Wikipedia:Teahouse

RudolfRed, 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.)

Creating a Page

Hi, I'm new (obviously). I have written a new page for Wikipedia in my Sandbox, but how do I make that a new page/article? Thanks Srcollier94 (talk) 15:37, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Srcollier94, welcome to the Teahouse. You can put {{subst:submit|Srcollier94}} in your sandbox to submit your article to the articles for creation process. (There are 998 pending submissions articles waiting to be reviewed, so it will probably take a while.) Eman235/talk 17:04, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, user:eman235! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srcollier94 (talk • contribs) 18:54, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi, user:eman235 and great question, Srcollier94! Just a follow-up question, if I have a conflict of interest, is my only option to add a description with citations to the appropriate section of the appropriate "Wikipedia:Requested_articles" page? In other words, since there are so many articles waiting to be reviewed, can you advise on the most expedient way to get a new page/article created? (I haven't written a page in my Sandbox, because of my COI. Perhaps I should go ahead and write one in my Sandbox - with {{subst:submit|Wikirstn}} in there and a note disclosing my COI - for the best chances at the quickest page creation? Signed by Wikirstn (talk) 18:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)Wikirstn

Hi, Wikirstn. Yes, if you want to write an article on a topic you have a conflict of interest about, the best way is to first declare your COI, and then submit it through AfC. Eman235/talk 20:08, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

@Wikirstn:, I would recommend reading WP:DISCLOSE and WP:COIEDIT. If you are being paid in relation to the draft that you write, then WP:COIPAYDISCLOSE and WP:PAY would apply rather than WP:DISCLOSE. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 20:12, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Issue

In one of my recently created articles, I discovered that it was the same as a existing article. If I use speedy deletion what template do I use?BigRed606 (talk • contribs) 1:57, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Update, I found a template. BigRed606 (talk • contribs) 2:18, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Determining official Wikipedia editor role and authority of editors coming in commenting on a persons additions

I'm quite new at Wikipedia editing (1 month), and did a few additions to articles.

Various other editors have come in making changes, sometimes small like spelling or grammer, but sometimes large, "like this violates policy x, policy y, and policy z."

In certain cases, I see the violation, and have attempted to correct. And in certain cases, didn't find the assertion of violations expressed in an imperative or non-collegial way.

In other cases, a person comes in, and makes demands of removal (in a peremptory tone). Then, when I click on the person's name, I don't find sufficient detail on what the authority level of the person within the Wikipedia authority structure is, or the person's experience level, or anything about their education, or how much they are able to comprehend technical matters under discussion. This is problematic, and is causing a lot of wasted.

The issues are coming in over work on the articles Medicaid estate recovery and Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and an editor, who appears to have some authority in the official Wikipedia structure has indicated deletions of what I wrote are coming.

That deletions are coming, if they are coming from the official legitimate hierarchy of editors at Wikipedia, or by whatever legitimate consensus, is not a problem for me. But for new creators of content experiencing similar issues, the authority structure really should be exposed.

So, my question is-->

How do we found out an editor's authority level, and any other information (like what their field of study is, experience duration) so we don't waste a lot of time? (And so you don't lose a lot of content creators. That is, you try to contribute, and all kinds of people with names that don't mean anything come at you with criticisms, sometimes imperative, and you have no idea if they have authority, or they're just someone pretending to be in charge.)

Note: This is no particular complaint about the one editor that the issue is coming up with for me. The editor seems attempting to be helpful throughout my interaction. I sent, today, an email through the system to the editor suggesting he add his authority level, and other relevant information, to his page, so that people will understand the authority to give imperative-sounding instructions.

In fact, if there is no place else to get that information, I might suggest each person giving imperatively-expressed instructions should be required by Wikipedia rules to post that information prominently on their page. NormSpier (talk) 20:40, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

@NormSpier: Welcome to Wikipedia. We do not operate with ranks or levels of authority. Wikipedia is built by consensus between editors. If someone makes a change you don't agree with, discuss it on the article's talk page. See WP:BRD and WP:DR for details. RudolfRed (talk) 20:53, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

@NormSpier: fixing ping. RudolfRed (talk) 20:53, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

No authority? The person in question really sounds like they have the authority. Thus, I had thought they had authority. (I have addressed, already, the issues extensively on the talk pages for the articles involved, so we'll see what happens.) Thank you for the helpful response.

NormSpier (talk) 20:58, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

NormSpier it is confusing to most new users, but authority on Wikipedia is bottom up. There are editors called administrators that have a set of tools to enable them to carry out the decisions of the community, but they only have limited authority to use them unilaterally. I would guess that the Affordable Care Act might be under discretionary sanctions for American politics, so on that article, administrators do have some unilateral authority.

Second, what an individual's qualifications are is irrelevant. It doesn't matter. We determine content by consensus formed from arguments based in reliable sources and informed by Wikipedia policies and guidelines. One's resume doesn't factor in. John from Idegon (talk) 21:14, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

• to be perfectly clear, administrators have no authority over article content. Removing vandalism or whatever is one thing but when an admin is editing an article, they are just another user, and if they are editorially involved they should not be using their admin tools at all. (as an aside, there is a user script you can use that automatically shows you extra details when you look at someone's user or talk page, such as how long they've been ending and what user rights they have. More information is at User:PleaseStand/User info) Beeblebrox (talk) 21:24, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks both of you for additional information. Can you tell me (a) how to tell if the editor in question is an administrator? (I don't see it on the user's page.) How to tell definitively if a page is under "discretionary sanctions"? (ACA apparently is: I had to wait a week and do 100 edits before being allowed to edit it, and further, something pops up for me now about it when I start editing.) I assume the other article is not, since nothing pops up, but it might be nice to know how to know for sure.

(Right now, the status is it's just me debating the one editor. No one else has chimed in. Hopefully, other people who understand the topic will come in. The editor in question has sought people from working groups, but I don't know that they'll come in.)

John from IdegonThanks for "credentials don't factor in". That's actually how I conduct myself personally, as well, never disclosing credentials unless asked. In the case in question, I just have no idea whether the editor in question understands the details of the stuff the article is about. I have no idea that they do or don't. So, a degree in economics or health economics would reassure me that the editor at least understands the technical details. It's not necessary at all (I don't have economics degree--mine is math), but it's more like seeing such a resume would be more or less sufficient, and keep me from worrying if the editor understands the subject of the article.NormSpier (talk) 21:39, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

NormSpier, you seem to have a misunderstanding of the role of Wikipedia editors. What we do is accurately and neutrally summarize what reliable published sources say about a topic. No more and no less than that. An individual editor's level of education is irrelevant. Far more important is the editor's understanding of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. High school students who understand this can be outstanding editors and those with PhDs who fail to understand how Wikipedia works can be very poor editors indeed. There are no "authority levels" among editors working on content. Everyone is equal as long as they comply with policies and guidelines. And everyone can issue warnings if an editor strays from policies and guidelines. No special authority is needed to issue warnings. Only administrators can delete or protect pages, or block other editors, but administrators have no special powers when it comes to determining content. I am an administrator and I have never seen a userpage of an administrator that did not say that the person was an administrator somewhere on that page. Sometimes the only mention is in the categories at the bottom of the page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:57, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

NormSpier You might find this useful. It describes the permissions that different editors can have. Wikipedia:User access levels TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:24, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Editors can choose to indicate credentials on their User pages, but there is no requirement. David notMD (talk) 03:25, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Background: NormSpier has made more than 100 edits to the two articles in question, increasing length of one more than 10X. An editor put template tags at the top. There are already lengthy discussions (well monologues) on the relevant Talk pages. NormSpier's position is that only experts on a topic should be allowed to edit articles on that topic, or at a minimum, should be required to first declare their expertise. Wikipedia cautions against editors individually or in cadres acting as if they "own" articles. David notMD (talk) 11:12, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi, David notMD. My position is most definitely not that only experts on a topic should be allowed to edit articles on that topic, and I regret any impression I have created that I feel otherwise. Rather, it's that people editing should restrain themselves, using self-knowledge, to what they can do effectively. I'm delighted when people point out defects, and fix things, and make things better. Each person hopefully will have a natural sense of what they can do well. In the case of the particular editor giving the imperative tone, from the one person alone (with no concurrence from any other editor that it needs to be done), I'm getting stuff like "we have to take this down", "the article will be really cut down", "this has to go". The grounds are "neutrality" and "original research", which I really don't see as existing, at this stage of the two articles. (There may, however, be subtle issues that have the article needing adjusting or removal of small parts, in my mind.) The qualifications stuff is that I'm feeling the editor in question is declaring everything original research because the editor is unfamiliar with the details of the ACA, perhaps not willing take the time to learn the details (which are in references and text in the two articles), and possibly (only possibly) may not have a good head for for understanding the content technically. My guess is the editor may be declaring the stuff "original research" by looking at superficial signs, not taking the time, and possibly (only possibly) lacking the skills, to do the job properly. This is where issues of qualifications are coming up. (Thus, I clicked on your page, and I see you have a Ph.D. in nutrition. I would tend to see that as something fairly (not perfectly) sufficient, but not necessary, to indicate that you wouldn't tend to overstep the bounds of what you can do effectively on the technically involved parts of a nutritional biochemistry article.) Let me state: most definitely, I do not believe credentials are necessary to edit an article. But I do believe each person needs to have a sense of what they can do correctly in reviewing articles. (Like you, I am not an MD. If a person is sufficiently sick, with more than like an obvious cold, I have the self-understanding to send them to someone who is an MD, and I won't try to cure them myself.)

