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.)

Why are there so many rude, condescending people on here?

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

---

Why is there so much rudeness? Aren't we all here for the sharing and gathering of knowledge? I expected more professional and polite attitudes from the most well-known encyclopedia on the internet. --Vigilante Girl (talk) 23:29, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Please sign your posts, like this one. People are expected to be civil, and rudeness has no place here. You can ignore those being rude, warn them later, and in severe instances, report them at WP:AIV. --LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 23:26, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I apologize for not signing. I tend to forget. Thank you for the advice, I will do so. :) --Vigilante Girl (talk) 23:30, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Vigilante Girl. You freely chose a clearly controversial username, and you chose to write a mildly confrontational userpage, and you chose to involve yourself in highly controversial topic areas like the Kiev/Kyiv naming controversy, apparently without studying the extensive previous discussions about this issue. So, I am not sure who you are accusing of rudeness, but did you really expect to be greeted with flowers? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:33, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Vigilante Girl, I'm sorry to hear that you have encountered problems with some editors. Unfortunately, considering the number of people who volunteer on Wikipedia, I suppose it is inevitable that some would be unprofessional and/or impolite. On the other hand, I won't name names, but I think back to two editors whose encouragement kept me working on here when I all but gave up soon after I started. They patiently explained how to navigate difficulties that had frustrated me almost to the point of quitting. As a result, I am now in my fifth year of contributing in my small way to this work-in-progress encyclopedia. I have also found many useful comments in the Teahouse and Help pages that have aided my work. Please don't let some bad experiences turn you away from Wikipedia. Eddie Blick (talk) 01:38, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

The only rudeness I noticed on Talk:Kiev came from Vigilante Girl. I advise editing in good faith, sans emotion.--Quisqualis (talk) 04:05, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

@Vigilante Girl: Like you, I see no reason for rudeness when engaging with other editors here. Sometimes "tone of voice" is extremely hard to discern in another editor's post, and we all need to assume good faith, and not over-react. I fear that this diff of yours rather rather undermines your concerns and only serves to escalate issues. I'd have hoped you'd have seen that raising an issue that had been raised and dismissed many times before without showing any intent to read and understand those past discussions is almost inevitably going to elicit the firm but nevertheless polite response that you received. If you can meet what you perceive as rudeness with politeness of your own, you will be playing your part in keeping our editing environment 'safe and pleasant' for everyone. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 08:17, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

@Quisqualis:I do edit in good faith, and I was no ruder than the person being rude to me. --Vigilante Girl (talk) 09:49, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

@Cullen328:You are a perfect example of a horribly rude and condescending attitude. My username is not controversial and my userpage is not meant to be confrontational. I wanted to stop vandals like the guy who vandalized the Sea Otter page. Also, I'd rather not be greeted with rudeness. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers --Vigilante Girl (talk) 09:49, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

The word "vigilante" has the connotation of acting outside the law and may easily be seen as signifying a lack of respect for rules, regulations, and proper procedure. An impression that you seemed to confirm with the statement "why should I check edits from the past" when it was pointed out to you that this had already been discussed and decided against (many times, including one quite recent discussion). Your seeming unfamiliarity with move procedures ("And what do you mean by "non-formal requests"? Is my language somehow not formal enough for you?") also shows, at the very least, a lack of knowledge of the rules. --Khajidha (talk) 12:05, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

And it can also mean a server of justice who isn't law enforcement. Also, me not knowing stuff doesn't give anyone the right to be rude to me. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers --Vigilante Girl (talk) 15:34, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

And vigilantism is generally held to be illegal and vigilantes are looked upon as criminals. The term is not one that inspires confidence. And, as several others have mentioned, no one has been rude to you. Your user page injunction that "there's no need to explain to me what Wikipedia is. ", on the other hand, comes off as rather dismissive and shows an unwillingness to learn. An unwillingness that you continue to display here. Not to mention the fact that if you really know what you're doing, then you don't really fall under the category of newcomer and your constant quoting of "don't bite the newcomers" (with no evidence of any actual "biting") is inappropriate. You can't have it both ways.--Khajidha (talk) 15:46, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

So what? Vigilantes can also be heroes who help people. And yes they have been rude to me. And what I meant by that was no need to explain that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and all that. I'm not being anymore dismissive than you are. You and them are being rude to me and I will NOT stand for it. If Wikipedia really is filled with rude, condescending people, then I'll just quit. I will NOT accept your hypocritical hierarchy and I will NOT be bullied by people who always get off scot-free. I have enough crap to deal with in my life, I don't need more. --Vigilante Girl (talk) 18:18, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I you have experienced "so many" rude people here, I am very sorry. I've been around since 2008, logged in, and as an IP even before that. I cannot fairly say thet I think there are "so many" rude people. But there are indeed some. Nobody is supposed to get away with it. The ones who do are well-connected with others of the same ilk who will defend them no matter what they do. Consensus rules with no regard to justice, i.e. if a majority of such people hate you for some reason, you're in big trouble. Some even swoop in from other language projects, just to argue some pet peeve of theirs, in groups akin to packs of wolves. Others who get away with being rude are such sarcastically skilfull and hard-to-handle bullies that hardly anyone has the energy or guts to stand up to them. There are very few rude people here, in my opinion. The ones there are should always be reported when evidence of rudeness is crystal clear. More of them should get blocked than traditionally are. We all deserve an inspiring working envoronment. Best wishes, --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:09, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, "so many" was a hyperbole. Thank you for your advice and info. --Vigilante Girl (talk) 15:36, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Vigilante Girl I don't know if this parable will help, but fwiw, here ya go:

A traveler came upon an old farmer hoeing in his field beside the road. Eager to rest his feet, the wanderer hailed the countryman, who seemed happy enough to straighten his back and talk for a moment.

“What sort of people live in the next town?” asked the stranger.

“What were the people like where you’ve come from?” replied the farmer, answering the question with another question.

“They were a bad lot. Troublemakers all, and lazy too. The most selfish people in the world, and not a one of them to be trusted. I’m happy to be leaving the scoundrels.”

“Is that so?” replied the old farmer. “Well, I’m afraid that you’ll find the same sort in the next town.

Disappointed, the traveler trudged on his way, and the farmer returned to his work.

Some time later another stranger, coming from the same direction, hailed the farmer, and they stopped to talk. “What sort of people live in the next town?” he asked.

“What were the people like where you’ve come from?” replied the farmer once again.

“They were the best people in the world. Hard working, honest, and friendly. I’m sorry to be leaving them.”

“Fear not,” said the farmer. “You’ll find the same sort in the next town.”

Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 17:41, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Though I certainly recognize good intentions in this story, I cannot support a thought that looks like an excuse for unacceptable behavior, the excuse being that well-behaved people also exist. Good people should be encouraged and thanked. Incorrigibly bad ("rude, condescending people") should be blocked. No exceptions. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:00, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I think you missed the entire point of the story. It isn't excusing unacceptable behavior at all. It is stating that your own nature/behavior is a major factor in how you perceive the behavior of others/how others behave towards you. If a person is a jerk, they will often find the world around them to be full of jerks. --Khajidha (talk) 13:52, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I share your feelings and experiences. I've come to believe that all of the references to "community" in Wikipedia were put there by a handful of optimistic users who have probably long since left or been run off by attackers. I have not had a single pleasant interaction with another contributor over two years and many have actually been hostile. I had silly dreams of collaboration and group learning which have all been replaced with a general fear, similar to a person who won't answer their phone or front door. Every user I have spoken to sternly believes that THEY ARE WIKIPEDIA and I am a homeless man with a sharpie marker and a slice of cardboard. A great recent example: someone dug into challenging something I put some work into. They wrote pages and pages of ranting fussiness about every possible lack and weakness in my article, tags and more tags. They even went on to hassle the five or so people to approved and defended the piece and called all of them idiots. I corrected and improved every detail they mentioned, and they just kept cutting me down. I considered that they probably spent at least 5 hours complaining and never edited one character. Great community. So, I actually asked them directly and honestly: you spent many hours lecturing and soapboxing, why couldn't you take 5 seconds to fix something? What are you contributing here exactly? pages more of angry defensiveness and a big "It's not my responsibility". Sweet. I looked into my friend in hopes of discovering he was a 13 year old in treatment...only to find a top 1,000 editor with awards and history galore. This IS Wikipedia folks. So I read through some of his recent work, and guess what? I found several things which needed correcting right away...even some heavy bias in political matters and living bios. So I took my friends example and I "alerted him to the issues" and tagged the pages (but didn't touch a word). Dude lost his freaking mind and almost made me feel unsafe for a couple days. How dare I? .....and then he fixed the problems, lol.

