:08, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Wiki article was created with an individuals formerly known as name?

Hi,

There is a wiki article under the name Michael Hiltner- he is still living and has been known as Victor Vincente of America (his now legal name) since the 70s. I am working on an article about him, but believe the title should be changed and there should be a "...formerly known as Michael Beckwith Hiltner," in the bio section. From what I've read, it's not so simple to change this. Would someone share what my options are, if any? I want there to be a fleshed out and acurate article that reflects the name he's had for the last almost 50 years.

Thank you, Ash — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aelvie (talk • contribs) 02:45, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Courtesy: Article title is Michael Hiltner, not MBH. David notMD (talk) 03:02, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Corrected original post to reflect accurate article title. Oh, the irony! Aelvie (talk) 04:35, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Editor with COI behaving like s/he "owns" page.

I don't know the best way to deal with the situation at Midwest University. There is an editor with an admitted conflict of interest who is behaving as though s/he owns the page, is changing the work of two other editors back to how s/he believes the page should read, and won't engage on his/her talk page. Is this considered vandalism for AIV purposes? Is there something I should do that I haven't done yet?  Eyer ^contact  03:01, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Eyer Pls provide editor/IP name that you mentioned above to understand and to advise further if the editor made vandalized edits or it is a content dispute. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:10, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA — Thanks. I appreciate another set of eyes. It's User:Tbum777. In a diff, the editor stated "I am an employee of the University and I have corrected information." On a previous version of the user's talk page, the editor stated "I have been instructed my the President of the institution to correct the information."  Eyer ^contact  03:13, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Eyer, this is useful information about what looks like a serious policy violation. Please file a report at the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard, which is the proper venue to look into this. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:33, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@Eyer and Tbum777:, I had a look at the edit made by both of you and you guys are engaging in WP:edit warring and would subject to be blocked for both of you violated the WP:3RR guideline. Pls stop revert each other edit immediately and bring the discussion to the article talk page. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I've been trying to engage the editor on the User talk page. I'll try to engage on the article Talk page instead. I will still go to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard, as I believe this is still an issue. Thanks again.  Eyer ^contact  03:41, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@Eyer: You have warned Tbum777 on their talk page and not engaging in a discussion that is a big different. Communication is the key to resolve the issue in the article talk page to find a resolution. Do note any info change need to support by independent reliable source. If that doest not work then bring the issue to WP:ANI. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:48, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@CASSIOPEIA: To be fair to me, my warning included an invitation to discuss the situation: "[Y]ou may want to make use of the page Talk:Midwest University, to discuss any changes you propose. I am happy to facilitate changes to the article on your behalf." I welcome feedback on how I can communicate better, though, and I've taken yours. I'll post an invitation for discussion on the article talk page and see if that helps. Thanks again.  Eyer ^contact  03:55, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Highway Reststops

As we've driven across the U.S. multiple times it has occurred to us that there is no easy way to identify public rest stops along the major interstate highways. We use the wiki mobile app along our routes the navigator of our car reads out points of interest along the highway. I'd like to see if there is any interest in creating a series of pages along major Highways that have a standard template of features and links.

Users of the mobile app would be able to see these major points of public interest.

It would be nice if someone could click between these public rest stops along the major Interstate routes. Here is an example of a website that could be used as a source.

Interstate 20 Highway rest stops

Any interest?

Razinni — Preceding unsigned comment added by Razinni (talk • contribs) 03:37, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Henry

I wrote a question that was mistaken as an article. I don't know Henry's last name but do know he acted in a classical kdrama and does cameoes on Home Alone. I wanted to know what the name of his new Historical Chinese dramas is. I also wonder why Home Alone isn't in his credits — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.23.229.126 (talk) 06:04, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

See the answer to your previous question at #Henry above. David Biddulph (talk) 07:31, 16 July 2019 (UTC)