(Also, I noted on your page you indicate you have a doctorate. I'm keeping mine, so far, off of my page, because of my own feeling that there should not be rank here at Wikipedia, or in general, except where really needed. (My page only indicates that I have a mathy background.) Anyway, I think you should keep the detail you have on your page. It helps in the job of doing a better article, when generally what happens is that all sorts of fully anonymous editors come by and make deep changes and deep comments. And nothing about what there role is, what their background is, what their interests are.

Otherwise, those interested, please note that the one article I expanded by a factor of 10x, Medicaid estate recovery, when I started to expand it, said "This article is just a stub. Please help and expand it ..." It was only maybe 6 lines at the start, and I did what it said.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by NormSpier (talk • contribs) 17:01, 7 September 2019 (UTC) 

NormSpier (talk) 17:18, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

NormSpier, PhD or no, your last comment reads self-contradictory to me. At any rate, you have said enough in it that I would want to be pinged if it was about me. So, I am pinging @Newslinger: who seems to be who this is about (just as a courtesy notification). If you think the other editor doesn't get it, tell them so frankly, and seek a third opinion, go to dispute resolution or initiate a request for comment. Talking about a user's competence here, is inappropriate. If any user's incompetence is disrupting the building of this encyclopedia, there are appropriate fora to raise the issue, as competence is required, but the Teahouse is not it. Finally, if you would keep your comments succinct and to the point, it would help uninvolved editors to be able to easily catch up and participate. On a cursory glance, immediately after this post was initiated, I had actually been impressed by Newslinger's patience in reading and replying to your walls of text. But, if you are only complying not collaborating and they are unaware of it, you are wasting both your times. Regards! Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 18:42, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, Usedtobecool.

Hi again, NormSpier. I'm sorry if my writing style is "peremptory". I tend to state things as I see them (especially when interpreting policy), but I'm not asserting authority when I do so. To be absolutely clear, I am not an administrator on Wikipedia. In content disputes, all editors (including administrators) have equal voices and work together to determine article content through consensus. Arguments are still expected to be backed by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and editors regularly refer to applicable rules during discussion. There is no editor hierarchy in content discussions, and factors such as an editor's education level are not considered on Wikipedia.

I apologize for the delay in responding to your comments, but the volume of your comments is high enough that I wouldn't have time to do anything else on Wikipedia if I attended only to your edits. Unfortunately, no editors responded to the invitations I sent to the WikiProjects listed at the top of Talk:Medicaid estate recovery. If you are no longer interested in the review plan I proposed in WP:NPOVN § Medicaid estate recovery and User:NormSpier, we can resolve this entire dispute with requests for comment (i.e. asking the entire Wikipedia community whether your content additions should remain in the articles). Please let me know (preferably in the NPOVN noticeboard discussion) if this works for you. Thanks. — Newslinger talk 19:16, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Sure, Newslinger, ask the whole community sounds fine. (Do note that are only two articles now under discussion, ACA and Medicaid estate recovery. I removed my content from the other 4, as discussed prior.) NormSpier (talk) 19:29, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

​Okay. I'll continue this conversation at the NPOVN noticeboard discussion to keep everything in one place. — Newslinger talk 19:33, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

I need to check now on whether the process for the above has been appropriate. (I am continuing the question above with a question about the procedure used here by Newslinger, so that you can enlighten me.) Newslinger posted this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Requests_for_comment , which in the context of the now only 2 articles in question Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act and Medicaid estate recovery, Newslinger has proposed keep Medicaid estate recovery (the minor article) and delete all of my contributions to Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act. Then, all are asked to vote on the binary choice. Effective delete or keep all contributions to Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act. The binary choice seems fishy to me, since the optimal resolution is by line by line handling, though apparently the resources are not available. Note that one of my added sections is "Problems", detailing 5 problems with the ACA, including "Subsidy cliff" and "Family Glitch" "Excessive Copays", in article that is extremely pro ACA, and a year ago, in the talk section, a commenter indicated the article was inappropriately pro ACA. Thus, would any one, perhaps Beeblebrox or RudolfRed, who seem to be alert on issues or editor overstep, explain how the binary choice could be given? (So far, no one besides Newslinger has had any comments that anything in the "Problems" section is biased, or incorrect. Some people seem to have passed over the sections, making at least corrections of grammer, spelling, or where I have written "the the", but there has been no comment that anything is biased, etc.)

NormSpier (talk) 20:53, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

To clarify the question I am asking now, it is about procedure, which I am new to here. I see you have put down the Request for Comments here, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Requests_for_comment and my resulting question about procedure (to Beeblebrox and RudolfRed, based on their familiarity with procedure and editor oversteps, and Newslinger and whoever else wants to handle the question), is Newslinger has phrased the question in the RFC as:

"For the articles which we disagree on, we can start a request for comment on the respective talk pages to ask the whole Wikipedia community whether your changes should be kept or removed. Editors who participate in the discussion might suggest other solutions, but they will usually choose one or the other."

I'm questioning whether this is the standard way things are done. It's a course question, "keep it all in", or "take it all out". Is this standard? Is this how it's supposed to be done? Again, one could be suspicious that you're trying to get out the 5 problems with the ACA that I put in, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act#Problems , out, for reasons of your own political opinions. (I'm not saying you actually are doing it for that reason.) So my exact question for the Teahouse, where users learn about the software and procedures at Wikipedia, is, "is it standard to use such a coarse, leading "keep it in" or "take it out" question in the phrasing for RFC"?? (Biased to possibly just get rid of a whole load of user content?)

NormSpier (talk) 01:26, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Content that is added at once is generally treated as a unit if contested. Once a consensus is reached for whether the version with all of the added content or without it is preferable, further edits can be discussed to either reintroduce/remove individual portions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:52, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Rosguill explains the process concisely. The initial request for comment makes a decision on a starting point for the article (before or after the content additions). Whether specific portions of the content should be included or removed can then be debated on the article's talk page (in this case, Talk:Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act). — Newslinger talk 04:20, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Need independent editors to share views

Hi,

I am a connected contributor working on the page of Lori Greiner. I have made all declarations and am suggesting changes via talk page. There are certain tags on the page assigned by editor - Ronz. I have worked on the page to address those issues including completing citations with clear citation style and providing reliable references. I want independent editors to please check the page, talk page and help me remove those tags. Thanking in advance.

FamJoshua1 (talk) 17:09, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

@FamJoshua1: I went through and made some changes to the article, and removed the hatnotes. Since you are a connected contributor, please continue to request future edits on the talk page for future edits, or the article will be hatnoted again for COI editing. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:02, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

WOULD LIKE TO CONTRIBUTE NEW VOCABULARY, DEFINITIONS TO UNKNOWN WORDS, LITERATURE.

Good Day Every One,

Topic: I WOULD LIKE TO CONTRIBUTE NEW VOCABULARY, GLOSSARY, DEFINITIONS TO UNKNOWN WORDS, LITERATURE, GRAMMAR ETIQUETTE.

Perhaps continuously add lost grammar of the highest caliber to continuously feed our brains, I am not new to Wikipedia, I have been a Fan, reader, follower, and donation support for over a decade.

Since i am, new to creating any post, I would like to ask if this is Kosher with Wikipedia Rules, and the community.

I intent to deliver quality Wiki's with relevant, and truthful content, which does entail time and effort as all the pros know.

Essentially contribute to what Wikipedia has been accomplishing, I wanted to respectfully ask for word, grammar, etc, etc.

Q: I would like to essentially ask before i start, so there is no time or effort wasted on a misunderstanding of technicalities.

Thank you for reading,

Ken --KenMastersLee (talk) 17:18, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Cheers and thanks for your interest in editing Wikipedia, though I'm afraid it might not be your "cup of tea". Wikipedia presents and summarizes, in accessible, neutral language what has already been written about in reliable sources that must be properly cited. While there is some room for some creativity in writing, it is a lot more like technical writing. An editor's opinions, knowledge, synthesis of sources, etc., should not come into play per WP:OR. You should also have a look at WP:NOT for what Wikipedia is and is not. Note that, if you're focused on words in particular, Wiktionary might be more appropriate. I hope this helps. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 17:34, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

@KenMastersLee: I've left a welcome message with a more complete set of links to information about Wikipedia and editing on your talk page here. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 17:37, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi AlanM1,

Thank you for the Reply, and Helpful directions, I am making note of everything, As well as checking the Wiktionary, this makes absolute sense. Again thanks for the Help, Good thing i double checked before creating, and posting on the wrong place.

If you have a moment, I wanted to know am i using the Reply or talk correctly by replying this way ( modifying post ) I would like to make sure i am seeing everything correctly, certainly would be funny to view a forum or html as an app.

I clicked the link with your name, and well as talk link, one lead me to your page, awesome by the way, and the talk button lead me else where.

Hence, responding through article modifications. Making sure i get it right, well anyhow, see you around, thanks again.

KenMastersLee (talk) 19:26, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi KenMastersLee. You would be very welcome over at WikipediaWiktionary, but most words are already there. Any new words need at least three citations spanning at least a year and more than one author. There are lots of definitions there that need improving, but it takes a while to learn the format, so don't be discouraged if some edits get reverted. Dbfirs 19:41, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I presume that Dbfirs meant to write "very welcome over at Wiktionary". Cordless Larry (talk) 19:53, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. That is what I meant to write. Now corrected. Dbfirs 19:56, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

@Dbfirs:

Thank you very much for the Clear and Concise directions, as well as the warm welcome to a Subject such as vocabulary.

I'll certainly remember your considerate heads up in regards to the format, and especially your advice in encouragement.

Live, and Learn Right, no losing in a win, win.

Thanks again @Dbfirs: KenMastersLee (talk) 17:46, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

@KenMastersLee: You got it – on "Talk pages" (those that have the word "Talk" or "talk" before a colon in the title), you continue a conversation by editing the section it's in and adding to the end of it, just like you did. If you start it with {{Ping|username}} (as I've done here), the user will be notified.