I stay here because I love to write and research and I'm looking forward to library card privileges after 500 edits. Wikipedia community? thats rich. Luke Kindred (talk) 22:32, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Geez, overly dramatic much? If you and VigilanteGirl find the environment here so hostile, I have to wonder how you function in society. --Khajidha (talk) 18:39, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

That is a welcoming and encouraging response. I am certain that they can handle it especially of their exercise in WP is to not let it become accepted to them as personal. Why encountering attitude? Look at the world. What has been done to avoid "X" and then after the fact we find out that "X" was not avoided. It takes a lot of training to always be pleasant and sometimes people intentionally or unintentionally let it out. No one has yet figured just how to unbite the apple that Eve gave Adam. Another example just because of it being more recent, communism, just like any other system supposedly was to solve a prior fault then we find out that the fault was not avoided but just surpassed. With every additional layer there is not some avoidance of inconvenience and disappointment but just another means of exhibiting. Oh, the internet--the whole life blood of what is intended WP, uses an impersonal, anonymous means of reacting to others that provides only as a means of damage someone's mind rather than physical being. It is like the use of a nuclear bomb with a nearby black hole; potential to destroy and not leave a mess to clean up until we find out what happens to stuff in a black hole. Can a Utopia really exist without there being a puppet master?2605:E000:9149:8300:193B:3F53:BB51:A254 (talk) 20:40, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

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

Just want to point out an error. (Can't figure out editing.)

Is this where I'm supposed to write?

I happened, in looking up an anatomical term, to peruse a Wiki article called "Anatomical Terms of Location". I noticed a minor error and wanted to correct it, but I am from the 1950s (b.'46) and only have a PhD, so I can't understand the editing instructions. Learning computerese continues to be gruelling (Canadian spelling) and I have other things to do, so I thought maybe I could just point out what I believe to be an error in the hope that some computer-/Wiki-literate person could correct it.

In the second illustration in this article a 4-legged animal is referred to as a "quadriped", and although I was certain it should have been "quadruped", I did my due diligence or whatever you call it and consulted numerous dictionaries of high repute: this endeavour supported my strong suspicion that there is no such word as "quadriped". Thass all, folks. Thanks for whatever you can do to correct this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zephyroob (talk • contribs) 03:19, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Zephyroob. You can be WP:BOLD and correct the error yourself. You can also be WP:CAUTIOUS and point out the error on the article's talk page and see what others think. You don't need to be an WP:EXPERT in order to edit the article, but you should at least make sure to leave an edit summary explaining why you made the change if you do decide to be BOLD. This will let others know why you're making the change. If, by chance, another editor disagrees with the change and WP:REVERTs it, just follow Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and discuss things on the article talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:10, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Zephyroob, and welcome to the Teahouse. The error is in the illustration, not in the text. Latin is a different language, but the only example I can find of the spelling to which you object is in an ancient document where it might be a misprint. Wikitionary does have an entry for wikt:quadripedal, perhaps because a few modern authors mis-use the word, but it seems to be a very marginal variant. We need to contact the uploader of the image, or change it ourselves. Thank you for pointing out the error. Dbfirs 07:18, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

... later note ... The illustration was from a text book by Tom (LT) who is a prolific expert editor here and who has kindly contributed the illustrations from his own book. Thus I was hesitant to make any changes, and I hope I haven't offended him by uploading a temporary modification of the image. I am quite happy if he deletes my version and updates to the modern standard spelling himself. Dbfirs 07:58, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for the wonderful compliments! I just want to clarify @Dbfirs, I haven't written any books and therefore would be happy whatever happens here :). --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:42, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Did you not upload the pictures from a text book claiming own work? Perhaps the text book is an old one and out of copyright? That would explain the strange spelling. Dbfirs 06:38, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't know how Tom (L.T.) got brought into this. I don't see his name as a contributor to that image. It is from an OpenStax text book and is quite new. But any source can have occasional typos. --Khajidha (talk) 18:37, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree that's what it says now. I'm baffled! Anyway, all's well now. Dbfirs 06:18, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Looking for editor, for Draft:Gerard Reinmuth

I am looking to have a page restored, however the administrator has requested that he would only do so, if i had an external editor edit the page. I was hoping someone here would be able to help. The admin wrote:

I will no longer restore autobiographies. If any editor without a conflict of interest wants to work on it, I will restore it to draft.
—  DGG ( talk 00:11, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Gerard Reinmuth (talk) 04:47, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

@Gerard Reinmuth: welcome to the Teahouse. Non-admins cannot view deleted content. Please help us appreciate why someone here might wish to help you create a Wikipedia page about yourself. Just base your anwers and independent sources on the criteria explained in this notability guideline.Nick Moyes (talk) 07:27, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Nick Moyes, I would be looking at creating and article based on the Creative professionals category of people with notability. In particular under the categories noted: 1. The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. 2. The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums

I have published several books on architecture and the practice (Terroir) architects that I founded with my partner has designed a number of significant buildings. I also teach and a notable Australian university, as well as conducted major speaking events.

I was recently told that I should have a Wikipedia page detailing these contributions to the architectural profession. After trying to create my own page I was told that I should have an external editor review the content, after seeing the tea house welcome message, I thought I would try here for assistance.

I look forward to your response Gerard Reinmuth (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:15, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

@Gerard Reinmuth: Thanks. That was considerably more general than I was intending! But I've since wandered off and found out who you are. As advised on your user page, you must declare your WP:PAID connection with your company (Directors and CEOs get paid, and are not exempt). Like you, I have written books, worked at notable institutions, been on TV, radio and newspapers innumerable times and spoken at a number of notable events, but I remain unimportant and non-notable in Wikipedia's eyes (but try telling my mother that!). I was hoping you might provide specific links to independent sources that have written about you in detail, or major architectural awards etc you might have achieved. It's possible you might meet our WP:NPROF guidelines, but I would advise you to collate all those sources and post a request for another editor to write about you and post them at Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/People in business. If people really are notable, another editor will surely want to take the credit for creating an article about them. Helping them assess your notability (in Wikipedia's eyes) is invaluable there, though there can be a very long wait for the less notable subjects to emerge as full articles. Do read WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY for an understanding why people are discouraged from writing about themselves. I see you already have a LinkedIn page, so I wont insult you by suggesting you go there too. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:35, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry Nick Moyes wasnt sure how much detail to list on this page. I have now followed your advise and list on the Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/People in business Hopefully someone will find it interesting enough to write about. Thank you for your assistance.Gerard Reinmuth (talk) 02:30, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Pay taxes

Hello, I am a 68 years old. In 2008 I became 100% Disabled. I get 100% rating from VA. Do I need to pay any Taxes at all if not working? I do get SS each month. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:7280:10:27D0:45FB:71A1:567E:CD40 (talk) 17:46, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

This is the Wikipedia Encyclopedia help desk. We can't answer questions about your taxes. RudolfRed (talk) 17:57, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello! Folks at the reference desk are good with finding answers to questions like yours. Just follow the link and post your question there. Someone might help you move this very question to there, if you'd like. Regards! Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 18:06, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