Note that it's common to insert increasing numbers of colons in front of responses to break them up, as has been done here (this one has four colons in front, the next should have five, etc., cycling back to none when it gets to be too far to the right to be useful. If you have multiple paragraphs in your posting, each new paragraph should have the (same number of) colons to indent it. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 23:49, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

P.S. There are a few pages without "Talk:" in the title that are nevertheless "talk pages" also, like this page itself (Wikipedia:Teahouse). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 23:53, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

@Alanm1: Behold ! the power of @Username:

Hi AlanM1, Thanks again for all the pointers, This is becoming a very interesting journey back to the basics of it all. Perhaps, Remembering Dialup and knowg Wikipedia and our conversations would still load, is pleasant in itself.

Thanks Again. KenMastersLee (talk) 17:46, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Replacing an image

I would like to replace an image on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troy_Perry. Rev. Troy Perry does not like the photo of him under "Activism" and wants to replace it with a photo he provided. How can I verify that it is an image he has provided with his caption? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnboswell (talk • contribs) 21:09, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

@Johnboswell: He will need to release the photo under a license that allows for reuse for any purpose. If he is willing to do that, then see WP:DONATEIMAGE for the process. Also, photos for articles are based on consensus of editors, so you won't have any control over if that image is chosen for the article or not. RudolfRed (talk) 22:50, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Writing a Company Wikipedia Page

Hi, I really need help with creating a company Wikipedia page. The company is notable, and has an abundance of credible sources that have written about it since its inception in the mid 1990's. Is there an editor that I would be able to work with to go through the process of creating the company's Wikipedia page? I also need to disclose that I work for the company, and have been asked to create this page. My proposed draft will be as neutral as possible and provide credible sources. Please let me know how I can move forward with this process. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Holly0312 (talk • contribs) 21:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

@Holly0312: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Thank you for being open about your circumstances. You will need to make some formal declarations, please read WP:COI and WP:PAID for information on how to do that. That said, I would advise you to be very careful in how you proceed. Wikipedia articles(not just "page") summarize what independent reliable sources state about article subjects that meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability(more specifically, that of a notable company). Wikipedia is not interested in what a company wants to say about itself, on in enhancing search results for the company(a common reason that companies want "Wikipedia pages"); we're all here to add to this collection of human knowledge for the benefit of humanity as a whole. In order for you to be successful in writing even a draft about your company, you would essentially need to forget everything you know about it and only write based on the content of independent sources. Please understand that independent sources does not include press releases, routine business announcements, staff interviews, or other primary sources. Most people in your position cannot write in such a manner. However, if you feel that you can, you should read Your First Article and use the new user tutorial first; you may then create a draft using Articles for Creation. Alternatively, you can make a request at Requested Articles that someone else write an article, though that process is severely backlogged. Feel free to show this message to your superiors.

Also please understand that a Wikipedia article is not necessarily desirable; anything about your company, good or bad, can go in article as long as it appears in an independent source. Your company cannot exclusively dictate what appears there, lock it to the text it might prefer, or prevent others from editing it. 331dot (talk) 21:30, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Holly0312. The first thing I think you'll need to realize is that Wikipedia articles are not written for subjects, but rather about subjects. This might seem to be a trivial distinction to make, but when someone wants to create an Wikipedia article for a subject, they may mistakenly assuming that the subject will have some sort of editorial control over the article or just like they do over their official website. Moreover, when a company requests/instructs/pays someone to create a Wikipedia article for them, the company may be under the impression that the article will be just another part of its online presence that it will be able to use as it pleases. Neither of these things are true per Wikipedia:Ownership of content and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not; so, it's important that not only you realize this, but that also the company realizes this.

The next thing you'll need to do is carefully read through Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide and Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. Wikipedia doesn't expressly prohibit conflict-of-interest editing, but it does highly discourage and expects such editors to comply with the guidelines the Wikipedia Community has established over the years to help such editors avoid problems. Although following these guidelines isn't mandatory, the community for the most part treats them as such and is going to expect you adhere to them. There's much less room to maneuver, however, when it comes to a financial conflict-of-interest, which you almost certainly would be considered to have. Editors being paid or otherwise compensated to edit or create content on Wikipedia are required to formally declare their relationship to whomever's paying them to edit this content per the Wikimedia Foundtation's Terms of Use and a failure to do so can lead to the account being blocked.

Finally, whether this company should have an article written about depends on whether it meets the guidelines given in Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). If it can be shown to have received the "significant coverage" in multiple independent reliable sources as explained in Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Significant coverage, then an article can probably be written; if not, then an article shouldn't be written. If you feel it does, are willing to comply with the conflict-of-interest/paid-contribution guidelines and policies, and want to create the article yourself, then you can start by creating a draft. When you think the draft is ready to go, you can submit the draft to Wikipedia:Articles for creation for review. Another option would be for you to request that another editor (i.e. someone without a conflict of interest) create the article by asking for help at Wikipedia:Requested articles; if the article is as Wikipedia notable as you seem to think it is, perhaps someone else will decide to do it. You can also ask for help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Companies to see if a member of that Wikipedia project would be willing to help. Creating a Wikipedia article is technically a fairly simple thing to do, but creating a Wikipedia article which is not going to end up deleted is quite hard. It's not impossible for an new editor or even a paid editor to do, but those things do make it just that much harder. You can find suggestions on how to write/format an article in Wikipedia:Your first article, but paid editing is viewed quite suspiciously by many members of the community and many are simply not interested in helping someone else be compensated for doing something that can/should be really be done for free; in other words, some people like to help others do their homework and others simply will not under any circumstances. So, the best thing for the company might be to try and let someone else to write a Wikipedia article about it even though that might not necessarily be the best thing for you. In the end though what matters is really what's best for Wikipedia, not the company, not you and not any other editor. So, if you can show that having an article about the company makes Wikipedia "better", one will likely be written by someone. It might not be written today or tomorrow, but eventually someone will likely write one. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:53, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

How can i contact someone who edited my edit?

Hello, someone called Diannaa removed an edit I put into

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysodeixis_eriosoma

citing that I violated copyright.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:119.224.2.210&diff=cur

As I did not save that edit to my harddrive I now have no history of it.

How can I contact Diannaa in order to retrieve that edit?

I've tried every which way, without success. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.224.2.210 (talk) 23:47, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Copyright violations are removed from all the Wikipedia history, because they would still be violations if they remained there. Your best option is to retrieve what you copied from https://web.archive.org/web/20110603071351/http://lepidoptera.butterflyhouse.com.au/plus/eriosom.html, http://www.terrain.net.nz/friends-of-te-henui-group/moths/moth-green-garden-looper-moth-chrysodeixis-eriosoma.html and copy it to your hard drive. You can contact Diannaa at her user Talk page.--Quisqualis (talk) 00:01, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

@119.224.2.210: You can go here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chrysodeixis_eriosoma&diff=909055083&oldid=900913708Oldperson (talk) 00:09, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

(ec) @119.224.2.210: Diannaa, an experienced administrator/sysop with 10 years and 260,000+ edits saw your edit, and deleted it with the edit summary: remove copyright content copied from https://web.archive.org/web/20110603071351/http://lepidoptera.butterflyhouse.com.au/plus/eriosom.html, http://www.terrain.net.nz/friends-of-te-henui-group/moths/moth-green-garden-looper-moth-chrysodeixis-eriosoma.html. She then left a long message on your talk page at User talk:119.224.2.210#Wikipedia and copyright, explaining the problem in great detail. Basically, your edit was to insert text that was copied (or very closely paraphrased) from the pages she cited. You can contact her either by editing that section on your talk page, beginning it with {{Ping|Diannaa}} (preferred), or leaving her a message as a new section on her talk page at User talk:Diannaa. I hope this helps. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 00:12, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

how to upload a scanned photo of my grand father in wikipedia

hello I am trying to add the name of my grand father Manuel Joseph in the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clifford_Pier under Architecture, Since he was the chief engineer on this project. But i am unable to upload his image because it says it is a scanned image. What can i do?

ajeet — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajeet071084 (talk • contribs) 08:31, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ajeet071084, before even contemplating doing that for that purpose, there would need to be a reliably cited statement in that Wikipedia article that Manuel Joseph was the chief engineer. Right now there is nothing of that sort, and I am unable to find anything via a Google search. We can't just go on your hearsay; in addition, photographs of the architects or engineers involved are rarely included in Wikipedia articles on structures. Softlavender (talk) 09:19, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajeet071084 (talk • contribs)

Ajeet071084, do not add your claim into the article without adding a confirming reliable-source citation. You just did that [1] and I have reverted you. If you cannot find a reliable independent citation which explicitly confirms the information, do not add it to a Wikipedia article. Also, please do not remove discussions, even if you opened the discussion. Softlavender (talk) 11:18, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Names Database

For research purposes, is there a way to extract a list of names & surnames of famous people from Wikipedia? I'm guessing it will have the most comprehensive list.

Name Surname Country Known For (Actor/Politician/Artist/Scientist etc) Pronunciation of the name (IPA & sound clip file)

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by VarkBiltong (talk • contribs) 10:01, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi @VarkBiltong: You probably want to check out WikiData, which in theory is the place for structured data like this. I can't speak for the accuracy or completeness of the information they hold, but the project's goals seem to be in line with what you're seeking. Cheers! -- a ^{consensus is queer oppression | argue | contribs} 11:49, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Question about Infobox recurring event

Hi Tea friends!

I'd like to ask about infoboxes applying to certain pages. The R U OK? page is about an organisation in Australia that facilitates the R U OK? Day [sic]. While the page is about the brand, the content is largely about the actual day, as that is their actual headlining campaign.

My two-pronged query is that, could "Infobox recurring event" apply to an organisational page? And if not, is there a precedent for page move proposals for event-based organisations? (to move R U OK? organisational page to R U OK?Day event page).

Sorry about this being a bit messy, and thank you for your time and advice! SunnyBoi (talk) 11:05, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Why can’t the real person be apart of developing there own Page?

Why can’t the real person be apart of developing there own Wikipedia Page? They would seem to be very important to ensuring that even our sources are accurate. On many occasions I have been in very important meetings with Heads of State, but only to see a completely different statement or action reported by “trusted sources.” There has got to be another way to help famous people or worthy people do their own pages and then we validate those pages. I think our audience would appreciate it coming directly from the source or the horses mouth. I am sure many people do their own with a unique user name....Just asking...

Why can’t the real person be apart of developing there own Wikipedia Page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Earth Country33 (talk • contribs) 11:43, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Earth Country33 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. For the answer to your question, you may want to read about conflict of interest and the autobiography policy. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state about a subject, and has no interest in what the subject wants to say about themselves. In addition, people naturally write favorably about themselves, and Wikipedia strives to have a neutral point of view. That said, the subject is welcome to make suggestions as edit requests on the article talk page. If there is incorrect information, we want to know what it is, whether it is from the subject or not. 331dot (talk) 11:47, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What you are talking about are personal homepages. Anyone is free to create a web site that contains just what they want people to know. However, since people usually have a tendency to exaggerate their virtues and hide their flaws, just believing them is not a valid strategy to write a neutral encyclopedia. Regards SoWhy 11:48, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Real people often have their own websites, and sometimes Wikipedia takes information from there, but it is not regarded as a WP:Reliable source because some real people put there what they would like to be true. The real person has a WP:Conflict of interest if they edit Wikipedia, and we prefer that they point out any errors on the talk page of the article. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on independent sources, not what the subject would like to say about themselves. Dbfirs 11:51, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

OK...Understood...Thank you.

Athlete info page

How can I create a professional athlete information page?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Victrixmortali (talk • contribs)

@Victrixmortali: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia does not have "information pages", it has articles that are not for merely providing information. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state with significant coverage about articles subjects that meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability. In the case of athletes, many sports have their own notability criteria for athletes of that sport to merit articles. For example, American football players must meet the guidelines written at this link to merit an article(having appeared in a regular season game). The page WP:NSPORT lists the criteria for many sports' athletes.

Keep in mind that successfully writing a new article is the hardest task on Wikipedia. It takes much time and practice. You will be much more successful if you spend time editing existing articles, to get a feel for how Wikipedia operates and what is being looked for in articles. You may also find it helpful to use the new user tutorial. If you still want to write a new article, I would suggest reading Your First Article, the notability criteria for the relevant sport(as I note above), and then using Articles for Creation to create and submit a draft for review, so you get feedback on it before it is formally placed in the encyclopedia. 331dot (talk) 11:57, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

I know one athlete who Is Asian youth champion. Could anyone create a page on him? It would be a great help if someone does as I'm new to this and not aware about the template and stuff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victrixmortali (talk • contribs) 12:01, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Victrixmortali Please put follow up questions in the same section, instead of creating a new section. (click 'edit' in the section header). You can request that an article (not just "page") be created at Requested Articles, but the backlog there is severe, and it may not get done quickly, if at all. As there are no deadlines for Wikipedia, you are welcome to take as much time as you need to learn about using Wikipedia and practice editing so you can create such an article yourself. 331dot (talk) 12:05, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Lost In History Because of No Internet

What about events witnessed by many people prior to the internet? Events that took placed before the camera phone and YouTube and no reporting or records from magazines or newspapers. I am not talking about UFO sitings...Take for example Vince Carter is a great athlete that goes down in history as the first athlete to jump over someone’s head during a basketball game, but 20 years earlier 2,000 people in a stadium firsthand witness another athlete do that but there was no recording or no one wrote about it. Wiki seems like the perfect platform to address lost history. Can i recommend we do something about that or form a team that has a section that deals with that. We can even refer to it as LOST HISTORY. This helps our users understand that its without written recorded sources...I promise this is my last question. :)

What can we do about lost history?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Earth Country33 (talk • contribs)

Earth Country33 Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state, as noted in your prior question. We can't write about things for which there are no sources that discuss them in depth(though how would you know about something that occurred 2000 years ago if it was not written down?). What you want to do would not be possible on Wikipedia for this reason. There are places where such a thing would be permitted, such as a personal website where you control what appears there. 331dot (talk) 12:16, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

@Earth Country33: It does not need to be published on the Internet, but it does need to be published in reliable sources such as newspapers or books even if those are offline. See WP:RS for more information on what is usable as a reliable source for Wikipedia. RudolfRed (talk) 20:06, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

@Earth Country33: Regarding no reporting or records from magazines or newspapers: Newspapers, magazines, and books have been around for centuries, so if it was notable, someone should have written about it. There are many projects that have digitized and made available a lot of these older materials, but, as someone else said, an offline source is fine – it just takes more leg work to find. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 05:33, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

81.200.82.123

Hi. The IP address 81.200.82.123 has been making unconstuctive edits lately. Is there any way to stop that? Thanks! Ȝeſtikl (talk) 12:07, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello. If they have vandalized past the 4th warning, you can report them at Wikipedia:AIV. --LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 12:29, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Basically needs a mass revert. Need to find someone that can do that. Like MarnetteD or an administrator like Drmies. -- Softlavender (talk) 12:36, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

It's been taken care of. 331dot (talk) 12:44, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, 331dot. Drmies (talk) 23:47, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Redirects

I’ve created a draft redirect, and I want it to be a redirect that is not a draft. How can I move it? I’ve followed the instructions on W:Redirects, but I can’t move it like it says on W:MOV. Can you help me with this? Presidential Vault (talk) 13:23, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Presidential Vault. You only joined one day ago. You need to be autoconfirmed to move pages. A user becomes autoconfirmed when they have made 10 edits and been around for 4 days.LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 14:43, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

@LPS and MLP Fan: Thank you for your help. After I am autoconfirmed, how can I move the page? Presidential Vault (talk) 00:55, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

@Presidential Vault: A "more" button will appear next to the other editing buttons, if you hover over it the option to move a page should appear. TheAwesomeHwyh 00:57, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

@TheAwesomeHwyh: So is there an option for you to choose to move it to a redirect page? And what is the moving reason I should write? Presidential Vault (talk) 01:01, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

@Presidential Vault: Not sure what you mean. All you do is type in the new title you want to be at, it doesn't matter what kind of page it is. For moving reason, you could use something generic like "publish redirect" or "moving page to mainspace", or you could be more specific if you wanted to. TheAwesomeHwyh 01:07, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

@TheAwesomeHwyh:@LPS and MLP Fan: Thank you so much for your help. Presidential Vault (talk) 02:21, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

@TheAwesomeHwyh:@LPS and MLP Fan: Actually, I have a second question. Do I have to remove the template that says the article is still in the draft namespace before moving the page, or will it be removed automatically? There is an invisible comment, that says it is important, and I should remove it. Presidential Vault (talk) 13:54, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

@Presidential Vault:I'm not quite sure, actually. I've never had to move a draft. TheAwesomeHwyh 18:55, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

@LPS and MLP Fan: I would like to ask you for help. I actually wanted to rename the page. Can I do both moving the page to main namespace and renaming it at the same time? Is there a reason for renaming the page, if both actions should be done individually? Presidential Vault (talk) 08:05, 9 September 2019 (UTC) @TheAwesomeHwyh: Replying to your answer for my question about the moving reason: Can I type in “Moving draft article to main namespace”, as it is said in the Wikipedia Moving guideline? Presidential Vault (talk) 08:09, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

@Presidential Vault: When you move a page, you are changing the title, aka the page name. So, you are doing what you said at the same time. LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 19:39, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

@LPS and MLP Fan: Should I remove the draft template that is a button for submitting the draft for review? There is a comment, which says"Important, do not remove". Presidential Vault, from the “Minimum Security Bank” (talk page) 01:41, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

My edits are deleted

Hi, on 7th of september I created 2 pages, that were "Konjuksioni" , "Disjuksioni" , and I edited a page named "Negacioni" , at 13.00pm - 18: and when I logged in at 21:30pm all my activities from today are not showing, can you help me?

Sincerely, Donat Balaj from Tech Media Online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Techmediaonline (talk • contribs) 19:43, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Techmediaonline, welcome to the Teahouse. This is a help page for the English Wikipedia. sq:Speciale:Kontributet/Techmediaonline shows you edited the Albanian Wikipedia at https://sq.wikipedia.org. Each language has its own logs so it doesn't show up in searches or contributions here at the English Wikipedia at https://en.wikipedia.org. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:24, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Would like to make my own page

Hi my name is Raman Sharma and I am an illusionist. I would like to create my own Wikipedia page. I am already mentioned under the “Tamil Movie - Mersal” which is under Wikipedia as (one of the three magicians that trained Actor Vijay Joseph) I just don’t know how to go about it? Would appreciate any help.

Regards

Raman — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramansharmamagic (talk • contribs) 20:58, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Ramansharmamagic. I'm afraid the answer is that you shouldn't. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not social media or a business directory. Any attempt to use it for promotion is forbidden. If several people, wholly unconnected with you, have chosen to write at length about you and been published somewhere with a reputation for fact checking and editorial control, then it is possible for Wikipedia to have an article about you, which should be based almost entirely on what those writers have published about you. The article will not belong to you, you will have no control over its contents, and almost nothing it in should be referenced to what you say or want to say. You are not forbidden from trying to create an autobiography, but if you do so, you will be taking the already difficult task of creating a Wikipedia article, and making it much more difficult by trying to write neutrally about yourself. I earnestly advise you not to try it. --ColinFine (talk) 21:09, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Ramansharmamagic. There is a website called https://en.EverybodyWiki.com/ , which is suitable for your purpose. I hope that I could help you. ––Handroid7 (talk) 21:18, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

I am new?