The Reference Desk Does Not Give Legal Advice. Requests may be deleted. —Tamfang (talk) 23:44, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Unsure of how to request protection for a page (Anti-Iranian Sentiment) which make be under attack by one or more vandals

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

---

Greetings, while I have exercised good faith to the best of my abilities, it appears that the Anti-Iranian sentiment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) page is under attack. User User talk:UCaetano engaged in Edit-Warring by removing a revision that brought back a controversial and well-documented (across several mediums) fact that DC_Comics 's well known Batman: A Death in the Family story arc involved a plot point where the Joker_(character) gasses the UN Assembly on behalf of Iran, as its ambassador. Various sources have stated that this was done during peak strain between the US and Iran. It led to the creation of the fictional nation-state Qurac as a replacement for Iran in future prints. This fact (undeniable as comic prints of it have been scanned, DC staff interviewed, etc) was in earlier versions of "Anti-Iranian Sentiment". User AntiRacistZwei (who brought this to my attention) had brought back the information and clarified various tid-bits in the article. Soon after, UCaetano began an edit war and accused AntiRacistZwei of "Weasel talk" (eventhough the given sources were already a part of the article), and after several edits (including my own to fix grammar), accused myself of "Edit-Warring". I initially had chosen to engage peacefully and to de-escalate, explaining my relation to Anti-Racist-Zwei and our aim to clean up/verify the article. The user ignored the message and soon after, undid the entire edit. I once again looked at UCaetano's page to contact them, however, I noticed something alarming on their Talk page and it appears that this individual has vandalized other pages then threatened to report users for "Edit-Warring". [[[User talk:Tim.thelion]] brought this up with UCaetano on May 2018 on their talk page, which resulted in UCaetano claiming that UCaetano had reported Tim and that Tim the Lion should avoid "edit warring", eventhough UCaetano was being questioned by Tim on possibly-hostile Re-visionary behavior (IE, Vandalism). Having said that, it is alarming that this user would edit a page that is centered around discrimination against an entire Population. I am unable to install Twinkle as I do not have Java on my computer, however, I have done my best to place a protection request on the page. Please assist me if possible on finding a way to seek protection for the page, if I have not done an adequate job (or let me know of a proper method outside of Twinkle). Thank you for your time, in advance. Rodianreader (talk) 02:27, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Rodianreader and welcome to the Teahouse. Since you seem quite new to Wikipedia editing (perhaps you're not but your account is only a couple of days old), the best thing to do when you are faced with a content dispute is to typically try and resolve it through talk page discussion per Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Immediately labeling other editors as WP:VANDALs is not always productive as explained in WP:USTHEM.

The next thing is that page protection is only applied when there is some serious disruption going on and only typically after attempts to resolve the matter in other ways have been tried and proved to be unsuccessful. Only an administrator can protect a page and a request to do so needs to be made at WP:RPP; you don't make requests like you tried to do here. Whether there enough disruption to warrant page protection is something that the administrator reviewing your request will determine, but with none those involved currently trying to resolve things through discussion on the article's talk page, there's a good chance the request will be declined (at least in my opinion). -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:59, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your insight! This was attempted, however, the User began making threats towards Anti-Racist-Zwei and falsely accused myself of Edit-Warring (I had fixed some grammatical placements). Unsure of how to move forward other than to request assistance. Rodianreader (talk) 03:03, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Rodianreader. The proper place to discuss the content dispute is Talk:Anti-Iranian sentiment where no conversation has taken place since May. Please be aware that political hostility against the Iranian regime is very different from ethnic hatred against Iranian/Persian people, many of whom oppose that regime. That distinction must be kept clear. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:10, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Being part Persian, I do my best to avoid biases. And while I am aware of the distinction, I myself have experienced many painful instances of discrimination as well as physical beatings by (shall I say) racist individuals. The post-Bush propaganda has not helped. I will however, point out, that DC Comics as well as the 300 film(s) have not helped as in my experience, it has fueled psychological dislike towards my secondary ethnic group (and on a personal level, myself). As an academic, however, I must point out instances (such as the ones AntiRacistZwei brought up) where Iranians are targeted and made fun of. An example was Saddam's usage of the word yellow. I have relatives in Iran who are of asian-Iranian descent and I am aware (through study) of discrimination by other ethnic groups in the region (not necessarily Iranians, but other tribes, etc). While I am keeping this short, I will say: It does not help that there are those who censor these things for political gain. It hurts people and it creates academic blackouts (removal of information). Rodianreader (talk) 03:15, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Please read through WP:RGW because Wikipedia is not really the place to resolve this sort of matter. I also suggest you read WP:BOOMERANG, WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:OUTING now that you started a discussion about this at WP:ANI. —- Marchjuly (talk) 03:27, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Rodianreader, Wikipedia is not an advocacy website and it never will be. The neutral point of view is a core content policy. Following that policy is mandatory. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:33, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Cullen, as mentioned, I clearly stated that I avoid personal biases, though I have experienced the very dangers of misinforming a population about an ethnic group. My complaint is that UCaetano erased entire segments of the article including clarifications and grammatical fixes. When asked why, he escalated. Lastly, I've done my best to verify and re-check sources on the article. Would you please visit the page and verify my claims? Surely, you will notice why I'm concerned and/or alarmed. Thanks Rodianreader (talk) 03:41, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Rodianreader, what I notice is that you are not discussing this matter at Talk:Anti-Iranian sentiment, which is the proper place to discuss the content dispute. Why are you unwilling to discuss this issue in the proper place? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:36, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Both Antiracistzwei and Rodianreader have been blocked for sock-puppeting. UCaetano (talk) 15:49, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

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

Edit war and sabotage of articles

How do I report and edit war and the sabataging of articles? Specifically Managed Intensive Rotational Grazing— Preceding unsigned comment added by Redddbaron (talk • contribs) 05:19, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Redddbaron. There appears to be a disagreement over content, etc. at Managed intensive rotational grazing, but there also appears to be some editors discussing this on the article's talk page; so, I'm not sure what happening would be considered "edit warring" or "sabotage" per se. Perhaps further discussion will resolve things. If things get really out of hand then you can file a report at WP:AN3, but I don't think doing so now will lead to anything other than administrator basically telling the same as what I posted above. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:05, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I thought when an edit gets reverted, then the revert reverted, then the reverted revert reverted, it defines an edit war. My apologiesRedddbaron (talk) 00:22, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Editta Braun ‎

Hi, my article Draft:Editta Braun has been declined. How can I prove the notability of a living artist? I added many sources (press articles, texts in books) and I could add much more, but I am not sure what is necessary Lagardet (talk) 10:08, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Lagardet, the draft was declined because of the quality of the sources cited, not the quantity. Please DO NOT add "much more". Try to find a few good independent articles that discuss the subject, add those, and consider removing many of the sources which Theroadislong considered inadequate. (I can't tell you why they were considered inadequate, I know very little German.) Maproom (talk) 13:30, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Maproom. This helps.Lagardet (talk) 19:20, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia page update assistance / 2018 data updates for info box

May I get someone's help in updating the information box for Interactive Brokers?

Here is the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interactive_Brokers

The 2018 statistics have not been added.

As I work for the company - and to be honest am not 100% familiar with Wikipedia regulations and formatting - I am requesting 3rd party assistance as the updates I made directly were reverted.