I am new and I want to know if there's a general forum? I want to get started with editing articles but I don't know where to begin. ````MissBlanketBurrito — Preceding unsigned comment added by MissBlanketBurrito (talk • contribs) 23:51, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

There are some very helpful links recently posted to your Talk page. They will help you to begin editing articles.--Quisqualis (talk) 01:06, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Editors are editing and removing my articles and demanding quotations of sources when they are already quoted.

Can Dr Kay be more consultative in approach instead of just wiping out my writings and removing my attachments and threatening to block me out? I have been one of the consistent contributors to wikipedia.

Can you please show me the guideline for removing my account?

Saqiwa (talk) 01:37, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Saqiwa. I am sorry that you are feeling frustrated, but I think that the other editor is trying to improve the encylopedia. Please read Wikipedia: Retiring and Wikipedia:Courtesy vanishing for your options. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:40, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Accounts cannot be removed. You can stop using an account. David notMD (talk) 18:23, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Japanese stubs

I read Japanese and I would like to work on Japanese stubs (translating from the corresponding Japanese article).

Is there a list of Japanese stubs or shall I just go out and look for them?

Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wait57 (talk • contribs) 03:26, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Wait57, you can start here from this category and subsequent list of articles: and please read this page as well for guidelines how to translate and give credit: Wikipedia:Translation, thanks. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:47, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Wait57. Please look into Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan and there is a lot of useful information at the Wikipedia:Community portal as well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:02, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

@Wait57: do check out Category:Stub-Class Japan-related articles where you'll see all 36,000 stub articles have be subdivided into priorities. There are just two 'Top' priority stubs, and 160 'Mid' priority ones, which should make your task less far daunting. Good luck! Nick Moyes (talk) 08:21, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Is there a way to find out a music artist's chart history across different countries?

I'm not a beginner to Wikipedia, but I've never really gone into full-style editing and I would like to ask if there is a faster way to check a music artist's chart history? It seems troublesome to manually go and check if the artist charted in every country. Are there any editors out there who are specialised in this field? I'm also trying to create a draft for a new music artist, but I'm kind of unsure on how to go about doing it. Thanks in advance! Nahnah4 (talk | contribs) 08:19, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Rewrite A Page

While going through Modern Paganism, I discovered the page Wiccan views on LGBT people and found its scope quite narrow. Considering there's many other Modern Pagan belief systems besides Wicca, it thought it would be more apt to expand the scope, reorganize, and rewrite. I've done some of that on my own via User:Gwenhope/Modern Pagan views on LGBT people but I really don't know how to get to the next step of actually implementing this change and how to reach consensus to do so. Assistance would be appreciated Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 10:59, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

@Gwenhope: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. For something major like an extensive addition to an article, it's probably a good idea to go to the article talk page to seek consensus from other editors that might be following that article. You could be bold and just change it, but the more extensive the change, the more likely it would just be reverted. 331dot (talk) 11:15, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

@331dot: Thank you, I did leave a thing on the talk page for the article, but it's been months and nobody has replied. Heck the article hasn't received any edits or talk action for months. Is this a WP:BOLD situation? Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 11:21, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

@Gwenhope:. Yeah, if you've left a comment and no one has replied, I think you would be fine to do it. Maybe just leave an additional note on the talk page explaining that. 331dot (talk) 11:29, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

@331dot: What would I do about the existing page? Do I edit to completely change the content, then try to get the page renamed, or do I just create the new replacement page and try to get the old one deleted? Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 11:47, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I am not an expert on editing in religious topics, so feel free to wait for additional opinions, but it sounds to me like the existing article you refer to would be a subsection of the version you created. If it were me I might try to get the page moved first, explaining your reasoning for doing so("because I want to significantly expand the scope of the article, read my draft to see what I want to do"). You might also want to seek the involvement of any members of the WikiProjects listed on the existing article's talk page; I suspect at least the broad Religion project might have some members who can offer advice. 331dot (talk) 11:53, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I understand. However I have moved my draft from userspace into draftspace here - Draft:Modern Pagan views on LGBT people - in the meantime. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 12:26, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Gwenhope, as your draft is already good enough for mainspace I moved it, then added suitable WP:MERGE tags to the two pages. Perhaps another more experienced editor from WikiProject Religion could complete the process, as having another opinion is considered to be a "Good Thing™" here on WP. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:57, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Dodger67! I quite agree with other input! Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 15:02, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

edited my first article and someone reverted it without giving any reason

So, I made my first edit on wikipedia after looking up my mum's cousin and finding his birthday was completely wrong. made some minor edits about his parents' death dates and nobody interfered with them. His article was still pretty small and poorly written so I wanted to improve it more. I checked the source for his cause of death and found it actually said something completely different. So, changed that and gave the reason. Then this editor came and reverted my edit and added a new source. I checked the source. It was a recent article that had copied from the wikipedia article... SO, obviously I changed it back because oh my god. Then the editor changed it again to a 'heart attack'! Again, the article cited does not say he had a heart attack. It just says 'natural causes'. I thought 'whatever, it probably WAS a heart attack'. Then I reorganised the page because it was not very standard. I just added some new headings (Early life, Death) and a couple sentences more detail. Changed a detail about his residence that was wrong (based on the article being cited). Then the same editor just came and reverted it without giving any reason.

What do I do? I don't really know how to use wikipedia, but the page looked way more like your usual biographical entry after I edited it than before.. This person seems weirdly possessive over this page. It's not a big page.. Do I just let them keep all the misinformation up?? I don't feel like checking all the time to make sure they've not reverted it. I guess I have a minor COI because I'm related to the subject, but he died before I was born and I never knew him - it's more of a genealogical interest - unsigned comment at 13:46 (UTC), 8 September 2019 by Oguhugo (talk · contribs), signature added by Gwenhope (talk · contribs)

@Oguhugo: Thank you for being interested in contributing to the Wiki! Wikipedia takes biographical information very seriously (See WP:BLP). You also can't use your personal research without a third-party, reliable source (See WP:NOR). However if you have verifiable copies of legal documents or other third-party research to correct inaccuracies, I would suggest as a new Wikipedia editor that you contact the respective project team. Each article has a talk page, where you can also create a new section to discuss any misinformation with other editors. (Also, it general policy to sign your posts on talk or help pages (like this) using four tildes ~~~~ (See WP:SIGN).) Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 14:12, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

@Gwenhope:Hi, thank you for your response. The only thing I didn't source was his birth date, because there wasn't a source given for the wrong one either. The other changes I've made have been based on the news articles already referenced in the article. Like, the cause of death on wikipedia was listed as 'illnesses relating to drug and alcohol addiction'. So, I read the article referenced. It said he died of natural causes and they were waiting on the autopsy results. I couldn't find an article with the autopsy results so I changed COD to 'natural causes'. This other editor seems to have really poor reading comprehension because they keep writing things that are clearly at odds with the articles they cite to back it up. The article, Bernard Lafferty is only part of two projects - Biography and Ireland. It's listed as low importance in the latter. So, I don't think they would be interested? I also feel like this other editor is going to ignore anything I put on the talk page since they don't put any comments when they edit? Oguhugo (talk) 14:31, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

@Oguhugo: I read the articles cited by Pajokie (talk · contribs) when undoing your revisions. They hold weight. Bernard Lafferty seems to be one of the pages Pajokie watches. I would suggest that you start a discussion with them in Talk:Bernard Lafferty instead of edit warring. That might get your banned or restricted from the page. I understand that it's easy to feel, as a new editor that you don't understand the method to the madness or that more senior editors (like Pajokie) won't give you the time of day. However, we always try to assume good faith. Don't knock it until you try it!~ Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 14:39, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

@Gwenhope: Except the articles they're citing are the ones *I'm* citing. The Wikipedia article was saying completely different things to what the news articles were saying. Except of course the one news article that was ripped from Wikipedia. If someone is to get banned for reverting edits, shouldn't it be the person who gives no reason and adds poorly sourced articles? I saw in the edit history that someone had previously corrected an error on this page and Pajokie reverted it. Again, the article says one thing and Wikipedia says different. The article says Bernard Lafferty died in a house he bought himself. The wikipedia article said he died in an inherited house. I don't know why anyone would be invested in the latter, against what the source actually says.Oguhugo (talk) 14:56, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

@Oguhugo: I know you're frustrated. Please, we need to talk this out. That's how Wikipedia works. Just start a new thread in Talk:Bernard Lafferty. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 15:05, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Pajokie created the article in 2017, but that does not convey ownership. Pajokie has been cautioned on Talk page to not participate in an edit war. As Gwenhope recommended, the best place to resolve this in at Talk:Bernard Lafferty. David notMD (talk) 18:30, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Am I allowed to edit if I work for a company?

I’m worried that I could be blocked since I am employed by a large corporation. Just asking here first to see if it’s ok. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Felchhole (talk • contribs) 16:57, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

You need to declare your WP:COI. Editing with a COI is frowned upon, but allowed as long as it is declared. You cannot edit your company’s page, but you are welcome to propose changes on the talk page. Hope this helps out. LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 17:02, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh, ok. Thank you Felchhole (talk | contribs ) 17:05, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

What applies is a subset of COI that is for paid editing. Per what LPS recommended, the process is to describe a proposed change on the Talk page of the article, with the idea that a non-involved editor will implement or not. David notMD (talk) 18:32, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

COI questions from a new editor

In the process of updating, for free, a page about a performer with whom I have worked with on occasion. "Gerrianne Raphael". Her page did not report most of her career accomplishments. I understand that while I am only citing details that appear elsewhere on the net (and will footnote the thing within an inch of it's life before I'm done), there is no doubt some unconscious level of curating going on. I would be happy to post a notice somewhere on the page that this page was created by a professional colleague, even use my name. Where and how do I do this?

Along those lines, I am posting her professional resume picture, which is all over the net, and is clearly in "public domain" in terms of use. I will get permission from the owner of the picture (the actress) if necessary - what form should that take?

Regards,

Jon JLONOFFJLonoff 17:07, 8 September 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JLonoff (talk • contribs)

Do not add the photo. The short version is that what is required is that the photographer follow image contribution procedure, acknowledging that once completed, anyone can use the photo for any purpose, not limited to Wikipedia. David notMD (talk) 18:35, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

... and "all over the net" does not mean public domain. Unless we have evidence to the contrary, we have to assume that the photographer still holds the copyright. Dbfirs 09:14, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Verify

How can i verified my bio — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankitaanshu (talk • contribs) 17:13, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion done on autobiographical content on User page. David notMD (talk) 20:15, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

question about reliabile sources

Could a page be published if there are outside sources as well as the person's personal business page that verifies the information stated? --Gettechy (talk) 18:46, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

See WP:RS. Instagram not considered a reliable source. David notMD (talk) 20:20, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Gettechy. An article (please don't think of it as a "page", because that suggests the kind of thing you get in social media, not an encyclopaedia) should be based almost entirely on outside sources - that is to say, sources wholly unconnected with the subject (and not based on interviews or press releases), and published by someone with a reputation for fact-checking and editorial control, such as a major newspaper, or a reputable book publisher. The subject's own publications may be used in a very limited way, to verify uncontroversial factual information like places, but the bulk of the article should be based on independent published material. See Notability for more. --ColinFine (talk) 20:24, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

An error related to Expand template

I would like to know how I can resolve the error Lua error: expandTemplate: template "navbar" does not exist. It is present in this page. Adithyak1997 (talk) 19:08, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

By creating a navbar template. Ruslik_Zero 20:25, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

@Adithyak1997: Note that this is a page in the Khowar language incubator wiki at incubator:Template:Wp/khw/2019ء_کرکٹ_عالمی_کپ_پوائنٹس_ٹیبل. I'll note that there is a incubator:Template:Wp/khw/Navbar, but not incubator:Template:Navbar – that page was deleted because it was not "prefixed". Help appears to be at incubator:Help:FAQ#Prefix. Further questions should be probably be asked somewhere at the Incubator project, which is a separate project from this one (the English Wikipedia). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 06:32, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

@Adithyak1997: If you edit the page and make a browser string search (Ctrl+f in many browsers) on "navbar" then it doesn't appear. But the bottom of the edit window shows "Templates used on this page". It shows a red link to the missing template, and it lists several modules. Searching them for "navbar" finds this in incubator:Module:Wp/khw/Sports table: expandTemplate{ title = 'navbar'. I don't know Lua but it seems you can just replace 'navbar' with 'Wp/khw/Navbar'. This will display a table in the original page but also reveal a bunch of other missing templates. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:56, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: Thanks a lot. It worked. Adithyak1997 (talk) 14:17, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Providing additional information for a page.

I would like to contact the creator(s) of the page on Elizabeth Sneddon in order to offer information that might be useful. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sklaito (talk • contribs) 20:29, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Sklaito. Every Wikipedia article has its own talk page to discuss improvements. I. This case, make your suggestions at Talk:Elizabeth Sneddon. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:38, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Back in May you added content to the article Elizabeth Sneddon without any citations in support. The content was removed. Any editor can add (or subtract) content - not just the original creator - but references are essential. David notMD (talk) 00:24, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Zsolt Kézdi-Kovács

Dear Wikipedia,

I have entered your site to edit content because my family has articles. I've edited my father's article, because right now it is very short and very vague. Somebody called Lugnuts, changed the article back to the short form right away. How can I keep the correct information, how can I contact this person? How can I make sure that my father has correct representation on Wikipedia? All the information I have wrote can be found and confirmed online.

Best Regards,

Eli Laszlo Berger formerly Kézdi Kovács László — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elibergerdop (talk • contribs) 04:13, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I have added a section heading before your question to separate it from the previous topic. Your edit to Zsolt Kézdi-Kovács was reverted because the material you added was unsourced; you need to read about verifiability. As the article is about your father, you also need to read about conflict of interest. You can use the article's talk page (Talk:Zsolt Kézdi-Kovács) to suggest improvements, but you need to provide references to published reliable sources independent of the subject. --David Biddulph (talk) 06:06, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Adding links to other wikipedia pages

Hi there, I'm in the process of creating a wikipedia page and I can't figure out how to create those hyperlinks that lead to other wikipedia pages. Any advice? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marketing at sygnum (talk • contribs) 06:31, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

@Marketing at sygnum: I don't see anything in your contribution history. I've added a welcome message to your "user talk page" at User talk:Marketing at sygnum, which includes some helpful links. However, you will be contacted soon by an administrator regarding your username, which is a violation of Wikipedia's policy against shared use (see WP:NOSHARING) as well as promotion (see WP:PROMO). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 06:53, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

To answer the actual question, put the title of the article between two pairs (nested) of square brackets. [[Wikipedia]] renders as Wikipedia. Cheers! Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 07:12, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Ruth Pfau

Was just reading Ruth Pfau's biography. Her 'early history' said that she met often with a Dutch Christian woman who was a concentration camp survivor, and who had dedicated her life to speaking about 'love and forgiveness'. Wouldn't that be Corrie Ten Boom (The Hiding Place)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.181.196 (talk) 07:23, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello there! This question is better put to the reference desk. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 08:44, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Deleting an old company page

How do i delete a company page when am not the editor?

So recently Apollo Munich Health Insurance company has been acquired by HDFC Ergo, then what is the solution for the Apollo Munich's wikipedia page. Should the Apollo Munich's page be deleted and hence create a new page for HDFC Ergo when the merger completely happens in future or we add a write up in Apollo munich's page and then redirect people to HDFC Ergo's page initially and then later merge the pages? Shashanksinha93 (talk) 06:56, 6 September 2019 (UTC) Shashanksinha93

References

Courtesy links: Apollo Munich Health Insurance and Apollo Munich Health Insurance Company, which are probably duplicative. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 08:31, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

@Shashanksinha93: There is no need to delete a subject just because it ceased to exist as a separate entity. After all, notability is not temporary. If, like in this case, both subjects already have articles, just update the article for the taken-over company (Apollo Munich Health Insurance) to past tense and add a sentence that it was acquired by HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company. See Continental Airlines for an example of another company that was taken over but still has its own article. Regards SoWhy 08:30, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Shashanksinha93. I'm sorry that it's taken a while for you to receive a response to this query. My instinct is that the existing article should simply be updated to reflect the new ownership. Even if Apollo Munich Health Insurance will cease to exist under that name, the article title can be changed and the content can reflect the change of ownership and name. Incidentally, you write that you are "not the editor", but anyone can edit any article on Wikipedia. However, if you have some sort of relationship with the company, you should avoid editing it directly and instead request changes on its talk page by following the instructions at WP:COIREQ. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

How to use a physical newspaper as a source

Hi,

I have an article in a physical newspaper that I'd like to use as a source. However, I'm not sure what the best practice is for doing this? I can't find the same article online so the physical newspaper is the only thing that I have. I've had a look on the Wiki source recommendation pages etc but can't seem to find anything on this subject.

Thanks in advance!

Avalon of Sussex (talk) 08:09, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

@Avalon2828: Hi and welcome to the Teahouse. Newspapers are a common source. You can use the {{cite news}} template within the <ref>...</ref> tags to format a newspaper source. Just click the template I linked to see examples on how to use it. Alternatively, you can use the Visual Editor and select Cite => Manual => News and it will show you a form to fill out. You can try that in the Sandbox. (It has a "URL" field but you don't have to specify an URL). Regards SoWhy 08:25, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Avalon2828. There are plenty of various alternative ways to code a reference, but for a physical newspaper not available online, you should include as much information as possible. Specifically, that should include the full title of the article, author(s), name of newspaper, date of publication, city of publication if not part of the newspaper name, page number, section letter and so on. If you have most but not all of that information, give what you can. Many newspaper articles are unsigned, for example. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:37, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

(ec)Avalon2828, you just use the {{cite news}} template including fields that are relevant for an offline source, like title, author (last, first), date, etc. and leaving out those intended for online sources, like url, accessdate, etc. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 08:41, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

How to go live

Hi, I have worked on the content, uploaded it, put links and then submitted for review. It says 8 weeks to complete the review post which the page might be visible to all. Is there any way to get the page reviewed in a week's time? Here is the URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ketki_R/sandbox — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ketki R (talk • contribs) 09:56, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Ketki R, Reviews are not done in a specific order. Volunteers are free to choose which articles they want to review. There isn't much we can do to get it reviewed sooner. Interstellarity (talk) 10:21, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ketki R: no, you'll just have to wait, like everyone else. Wikipedia has no deadline. While you're waiting, you could improve the chance of Draft:Kogta Financial being accepted, by adding some references to reliable independent published sources. At present all the references (except no. 7, which gives a "Page not found" message) are to the company's own statements and articles based on them, and so not independent and doing nothing to establish that the company is notable.   Maproom (talk) 10:28, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Ketki R, see MOS:OUR. Also, the draft doesn't read like a Wikipedia article, could be deleted as spam. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 10:40, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi, what should I change to make it read like a Wikipedia article. And what do you mean by 'the references (except no. 7, which gives a "Page not found" message) are to the company's own statements and articles'. If not news articles, what would be the 'independent' published sources?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ketki R (talk • contribs)

Courtesy: Article is now Draft:Kogta Financial. David notMD (talk) 11:47, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

News articles are fine – but they need to be independent of the subject. Articles based on press releases do not help to establish notability. Articles quoting directors, employees, or associates of the company do not help to establish notability. Maproom (talk) 12:30, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

SanilGaikwad Profile Created but not accepted from your end.