These are the 6 info box updates:

1) Revenue $1.9 billion (2018)

Source: 2019 10-K p. 35 https://investors.interactivebrokers.com/en/index.php

2) Operating income $1.2 billion (2018)

Source: Website: https://investors.interactivebrokers.com/en/index.php?f=2334

3) Net income $1.1 billion (2018)

Source 2018 10-K p.35 https://investors.interactivebrokers.com/en/index.php?f=2244

4) Total assets $60.5 billion (2018)

Source: 2018 10-K p.36 https://investors.interactivebrokers.com/en/index.php?f=2244

5) Total equity $7.2 billion (2018)

Source: Press Release 1/22/19 4Q 2018 results: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20190122005875/en/Interactive-Brokers-Group-Announces-4Q2018-Results

6) Number of employees 1,413 (2018)

Source: 2018 10-K: https://investors.interactivebrokers.com/en/index.php?f=2244

Thank you very much for your assistance. Kalenholliday (talk) 14:16, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done @Kalenholliday: Actually it was all in the 2018 10K, which I cited with the more specific link that goes directly to the document. I did the same for the 2017 10K. This allows readers to go directly to the source without having to navigate through menus as well as making successful archival (at archive.org) more likely. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 16:32, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

• • Kalenholliday. Two things. One, as you are an employee of the subject of the article and you are making edits as a part of your job, you are a WP:PAID editor and are required to make certain declarations about that. This needs to be taken care of immediately. Second, every source you've provided is based on press releases from the company. You need truly secondary sources. John from Idegon (talk) 23:08, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Gronk Oz and Graham87

Sir,

Thank you for your invitation. Just to let you know that on the controversial Telfer mine & Jean-Paul Turcaud 's pages, I have provided to Messrs Gronk Oz & Graham87 a most thorough & comprehensive answer.

In such, I pointed that such Wikipedia articles were biaised by wilfull & successful attempts to delude the Free Encyclopedia & derogatory presentation on a page called: Jean-Paul Turcaud ( my name) which was badly documented and a deliberate character ' assassination indeed. Completely brushing aside the outmost Geology acumen of said Turcaud in bringing the whole Great Sandy Desert to life for the good of 1000s.

I wish a proper review of such documents could take place, both for the sake of fairness and the respect of the Truth.

I gave in my recent mails all due references & noted respectable people in WA to call upon.

Yours sincerely
Jean-Paul Turcaud
Exploration geologist
Australia mining ⚒ Pioneer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Basalt3711 (talk • contribs) 16:57, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Courtesy links: Telfer Mine, Jean-Paul Turcaud. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 18:33, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

The reverts of you additions to Telfer Mine and Telfer, Western Australia by Graham87 had nothing to do with his knowledge of the topic, nor any attempt to suppress what you hold to be the truth of the matter. Rather, any content added to these articles must be in Wikipedia format and citations be reliable sources. For you and many, many other editors, the fact that truth without verifiability will not be allowed is a severe disappointment. There may well be people in WA who would confirm your position on this topic, but that counts for nothing. If you can provide published documents, do so. P.S. All Gronk Oz did was explain to you what happened. David notMD (talk) 19:32, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Article Ratings

Most articles have ratings. Stub, A, B, C start etc. but this one - a fairly major one has unknown - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corrosion_engineering . I assume because this was done so long ago before the ratings system came in on Wikipedia. Anyway, I am generally curious. I assume it is not a big deal - or is it one that does need rating? GRALISTAIR (talk) 17:08, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Hey GRALISTAIR, welcome to the Teahouse. The ratings and tagging system is supported by various Wikiprojects that use the system in various ways. For some Wikiprojects, like the Military History project, the rating system is heavily used and is important to the project. Other wikiprojects don't place as much of an emphasis on the actual ratings. All articles should at least have a Wikiproject tag, with or without a rating. You are correct that many articles were created before the current tag system, meaning that they haven't been tagged yet. I've added the Wikiproject Engineering tag to the article's talk page. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 17:27, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Update to a Wikipedia Page

Hello,

I work for an ad agency, and one of our clients has asked us to update their Wikipedia Page. We have all of the content approved and we are ready to update the page. Can someone please tell me how to do it?

Here is the page that needs the update:

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

Thank you!

Sheree Martin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shereemartin2010 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

@Shereemartin2010: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Before you do anything else, you must review and comply with the conflict of interest policy and the paid editing policy; the latter is a Terms of Use requirement and not optional. I would give you a short answer to your question in that you should not attempt to 'update' the article(not just 'page') yourself. You can, however, make a formal edit request on the article talk page, detailing the changes you feel are needed.

I would caution you, however, that the Wikipedia article about your client does not belong to your client, and your client has no more rights to it than any other editor. Though we welcome their input, the article will not reflect how the subject wants to describe themselves, but how they are described by independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 18:08, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Per what 331dot wrote, you must declare 'paid' on your user page. For the article in question, KeEvans, the creator did exactly that. You could copy/paste to your User page. With that done, the next step is to create a new section on the article's talk page. There specifically describe what you want to change and what you want to change it to. Other editors will review and either implement the change, or not. David notMD (talk) 19:42, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

References

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramrxrx3 (talk • contribs) 20:05, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

The teahouse is not the place for a draft article, so I have collapsed its display. If you want to submit User:Ramrxrx3/sandbox for AFC review, the way to do it is to add {{subst:submit}} to the top of the draft. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:14, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Follow-up to Article blocked

Hello,

I wish to put my draft article back in the sandbox so I can modify it because it is not ready for publication, please can you help me

Many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by PatmanSA1 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't need moving back to your sandbox. You can edit it at Draft:Richard Phelps Gough for as long as you need to before you submit it for AFC review. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:52, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

@PatmanSA1: Your draft will be safe there, and would only be liable to be deleted were you to abandon it completely and not edit it for 6 months. Stale drafts do then get deleted. But I must say, as a first draft for a new editor, it's looking really good. I'm assuming you're working off microfiche records of the newspapers? Is there any chance of you including page numbers in each of the citations? The key thing I feel you'll need to do is to tease out evidence to show how he meets our notable people criteria, rather than it being a well-researched biography of a non-notable sea captain. I'm sure you can do it (though why you started work on it on French Wikipedia, I really don't understand) But when it is ready to go into 'mainspace' I would really like to encourage you to consider submitting it for our Did You Know...? slot on the main page of Wikipedia. It's a great way to showcase brand new articles like this, and you would have seven days from the time it goes into mainspace to submit it for DYK. It can be a bit of a nightmare to understand the rules at first, but it's rewarding to see great articles being showcased. I could imagine a hook along the lines of: "Did you know...that Captain Richard Phelps Gough became a sailor at 14 and went round Cape Horn at least ten times during his 50 year career at sea?" Good luck with it. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:30, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

One of the things you'll need to do is to remove the large number of misplaced external links from the article text. --David Biddulph (talk) 22:58, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Good point about the external links. The article WP:In-line citations explains how to format your citations using citation templates, so that they appear in an orderly fashion at the end of your article.--Quisqualis (talk) 02:39, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

How do you create a wikipedia page?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob Bubbles (talk • contribs) 22:06, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

@Bob Bubbles:Here's the info you need Help:Your first article. (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.) TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:36, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi, Bob Bubbles. Welcome to Wikipedia. Creating a new article on Wikipedia is one of the hardest tasks any editor can achieve here. It's often well worth newcomers spending quite some time doing simple editing first, so that you slowly get a feel for how things work, and how references are deployed. Every new topic has to be 'Notable' according to Wikipedia's own standards. So you'd first of all gather together all the independent, detailed and [[WP:RS|Reliable sources] that you can find, and use them as the basis of writing a new page, completely in your own words without any copy/pasting of copyrighted text. I can point you towards The Wikipedia Adventure for a fun tour of the basics of editing, plus Help:Your first article and Wikipedia:Tutorial for the basics guidance you'll need. We could drown you in guidance pages and polciy documents, but those should see you on your way. Creating a 'Draft' article and then submitting it for review when it's ready is the best way to go, and avoids the disappointment of having your work summarily deleted if it fails to meet our editing criteria. We're here to help with difficulties in editing should you need us. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:40, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Bob Bubbles. I noticed that Nick Moyes forgot to add a bracket, so here's the link to the guide about reliable sources if you're interested in checking it out. Clovermoss (talk) 01:33, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand

I don't understand — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.95.230.129 (talk) 04:35, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi IP 72.95.230.129. Is there something about Wikipedia or Wikipedia editing that you don't understand? If there is and you can be more specific, then perhaps someone can try to help you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:01, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Follow-up to how to create a disambiguation page for my page

I want ot publish my page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Laksanmd

but dont know how to do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laksanmd (talk • contribs) 08:04, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Laksanmd Your draft (which is on your userpage and would probably be better suited for your sandbox) contains no reliable sources to support its content, and almost no prose. As such, it is a long way from being suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. It is also an autobiography, which is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia(though not completely forbidden). I would suggest that you read Your First Article and use the new user tutorial to learn more about what new articles require and the process involved. You can then submit a draft for review and feedback using Articles for Creation. Successfully creating a new article is the hardest task on Wikipedia, even more so when attempting to write about yourself. 331dot (talk) 08:14, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Your page at User:Laksanmd does not satisfy the requirements to be a WP:user page; it does satisfy the requirement for speedy deletion as an attempt to use Wikipedia as a web host. If it were intended to be an article, it would fail there too, as a 5 year old would not satisfy the notability requirements at WP:NSPORT. WP:Disambiguation doesn't come into it. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:16, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Not autobiography, as the subject of the article is five years old. More likely parent. Regardless, the content created on the User's User page, and should be Speedy deleted rather than moved to Sandbox or Draft space, as there is no reason to believe this meets Wikipedia's standards for notability. David notMD (talk) 08:34, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

@David notMD: - As you agree that it should be speedy deleted, could you explain why you removed the U5 tag and replaced it by an apparently invalid {{redirect}} hatnote? --David Biddulph (talk) 08:52, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Puzzled, because I don't remember doing anything like that. I did SD something today, but that is not showing up in my Contributions, so, puzzled. David notMD (talk) 13:30, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Template:Suman Pokhrel

In Template:Suman Pokhrel, the "songs" section(?) has audio clips of songs written by Suman Pokhrel. I guess Suman Pokhrel wrote the words, but does he have the right to give us perm to a final product of which his words are just an ingredient (without showing proof that he also holds the rights to the final product)? Or if he does, did anyone from Wikimedia actually verify that it was indeed him, before accepting the files? The second part of my question also applies to these, also linked from the template. Thanks! Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 10:51, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Usedtobecool. The first artwork I looked at, commons:File:Patience (धैर्य).jpg has a note saying that "Wikimedia has received an e-mail confirming that the copyright holder has approved publication under the terms mentioned on this page". I haven't looked at the song clips. --ColinFine (talk) 16:37, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Whats wrong with this

<misplaced draft redacted> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwaipayangreenreef (talk • contribs) 10:59, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

This isn't the place for a draft, so I've deleted it. All you needed to do was to link to Premjit Sen. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:05, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

editing Title

I'm wondering how you edit the spelling in the title. Article is about a person and the first name has letters inverted. "Ronald" should be "Roland". This can confuse anyone looking for this individual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmdk1955 (talk • contribs) 12:37, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

​To rename a page, it is moved from it's current name to a new one. As users require autoconfirmation (made 10 edits over 4 days) to move pages, I've had a search of sources that confirm you're correct, and moved the page for you. When you become autoconfirmed, there will be a move option to the left of edit source, view history, etc at the top left of the screen - this presents a form to move the page. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 13:05, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

best known for his sharp wit and sense of humor

Liance pointed out that my submission was rejected because it was not written in an encyclopedic tone. Specially, the statement"best known for his sharp wit and sense of humor" is problematic. This statement is a synthesis of newspaper articles about him and is well documented.

Without that characteristic (sharp wit and sense of humor)included, the article would not be an accurate portrayal of Dodge. Do you have any, suggestions?

Stephen M. Marson, Ph.D. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:8948:9D00:1944:CDD8:5C1:EFA5 (talk) 12:48, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

The only entry showing for the 2606 IP address is this question to Teahouse. Did you perhaps create a draft while signed in to your account? David notMD (talk) 13:33, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

After some searching, appears draft in question is at User:Smarson/sandbox. I cleaned it up a bit. My own opinion is that Melvin Dodge does not achieve Wikipedia's definition of notability, and no amount of revisions to the draft will bring it closer to acceptance. See WP:N. And in direct answer to your question, fixing what one reviewer gave as a reason to decline a draft does not mean that the next reviewer will not have other reasons. David notMD (talk) 13:40, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

New Wiki Page

I want to add a new page for a model but i don't know how to create the page. Can you please suggest me how to do it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poddiya (talk • contribs) 13:05, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

​You are advised to read Your First Article. Creating a new article entirely from scratch is one of the more difficult tasks on Wikipedia, especially for new users. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 13:09, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I created main article but now I want to know how to add sub articles under that like “personal life” and “ Filmography”?

As the article is currently unsourced, I have moved it to Draft:Tanasha Hatharasingha. Every claim in the article must be supported by a reliable source - especially when the article is about a living person. Once the article has had sources added, you are advised to submit it through the Articles for Creation process (see template at top of the draft).

To answer your question, to add subheadings, use == heading name == . In your example you would place == Personal Life == at the top of the Personal life section.

~~ OxonAlex - talk 14:33, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

how can someone write his full information on Wikipedia

how can someone put their full information on Wikipedia including since they were born up to date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.234.246.230 (talk) 14:29, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I assume you wish to make a Wikipedia article about yourself, however you should not unless you meet the requirements of WP:N ArkayusMako (talk) 14:34, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

@ArkayusMako: What you forgot to say is that even if the subject is notable he should not write an autobiography. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:36, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes sorry ArkayusMako (talk) 14:37, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

How to upload pictures

Hi how I can upload a pic to wiki for a game article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edward Rookie (talk • contribs) 15:19, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Use the File Upload Wizard to upload only to Wikipedia, or go to the fine partner of Wikipedia, Wikimedia Commons and follow the instructions there to upload it for use across all Wikis owned by WikiMedia. Hope this helps! Maccore Henni _{Mii! Pictochat Mii!} 15:40, 25 September 2019 (UTC) (Oh, and I'm just a bystander on Teahouse. The real hosts can be found at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Hosts.)

I'm not an official host either, but would just point out that uploading direct to Wikipedia is usually just for WP:Fair use images (rather strict criteria, see Wikipedia:Non-free content). If you are the photographer, then you can release the image under an appropriate licence to Commons by following Commons:First steps/Uploading files. One complication is that your own photograph of copyright material might still be protected by copyright. Perhaps an expert host can advise further if you tell us what the pic is of. Dbfirs 16:26, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Edward Rookie. Uploading images is often difficult because of the fraught rules of copyright. If you are talking about a "game article" (perhaps Assassin's Creed Syndicate? but it doesn't make any difference which article), then it is likely that the image you want to upload is a screenshot, or perhaps cover art, like the existing image. In those cases, even if it is your photo, it is not your copyright (unless you are the artist who created the artwork, or own the copyright under a contract with that artist). In principle it is possible for the copyright holder to license the artwork for use in Wikipedia, but since that would require licensing it in such a way that anybody may reuse or alter it for any purpose, commercial or not, it seems unlikely the copyright owner would agree to that.

The only alternative is to upload it to Wikipedia (not Commons) a non-free media. This may be done only if the use meets all the terms in the non-free content criteria. The existing cover art was uploaded by this method. --ColinFine (talk) 16:48, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

@ColinFine Thank you for the reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edward Rookie (talk • contribs) 18:12, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Should I add essay box to User:Mac_Henni/Infinity_Day_Foundation

The page was created by me and was reviewed 24 September 2019 by @DBigXray, who enjoyed the content. I also linked it to WP:LOVE#See also in the See also section. It more reflects my personal beliefs, and am also wondering what template to use if I must. Thanks, Maccore Henni _{Mii! Pictochat Mii!} 15:34, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

No, Mac Henni, I'm afraid that what you should do with that page is to remove it from Wikipedia. Since it is nothing to do with Wikipedia, and doesn't fall in the allowable purposes for a User page, it shouldn't be here. Please see NOTWEBHOST. You can ask for it to be deleted by pasting {{db-user}} at the top. --ColinFine (talk) 16:53, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Mac Henni, I have deleted that page because it is not about Wikipedia. I am sorry but Wikipedia is not a web host. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:50, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Are my sources too "hidden" as inline citations? + 2nd Q.