Hello Sir,

SanilGaikwad Profile Created thrice but not accepted from your end. Kindly, provide the helpline number, where we will have a conversation and sort out this on a priority basis.

Thanks and Regards, Sonal — Preceding unsigned comment added by SanilGaikwad (talk • contribs) 11:21, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

@SanilGaikwad: - I'm afraid there is no helpline number; Wikipedia is a community of volunteers who write articles about notable subjects in their own time. If you have chosen to write about yourself, which it seems that you have, and reviewers have deemed you not to be sufficiently notable as to meet Wikipedia's guidelines, then I am afraid that you are very unlikely to be able to get that decision overturned here, or anywhere else. I strongly advise you to stop attempting to create a page about yourself, and contribute to Wikipedia in more helpful ways - such as by finding other articles that need improvement. Hug^syrup 11:31, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

The rejection is based on a combination of WP:TOOSOON and lack of references. References are not created by putting links in the text. Facebook and Youtube are not valid references. Wikipedia is not social media, with profiles. Rather, it is an encyclopedia, with references being what people not connected to the subject (in this case, you) have written about the subject. David notMD (talk) 11:54, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Faulty Link

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swanee_(song)#cite_ref-pdrmusic_1-0

The first link goes to a dodgy website. Not sure how to fix without just removing it all. 194.207.86.26 (talk) 12:17, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi 194.207.86.26 Not sure it's particularly dodgy, just a dead link pointing to a parked domain. I've marked it as dead for now - the next thing to do is to see if you can find an archived version of the page in the internet archive. If you want to do that, that would be great. If not, either I'll do it when I have a chance, or someone else may pick up on it. Hug^syrup 12:25, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Using self-published sources

Hi, I wonder if you can clarify Wikipedia policy about using self-published sources to support statements in biographies of living people (or maybe even non-living, it probably does not matter) in Views/Opinions sections of articles about those people. I am trying to use the actual published materials of a person as proof/support that that is indeed the person's viewpoint. I have found many examples of such use (quotes from books, articles etc) written by the people who said those things in other articles on Wikipedia. I would happily appreciate your answer. The article of concern is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Murray_(author) Thanks,FairlyFlatFoot (talk) 13:04, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

@FairlyFlatFoot: The usual Wikipedia definition of self-published sources are those that anyone can publish with no quality control (e.g. Amazon reviews, blogs, etc.), and those are almost never considered reliable. You can see this guideline here: WP:RS/SPS. However, if I understand you correctly, when you say self-published sources, you mean 'sources written by the subject of the article' and want to know if those can be used as a source that the subject holds a particular view? This is a tricky area, because using a source in this way makes it a primary source, and therefore only to be used with care (see WP:PRIMARY). You also run the risk of original research if you are using someone's writings to make a claim as to what their viewpoint is on a subject. It is much better if an independent, reliable, secondary source has commented on the person's views, and you use that as the source. However, I do believe that where an individual very clearly states their belief or viewpoint in a published article or book, it is not unreasonable to either include a short direct quote from that publication, or add something to the effect of 'S/he said in ABC article that s/he believed XYZ'. Hug^syrup 13:21, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

@Hugsyrup: Thanks for your quick response. I would like to take your advice and add it to the article I am trying to edit, but I am afraid I am on the verge of an edit war, and wonder how to avoid that?FairlyFlatFoot (talk) 13:37, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

@FairlyFlatFoot: You're welcome. Just to be clear, I'm not necessarily advising you to add content to the article. I'm just giving my opinion on how to interpret policy - I don't know enough about what exactly you are trying to add, or the context of the article. The best/only way to avoid an edit war is to discuss your change on the talk page of the article in question and get consensus from other editors. This should definitely be your next step as there have already been a couple of bold edits and reversions. Hug^syrup 13:45, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

@Hugsyrup: OOPS. I was a little too eager and already made my edits back. But if the editor reverts me again, (which I have a feeling he/she will do) I will start appealing to other editors for their opinions and help, and try and get consensus. Thanks again.FairlyFlatFoot (talk) 13:55, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

@Hugsyrup:I was called out for edit warring. Of course I will not make any more reverts, but I dont understand why the editor I was "warring" with did not get a similar warning, especially since he started, and I went to the Talk page first. How can I get other editors involved without looking like I am a trouble maker, which I am not. I am just trying to learn my way around editing on Wikipedia. Thanks again.FairlyFlatFoot (talk) 14:22, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

@FairlyFlatFoot: - yes, on a purely numerical basis (i.e. who reverted whom first, and how many times) they look equally as guilty of edit warring, so it's a bit cheeky of them to template you. However, the fact remains, you are (both) edit-warring and in danger of breaking WP:3RR. Don't make any further changes or reversions, and continue discussing it on the Talk page. You may find that other editors who watch that page get involved at some point (not everyone is online all the time!) and if not you can try posting at WP:3O or on a relevant wikiproject to get more eyes on the discussion. Several suitable wikiprojects are listed on the talk page. Hug^syrup 14:32, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Not uncommon for a person who calls edit-warring to get warned for same. But not for you to do. As Hugsyrup advised, best course for you is the Talk page of the article in question, and so on. David notMD (talk) 14:54, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Changing the title of company website

Hello there,

I work for a young start-up called BibliU.

We have a wikipedia page Bibliotech_(textbooks)

But it is out-of-date and could do with an update.

The most pressing change is that our company is now called 'BibliU' not 'Bibliotech'. I can't seem to change this as I don't have a registered account with the necessary edit history etc.

I wonder if someone in the wikipedia community can help change the title of the page?

Thanks James — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.207.170.234 (talk) 13:07, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I've changed it. Please be cautious of editing the newly retitled article, though, because you have what is known as a conflict of interest - typically editing with a COI is highly discouraged, so if you must, then either coming here or to the talk page of the article would be a good idea. Minor things like typos don't need approval. Best of luck! -A lad insane (Channel 2) 14:16, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

There is now 2 identical articles, BibliU and Bibliotech (textbooks). This is not optimal, perhaps an admin should take a look. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:20, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Bibliotech (textbooks) redirects to BibliU which is very optimal and entirely appropriate. @James (92.207.170.234) - you count as a paid editor, so if you wish to make any more edits to this article, you should create an account and place the appropriate paid editing disclosure on your userpage - you can find the template and more info here: WP:PAID. Hug^syrup 14:35, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Now there's a redirect, that's better. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:56, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Please note, James, that you do not have a Wikipedia page: nobody has one of those. Wikipedia has an article about your company, but is in no sense your article (or page). The content of the article is determined by a consensus of uninvolved editors, and should be based almost entirely on what commentators wholly unconnected with the company have chosen to publish about it. --ColinFine (talk) 15:29, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Kindly display Tulu Nadu as it was before presently some one linked that to Kanara page

Dear Sir,

Kindly request you to Tulu Nadu page as it was before

Because presently some one has linked Tulu Nadu page with kanara.

Tulu Nadu and Kanara both are seperate topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NithinkumarDamodara (talk • contribs) 13:35, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

@NithinkumarDamodara: I would like to know what is Tulu Nadu. The reason for asking is that the merging of article was done 2 years back. Pinging PageImp (talk · contribs) as it was he who has made such an edit. Adithyak1997 (talk) 14:31, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

There has been edit warring betwen PageImp and Deepakpadukone20 over whether or not there should be a separate article on Tulu Nadu, with no discussion (there had previously been entries on the talk page with an IP user simply asserting that it should not be a separate article). Both parties, and NithinkumarDamodara, should have a reasoned discussion, on Wikipedia principles, and use dispute resolution if they cannot agree. Since Tulu Nadu is currently a redirection page, the best place for this discussion is probably Talk:Kanara. --ColinFine (talk) 15:56, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Terms and Conditions

Hi! I'm new here. Please aware me of all the basic terms and conditions which can cause any serious threat to my account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muhammad Abrar Gulzar (talk • contribs) 16:08, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

@Muhammad Abrar Gulzar: - Hello and Welcome to the Teahouse. The Wikimedia terms of use are here but I am not sure what you mean by 'serious threat to my account'? If you mean you would like to know all of the rules that could lead to you being blocked or banned, then I am afraid that there are rather too many to give you a definitive list, but I have posted a message on your talk page with some useful guidelines to read. On top of this, you should avoid: using Wikipedia for promoting yourself or organisations you are associated with, being rude to other editors, edit warring, or creating multiple accounts. I hope that is some help. Overall, use common sense, go carefully, and ask for help before jumping into complex or difficult areas and I am sure you will be fine. Hug^syrup 16:15, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't have 10 edits on wikipedia but would like to submit an article

I live in NYC where I photograph a lot of street art and painted murals in all five boroughs. I wanted to add articles about some of the artists working in the area and in the various mural parks. Is this allowed? I don't have 10 edits on wikipedia so I assume I'd have to submit what I've written and wait and see if it passes muster? If I submit the article in this way would that count as one edit on wikipedia and once Ive added 10 would I then be able to add articles without going thru the submission process? Thanks so much for any help on this — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajrsuper8 (talk • contribs) 17:15, 9 September 2019 (UTC) Ajrsuper8 (talk) 17:24, 9 September 2019 (UTC)AJ Russo

@Ajrsuper8: Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for wanting to improve it. You should look at WP:YFA for guidance on how to create an article, including what subjects are appropriate for articles. Then, there is a wizard there you can use to create a draft article for review. Creating a new article is usually not an easy task for new editors. Consider working to improve existing articles instead, to get some Wikipedia experience. RudolfRed (talk) 17:50, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Ajrsuper8, and welcome to the Teahouse. Thank you for wanting to contribute to Wikipedia. I would warn you, though, that creating a new article is one of the harder tasks in Wikipedia, and people who try to do so before they have spent time understanding how Wikipedia works often have a very frustrating time.

You're right that new editors can't create new articles directly; but I would advise anybody wanting to create an article to use the articles for creation process anyway: any editor can create a draft in this way. When you think it is ready you submit it for review.

A couple more cautions: A Wikipedia article starts with reliable published sources. Especially in articles about living people, every single statement should be cited to a source: if you start out by writing from what you know, you're doing it wrong.

Another issue about what you are wanting to do is that Wikipedia is much stricter about copyright than most sites on the web. With rare exceptions, every image used in Wikipedia must be licensed so that anybody may reuse it for any purpose, commercial or not, as long as they attribute it. In general, if you take a photo, you own the copyright, so you have the power to license it in a way that Wikipedia could use it (though you may or may not want to do so). But if it is a photo of an existing artwork, then the original artist holds that copyright, and you do not have the power to license it.

For more general information, please read your first article. --ColinFine (talk) 17:48, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much RudolfRed and ColinFine for the great info...thats good to know that if I include any photos they then become eligible for use w attribution by anyone -- that will likely factor into what photos I am willing to include. I will go ahead and write/submit an article as suggested and see if it get accepted but I will also look around to see if there are any wikipedia articles that I know enough about to try to contribute to to get the hang of things...THANK YOU both so much for the great info Ajrsuper8 —Preceding undated comment added 18:25, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Moving image

I was trying to move the map to the right of the municipality names for Oppland. can someone show me how to do it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redriv (talk • contribs) 17:24, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Redriv, I think doing so would make it worse in this particular case. Having said that, the way to do so anyway would be to click on "Edit" at the top of the page, and when the edit window loads, to click on the map image, then click "edit", then click "Advanced", and then to finally click "Right". Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 19:23, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Curious to Know about this

i have been reading the rules and regulation on wikipedia , and one question arises in my mind is " What if an article is deleted after discussion and later the same article's subject passes all the criteria of having enough coverage on reliable resources to pass an article so can that article which now passes Notablity be recreated ? Jhummu (talk) 17:28, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jhummu, that's a great question. The simple answer is "yes", such an article can indeed be recreated when circumstances change, and new sources become available. A new actress can fail to meet our notability criteria today, but later there may be multiple sources which write about her in depth after her next major film comes out and she receives an Oscar. I think another such example which was recently deleted was the iPhone 11 which has not yet been launched (due next month, I believe), and whose new page was recently deleted per WP:CRYSTAL. Hope this helps. Nick Moyes (talk) 17:52, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Article not approved

Hi,

My recent article was not approved for Wikipedia and he error stated:

"This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of music-related topics). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia."

Every source that I used inn reference to this article has been referenced on Wikipedia used in other articles similar to the subject matter. Please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marie610 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Please read WP:Other stuff exists. If other articles fail to meet Wikipedia's requirements, they can be nominated for deletion. If you are referring to Draft:Tangeray Major it is possible that the reviewer based his judgement on what he could see by reading the draft, which was almost nothing because you had commented out most of the content. If you remove the comment symbol it appears that the infobox is still malformatted. You may wish to correct the various errors and check (using "Show preview") that it is correct before making any further changes (such as dealing with the same reference used more than once) and resubmitting. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:12, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Draft disappeared on me, can I find it anywhere? I need your help

Hi - I started a draft for Let It Be Art! page and I had replied earlier that there should not be a Speedy deletion of the draft and worked on it for three hours to add 28 references and then it said to publish the changes, then I did, but then it all disappeared on me, and I was left with a blank page and a turn down telling me I had submitted a blank page. Is there anyway to retrieve all the work I did today??? Please help.2600:1005:B162:F998:6079:EC5B:FAD4:B480 (talk) 19:03, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Your draft Draft:Let It Be Art! is blank I'm afraid. Theroadislong (talk) 19:08, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

A previous version of your draft was deleted as a copyright violation, and cannot be restored. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:12, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

working on my first wikipedia article and I was wondering about citing sources...

working on my first wikipedia article and I was wondering about citing sources...the article is based on my observations of an street artist currently working in NYC...Im not sure how I'd cite sources for that? They were recently featured in a graffiti publication but I didnt use that article to write my piece -- do I cite them just because theyre really the only other place this artist has been written about?

I'm gonna do a test article and submit to see if it is accepted and Im also coming wikipedia to see if there are any articles that I know enough about to possibly update in an effort to generate the requisite 10 edits need to post articles on without needing to submit for approval. Thanks for any help on determining if I must have sources to site Ajrsuper8 (talk) 20:21, 9 September 2019 (UTC)Ajrsuper8

Hey Ajrsuper8. Welcome to Wikipedia. You might want to consider taking our interactive tutorial at The Wikipedia Adventure, which can help you get acquainted with how a lot of things work here.

Unfortunately, if there has only ever been a single article published about this individual, then they likely don't yet meet Wikipedia's standards for notability, which requires sustained in-depth coverage in reliable published sources, often things like newspapers, magazines and books. We're not allowed to really use our own personal observations, because that's considered original research, and everything that we add to Wikipedia needs to be backed up with a source, so that the content can be verified by readers. That's really why, if there isn't sustained in-depth coverage of a subject, there's not much we can do to write an article, because there's not much we can write about that we can cite a source for. GMG^talk 20:25, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy reply User talk:GreenMeansGo#top -- this artist has participated in many group shows in NYC (all publicized art shows) would that count as proof of in-depth coverage? Ajrsuper8 —Preceding undated comment added 20:32, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Well Ajrsuper8, that kindof depends on whether there are sources available talking about their participation. That's kindof the #1 rule about pretty much anything on Wikipedia: it all comes down to what the sources say. GMG^talk 20:35, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Ajrsuper8. Merely being mentioned in an event listing for a group show is not significant coverage. If an art critic reviewed the show and commented on the specific artist's work in detail, that would be useful. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:37, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Georgetown Law School famous alumn Class of 1963. State Constitutional Officer, oldest EVER. Mike Schaefer (J. michael schaefer)

''''J.Michael Schaefer, 1963 L, Born 1938, Member, California State Board of Equalization, 2019-present *

• California's 4 members each represent 10,000,000 residents, and have jurisdiction to set assessed values for tax purposes on

$7 trillion in California real estate, supervisor 58 county assessors. Schaefer at 82 is oldest constitutional officer ever to serve California, and previously was city prosecutor and city councilman of his hometown San Diego.

[with a constituency larger than perhaps half our states, Members are in line to succeed Governor Gavin Newsom, and outrank Senators or Assembly members, each of who represent just 500,000(Assembly) or 1,000,000(Senate)]

---

Can you assist me in becoming part of the Georgetown Law alumni article, will make a donation other than the minimum I have done in past. Thanks.

(redacted) Mike Schaefer — Preceding unsigned comment added by J. michael schaefer (talk • contribs) 22:37, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

@J. michael schaefer: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I have redacted your personal contact information for your own protection; it is not wise to publish it in this public forum. In addition, Wikipedia related business should be conducted on Wikipedia if possible. I would note that while the Wikimedia Foundation appreciates any donations you might make, they or their amount have no bearing on Wikipedia content. Otherwise, our status as a neutral encyclopedia would be compromised if anyone could purchase mentions of themselves in articles. We are all volunteer editors and get no money from the Foundation.

You will need to confirm your identity with Wikipedia by following the instructions at WP:REALNAME, so we can be more confident that you are not an impersonator. Once you do, you can make an edit request on the article talk page of the article you feel your name should be in. While generally one must have an article about themselves first in order to be listed in such an article, I do notice that other members of the California Board of Equalization have articles about them as statewide government officials, so there is no reason that you would not merit one as well. 331dot (talk) 23:04, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Is it necessary to Index?

I have submitted twice and been rejected twice. Each time I have done what was suggested by the editor. 1) using reliable sources 2) using footnotes. Now this has been accomplished is is necessary to Index and if so how is this done? I do not have the computer program footnote program and have done that manually. Is there a manual way to index if this is required? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malta2019 (talk • contribs)

References are required, if that's what you mean. Check out Referencing for Beginners, which should help. RudolfRed (talk) 00:05, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Your 'footnotes' are not the way Wikipedia does references. As RudolfRed recommended, learn how to do references. Also, look at articles at List of contemporary artists to get an idea of what belongs in an article and what does not. David notMD (talk) 00:59, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Malta2019. We use a system of inline citations and the reference numbers are generated automatically by the wiki software. Editors should not be numbering references because future changes to the article will scramble up the numbering. In addition, your article is not written in the style of an encylopedia article. Wikipedia contains biographical encylopedia articles about many artists. Your draft article is written more in the style of an homage or a tribute, filled with praise in Wikipedia's voice. Your draft will need to be completely rewritten in a neutral biographical style, and the references will need to be overhauled before your draft will have any hope of being accepted into the encylopedia. Please read and study Your first article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:07, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Editing existing Scots articles

I'm learning the Scots language and I have the aspiration of helping the Scots Wikipedia. But since Scots has no formal orthography, there can be some discourse about how to write. If I went to edit an existing page to add information, should/could I rewrite the existing information in the way I write, or should I leave the existing info alone. I ask because I heard about an edit war regarding orthography and I'd like to avoid causing problems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.144.18.52 (talk) 01:35, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello, IP editor. You should discuss these issues at the Scots Wikipedia, which is a completely independent project. English Wikipedia has no authority or influence there. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:44, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

How to add a page

I wanted to know How I can add a living person page. What's the criteria of editing of page? What's the criteria of citation etc.