Hello, friends,

I'm navigating my first submission (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:1MedTech1/sandbox) about an author, academic and entrepreneur and have two questions.

1 -- I included several citations (TV profiles, news releases from various organizations that awarded the subject high-profile prizes, links to books he has published) and wonder if, because these did not appear in footnotes, they hurt the article's chances of acceptance.

2 -- Also, because the subject is a renowned expert in his field, I included a long list of academic citations simply to prove my claim that he has published more than 170 peer-reviewed papers, dozens of book chapters and the like. Is it preferable to make the claims without providing evidence, since adding the bibliography draws attention to the number of self-referencing citations?

Many thanks for your thoughts and expertise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1MedTech1 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Understand the purpose of footnotes: so that others can directly review what the article asserts. The more direct people can get to your sources the better that others can move further in that area of knowledge. If you want to thwart knowledge, cite that you found it in book "X". Who in their right mind is going to read through a whole book to verify what someone said. There use to be a time when that type of "footnote" was acceptable. But we all do not have the time to use up our time to verify what it took so much time to establish. And quantity does not automatically make someone significant for WP. WP is not what People magazine fulfills. WP is not a Who's Who of "X". An extensive list of writings doers not maker a person notable according to WP standards. Work realized through and supported only by self promotion is suspect.

Now understand that WP is not merely to post that Person "X" exists and they have done "X" work and accomplishments. WP wants people of significance to be shown by how others view that person's value to the world. A person can do great things but those great things have to be substantiated as great by others otherwise someone can explore and write on a subject that is very narrow and nothing beyond that work results from that work. WP sets that inclusion in WP is based on universally credible sources saying that the work is significant. Someone can make and understand what makes a great meatloaf but if all that the story is the person has created a great meatloaf is not enough for inclusion in WP. But if others (organizations, etc) say what others of stature have said that this meatloaf changed the world in these additional ways then it might be then this article just might be more qualified to be included in WP than if it did not encompass this.2605:E000:9149:8300:5122:9DB4:82AC:5FE2 (talk) 18:42, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @1MedTech1: You put a lot of time into this, but there are numerous formatting and syntax issues. More importantly, you should have first focused on identifying media coverage of Dr. Davidson. I can only find this [[1]], which might be a press release. Based on media coverage, he fails notability WP:GNG. Alternatively, there are also academic notability guidelines that you should read: Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)#Criteria. I'm not an academic, but it seems the best chance you have is to show that he has had a big impact in his field, not just that he has written and published numerous papers. I'm pinging another editor DGG, who has a lot of experience studying how much someone's work has been cited by others in their field, as a measure of notability. (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.) TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:44, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I deleted all mention of his publications except books. Wikipedia's concept of notability is based on what people have published about the person, not what the person has written. Obviously, exceptions - authors get books listed, musicians get albums listed, actors get movies listed, but articles on academics do not list their journal articles. David notMD (talk) 21:02, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Not exactly--if notability is under the usual provision of WP:PROF for influence in their field, for academics and other researchers in the humanities and related fields, books are what matter; for scientific researchers, it is peer-reviewed periodical article-- books in these fields are usually but not always secondary.

In this particular instance, his primary notability is as a biomedical researcher, and this depends on his peer-reviewed articles. The usual way of handling this is to not include all his articles, but his 4 or 5 most cited, together with the citation numbers from Google Scholar of Scopus or WoS. In biomedicine, the usual level (not necessarily my personal level, but the usual consensus at AfD) is at least 1 but preferably 2 or more articles in major journals with 100 or more citations to each. For notability under this procedure of WP:Prof, it is not necessary to have secondary sources for notability , just RS that the criteria are met (which is best shown by the publication & citation data from GS etc) , and RS for the basic biographic data (the university site is a sufficiently RS for that). He has written books--the books are in the nature of major textbooks in his field, and books in his field for a lay audience. They would probably be enough to show him notable under WP:PROF as a writer of major textbooks, and possible under WP:AUTHOR for his works for his general audience. To show either, appropriate citations to secondary sources for those points are needed, but should be easy enough. Andthere is one key facor, which is by itself a qualification under WP:PROF--editor in chief of a major journal. He also has other activities, to some extent he might conceivably be notable as a public figure, or as an entrepreneur. These require the usual RS for notability. But even if he is not notable for this, they could still be acceptable content.

The problems with the article that probably attracted attention are some of those characteristic of COI articles. (1) The inclusion of minor maters such as minor awards and charities. (2) A somewhat personal writing style. (3) the inclusion of his commercial enterprise. In the past, it has sometimes been the case that the impetus for an article is the start of a commercial enterprise.

It does need rewriting to match our style.

There is a question to what extent we should as volunteers rewrite articles on notable people written by coi editors, especially paid editors. (There's a rather strong feeling, which I share, on being reluctant to do work for which other people are being paid. Since I in the past did sometimes get paid for writing elsewhere, I feel this all the more strongly. I work here as a volunteer, with the intent of helping other volunteers. ) It's of course open to any one individual editor here to choose to do this or not. Myself, I will do this in two cases (a)to the extent I can, subjects in my primary fields of interest that I think unquestionably notable--especially subfields that I think are under-covered, such as academics in the humanities. (b) Sometimes, any other article that really fills a serious gap in our coverage where I have the necessary competence. But I will not do it if the coi editor is uncooperative, and especially if they insist on including promotional material. And I will almost never do it for an undeclared paid editor who refuses to fully declare.

For this particular article, I shall first, move it to draft space; second, accept it, and third , fix it.

Thee have been far too many notable WP:PROF bios declined at AfC because they do not meet the GNG. WP:PROF does not depend on the GNG. It's one of our few rational criteria--criteria that have some direct relationship to the real world meaning of "notability" . At WP:AfD, people who understand will defend them, but at AfC they are insufficiently visible DGG ( talk ) 00:11, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Friends, thank you for your thoughtful responses.

To the editor who kindly offered to improve the draft: You'll find some citations hidden in live URLs within the copy. I will be glad to assist in moving these to numbered footnotes if that would help.

It's valuable to learn that citation of a published paper by at least 100 other papers can help validate a researcher's standing in the field. (The number of citations for the subject's top five articles ranges from 3898 to 915.)

Also, please note that the charities mentioned are not minor ones. In particular, the one founded by the subject grew to the largest free clinic in California.

Thank you, everyone, for your feedback and help. I am very grateful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1MedTech1 (talk • contribs) 02:55, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

literature

what's the story of Jane Eyre and in what way does it influence your knowledge of the human, socio,political and economic status in the mid 19th century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.112.23.99 (talk) 20:14, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

We don't answer homework questions. He have the article on Jane Eyre, and if you have a general question about literature, you can ask it at WP:RDH RudolfRed (talk) 20:23, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi 105.112.23.99, and welcome to the Teahouse! This project does focus on helping new editors with editing Wikipedia, so if you have any future questions like this, the reference desk is a valuable resource to check out. A question like yours would likely be categorized under humanities, since Jane Eyre is a work of fiction. There are guidelines to keep in mind when asking a question there, but it's still a great place to visit if you're unsure of where to find the information you're looking for. Clovermoss (talk) 21:40, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

The Reference Desk also takes a dim view of schoolwork questions. —Tamfang (talk) 23:51, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Hey Guys!

What should I do here! I've made some edits involving grammar fixes. What's next?--Maybequad404 (talk) 21:35, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

@Maybequad404: Thanks for volunteering. They could use some help to get rid of the September copy editing backlog. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Guild_of_Copy_Editors/Backlog_elimination_drives/September_2019. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:37, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Maybequad404 and welcome to the Teahouse! To add to Timtempleton's suggestion, I'd reccomend checking out the community portal, as there are many different ways you can help out, depending on what you wish to do. If you're interested in correcting typos, I'd recommend checking out the typo team, as there a lot of small fixes across articles that could be fixed by someone like you! Clovermoss (talk) 21:59, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

hi

is great wolf lodge a yes or no for el paso texas!!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.60.113.3 (talk) 22:20, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

@184.60.113.3: What do you mean exactly? The Teahouse is a place to ask questions about editing Wikipedia. --LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 22:26, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I mean like is great wolf lodge planned for el paso texas because I saw it in consideration and it had been like that for 2 years — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.60.113.3 (talk) 18:41, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Are you referring to the Great Wolf Resorts article, where El Paso is mentioned as a location under consideration? I could try to do research on it myself, but anyone (including you) can update the information in any Wikipedia article. That's one of the reasons I think Wikipedia is so cool - information can be updated much faster than a paper encyclopedia. I'd reccomend checking out this guide to reliable sources, as it's an important part of making sure articles have verifiable and accurate information. Clovermoss (talk) 22:55, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

yes I see it under consideration for el paso's great wolf lodge — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.60.113.3 (talk) 00:36, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

The most recent news coverage I could find (from 2019) is this: https://www.elpasotimes.com/story/news/2019/01/18/texas-tax-rebates-in-doubt-for-great-wolf-el-paso-resort-project/2594937002/, which might be useful in improving the article. Does this answer your question? If there's any other questions you have about editing Wikipedia, I'll try my best to help. Clovermoss (talk) 01:12, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

not really because I am still not sure if it is coming for a proposal great wolf lodge in el paso texas I will be enraged if great wolf lodge does not come to el paso texas I really wanted a great wolf lodge in el paso texas throughout the years — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.60.113.3 (talk) 22:51, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Attention Span article draft

Hello,

I created an updated draft of an article in August for Attention Span Media. It is shorter and does not read as an advertisement. I can not find where that draft is, or if anyone has commented/offered further suggestions. Appreciate any help as I learn my way around and look forward to also helping others as I go.

Thank you,

Hello-Mary-H (talk) 22:30, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

@Hello-Mary-H: I was able to find your draft. To make it easier to find, put it on your watchlist.It looks good to me. You can submit it, but be aware that it might take time. In the meantime, I suggest improving it while waiting. --LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 22:36, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

@LPS and MLP Fan: how exactly can I find the draft? I don't see it. Any advice appreciated, and I will move it to my watchlist and keep improving it. Thank you. Hello-Mary-H (talk) 22:41, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

@Hello-Mary-H: Here is the direct link: Draft:Attention Span Media. Also, I don't have an official way you can refer to me as other than my actual username, so you might want to fix that. --LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 22:47, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

@LPS and MLP Fan: Thank you, I fixed your username. I had made changes to that draft to make it much shorter than the initial one submitted. I thought I asked for help with that second draft in the teahouse but it looks like perhaps not. I will get to work. Thanks so much! Hello-Mary-H (talk) 22:50, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

The draft is not acceptable. Remove references that are to the Attention Span website. Ditto press releases. Remove all the expository content crammed into the references - the ref list is not a place to put content. David notMD (talk) 02:38, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Where to start?

I want to say that with many, many editors contributing to Wikipedia, it seems we have got all the information we know of - until somebody finds a new piece of verifiable information and adds it to Wikipedia. It always seems as though we have got all of the information we have on a particular subject, until a new editor adds information to the article. Also, with who-knows-how-many articles in Wikipedia, it's hard to know where to start. So, where do I start?

Also, thank you in advance. --Plankhouse0 (talk) 23:59, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

@Plankhouse0: Welcome to Wikipedia! I recommend that you start in any of these areas:

• WP:RCP - to help combat vandalism
• WikiProjects - to improve articles of your interest
• Articles for Creation - to help add new articles on Wikipedia

There is always something to do here. Hope this helps. --LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 00:28, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Plankhouse0, thanks for your interest in editing Wikipedia. Wikipedia is far, very far from having information about everything, and even in the articles that we do have, many are missing important information, or need significant copy-editing. As for where to start editing, the best way is to pick a subject that you're interested in and start looking for articles on that topic. Many topics have WikiProjects dedicated to them, such as WikiProject Sports. You can find a full directory of WikiProjects here. Some WikiProjects are more active than others, and some are totally abandoned, but at a minimum you'll be able to find a list of articles associated with that project there, so it can be a good starting point.

Alternatively, if you're interested in just doing minor edits to random articles, you can go to the community portal where you can find a list of articles that have been tagged for maintenance by other editors. This is a great way to start small and get a feel for editing on Wikipedia before jumping in and writing articles from scratch yourself, or other parts of Wikipedia like category-tagging, noticeboard discussions, and more.

Finally, if you're specifically interested in helping edit articles about subjects that Wikipedia doesn't have enough of, check out this essay on Wikipedia's biases (as well as WikiProject Countering Systemic Bias) and Women in Red, a project dedicated to increasing gender parity in Wikipedia's coverage. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:29, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

bot notifications ?

Hi, I've turned off bots for my watchlist, which works fine on my laptop and my tablet in desktop mode. But, but when I check the watchlist on my phone, it's cluttered with bot notifications. Is there any way to turn off bots on my phone as well, other than turning it to desktop mode? Nthanks, ,--Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 23:16, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

@Mr Serjeant Buzfuz: AFAIK no, and I would like to note that bots can disable the tagging of actions as B for specific actions. (That is used, for instance, when bots leave talkpage messages, because the use of the bot flag would stop notifications from being send). Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 09:47, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Mr Serjeant Buzfuz, to answer you properly, we'll need to know how you accessed your watchlist on your phone. I use my phone for almost all my edits. I do not use the app, and I request the desktop version on any pages I access, including my Watchlist. John from Idegon (talk) 18:29, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi, all I do is use Safari on iPhone and enter Wikipedia. When I check my watchlist, it shows the most recent entries. I'm getting a lot of entries from MonkBot. It uses the mobile as the default, not the desktop version. I prefer the mobile versionbecause the mobile version displays better on my iPhone screen. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 19:21, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Mr Serjeant Buzfuz, and welcome to the Teahouse! I also edit with advanced mobile view (sometimes) and the inability to organize/filter my watch list is one of the reasons I don't use it as often as I might like to. Unfortunately, there is no current way to filter out bot changes using mobile view, although after posting to mediawiki, I found out that it is one of the most priotized tasks. Here's the phabricator ticket: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T225127, if you're interested in checking it out. Clovermoss (talk) 21:52, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Clovermoss. Glad to know it's not just me hat has this problem. The MonkBot is particularly intrusive. Will wait and see if the media wiki buffing can do anything. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 23:30, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

New page

I have been trying to publish a new page without luck. Can anyone give me a link please? Info is as follows:

Col Bishop (photographer) Col Bishop (born 8th July 1962) is a former soldier and photographer from Burpengary, Queensland, Australia. Early years He was born in the UK and arrived in Australia in January 1977, when his father transferred to the Royal Australian Navy from the Royal Navy. He joined the Australian Army in December 1982 and was allocated the Infantry. He was posted to the 3rd Battalion, The Royal Australian Regiment in September 1982. He had numerous posting during his career and was medically discharged from the Army as a Warrant Officer in October 2008. Career He took up (digital) photography in 2008 after a break from (film) photography of 20 years. His main interest is of landscape, wildlife and architectural photography; but, also conducts wedding and event photography. He live north of Brisbane, Queensland. Notes External links CharlieBravoPhotography.com [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Col Bishop (talk • contribs) 02:39, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Col Bishop. Based upon your choice of username and the person you're trying to create an article about, I would suggest that the first thing you do before you try anything else would be to read Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything, Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not because it sound like you might be misunderstanding what Wikipedia is about. Then, if you still decide that you want to create an article, please take a look at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Writing about yourself, family, friends and Wikipedia:Notability (people). Wikipedia generally only accepts articles written about subjects deemed to be Wikipedia notable and prefers that such articles be created/edit by persons who are unconnected to those subject in some kind of personal or professional way. From just what you've posted above, I would say that Col Bishop wouldn't be considered Wikipedia notable for an article to be written about him. Someday perhaps as explained in Wikipedia:Too soon, but not right at the moment. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:51, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Span calls

I get calls area code 597 with differents numbers, how to block calls from this code — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:56A:F25B:FE00:1558:1A61:517F:EA95 (talk) 03:42, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

This page is for asking questions about using Wikipedia. You will need to talk to your phone company about how to block calls. RudolfRed (talk) 06:07, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

But you might like to note that calls don't necessarily come from where they appear to come from. See our article Caller ID spoofing. --ColinFine (talk) 13:04, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I need advice (suitable place) for editing a template

I want to find a better place about whether doing some changes in Template:Aristocratic family trees. The talk page of it seldom has new discussions, so I want to seek a better place - is this Teahouse too general to get such advice? (I know English, but I don't know how to seek help in English wiki, other than editing articles...) - George6VI (talk) 06:46, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi George6VI. The best place to discuss a page is generally on it's corresponding talk page. It makes it easier for others to participate in the discussion and easier for other to find a record of the discussion later on if necessary. What you can do is start a discussion on the template's talk page and then use a template like Template:Please see to let others (for example relevant WikiProjects) know about the discussion. I've added two WikiProject banners to the talk page of that particular template which seem relevant, but some of the talk pages of articles where the template is being used most likely would be a good place to check for other WikiProjects. There's no way of knowing how much of a response you'll get, but it doesn't hurt to try.

Another possibility would be for you to just be WP:BOLD and change the template yourself; you just need to make sure that you don't accidentally damage the syntax or cause other problems when you do. Many templates are protected because they are used so widely and a single change/mistake can suddenly cause problems on lots of pages; this template, however, is not protected and can be edited. If, by chance, you create a problem by changing something, you can always go back and self-revert. At the same time, if you make a change that someone else reverts, you can then follow WP:BRD and discuss things on the template's talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:10, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

pakistan

How do you make your own wikepidia page about somthing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uthman Ishfaq (talk • contribs) 07:21, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Uthman Ishfaq and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is not a web host for storing your own page about something, but if you would like to create an article, then please read WP:Your first article. Wikipedia already has an article Guinea pig, and you will see that the content of the page is encyclopaedic, not a "how to" manual. Articles in Wikipedia need to be based on what has already been written in WP:Reliable sources. Dbfirs 08:13, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

We already have multiple articles relating to Pakistan. —Tamfang (talk) 23:53, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

RETIRED-ALS

I’m no longer editing, per notice on my page --GeeBee60 (talk) 09:25, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello, GeeBee60. Thank you for you message about retiring from Wikipedia editing. I visited your userpage, which forms a lovely summary of your life, interests and achievements here. I am sorry to learn of your declining health which has forced this situation upon you. It cannot be easy for you, in so many ways, and you have my best wishes. Since you joined us in 2013, you have made over 1,700 edits. So, whilst I can't really speak on behalf of anyone else, I would nevertheless like to offer a big 'thank you' from Wikipedia, its community of editors and all of its users around the world for your contributions that have helped this encyclopaedia continue to grow and become such an amazing, free resource of knowledge. With the kindest of regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 15:06, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

my first article - a bibliography

Hi!!

Nice to meet you (o: I am so happy to become a member of wikipedia! I am hoping to post an article which lists recent publications in the newer academic approach to communication called integrationism (integrational linguistics). There is already an article on integrationism on wiki (I did not author it). I have made a provisory list as a draft article but wondering if I can submit the draft before I enter more references, so that I can get feedback on the idea and layout of the draft? Would that be ok?

Integrationism is a scholarly approach to communication and language that has widespread consequences to diverse fields of inquiry. Integrationism centrally states that signs are not readymades, but are made in situations by living beings with a purpose. This entails fx that language and other cultural products of communication can not be regarded as codes, but as symptoms and possibly artifacts in a different process than hitherto thought. The claim has profound implications for fields such as linguistics, semiotics, philosophy, logic etc. For this reason it would be good to have a public bibliography as globally available as possible.

Kind regards, Charlotte Conrad — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlotteconrad (talk • contribs) 12:59, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Without references a draft would be certain to be declined if you were to submit it. If the "Sources" column in Draft:Integrationism - A Bibliography is intended to contain references, you need to read Help:Referencing for beginners. Although not an AFC reviewer myself, my suspicion is that even if properly referenced there might well be a question as to whether this should be a separate article or whether it would more reasonably be a section in the existing article. It would probably make sense to raise the question on the talk page of the existing article, and in your question you could point readers at your draft. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:09, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Changes to the Page Title of a large group of pages

There is a group of Wikipedia pages which really should be changed generically, both in the TITLE as well as the page CONTENT. How and to whom should I suggest this change (which is quite important within the subject matter) Seadog (talk) 15:21, 26 September 2019 (UTC)Seadog (editor)

Hi Seadog, welcome to the Teahouse. Which change to which pages? We need at least an example to guide you. It might be discussed at a relevant WikiProject, e.g. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:28, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks PrimeHunter. The relevant group of pages have the generic title: List of ship launches in xxxx [year]. The pages are indexed at Category:Lists of ship launches. Seadog (talk) 16:26, 26 September 2019 (UTC)Seadog

@Seadog: That certainly sounds like a matter for Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships. You could also make a giant Wikipedia:Requested moves where every page is tagged with a link to the discussion, but I suggest you first test the waters at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships. The page histories of recent lists show the main contributor is HenSti so you could also start at User talk:HenSti. If you don't then invite them to the discussion. Considering the number of pages, don't move any of them or make mass content changes without discussion. By the way, those lists need a common entry point in mainspace. With the current titles it would be List of ship launches or Lists of ship launches with one redirecting to the other. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:02, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks again PrimeHunter. I would not dare to change or move a large collection of pages for the key reason that I have no idea how to do that. So, in any case, I like the idea of discussing this with others, especially the contributor you suggest, who probably knows the mechanics of editing multiple pages as well as the maritime content itself. I appreciate your good advice. Seadog (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:32, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Is my article/pagein the process of being reviewed

I submitted a page for review on 9.11.2019, and it's still coming up as Draft/Talk: Jeffery C. Becton. Would someone please give me an update, or guidance on how/when it might go live? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MSDRUID (talk • contribs) 16:08, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Jeffery C. Becton has not yet been submitted for review. When you are ready to submit it, you can use the button that says: "Submit your draft for review!". --David Biddulph (talk) 16:12, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

@MSDRUID: I strongly suggest you not submit the article yet. It needs to be fleshed out with more sourcing and the info should be separated into sections. Include links to the references if you have them. Once you are rejected, it will be harder to get it approved later. Take a look at WP:YOURFIRSTARTICLE and integrate info from these sources: [[3]] [[4]] [[5]] [[6]] [[7]] [[8]] [[9]] (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.) TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:28, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Also read Help:Referencing for beginners TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:29, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Need assistance uploading a licensed picture of Amy J Berg on her Wiki Page

Hello Wiki World,

I am a coding illiterate assistant who is trying to upload my boss Amy J Berg's picture on her wiki page. Can anyone help with this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:1405:C200:F40E:465C:6C8:3B73 (talk) 19:01, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Quick question: Did you take the photo yourself? i.e. Do you own the images rights, or does somebody else? Nick Moyes (talk) 20:26, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

You need to take the photograph yourself, then you can release copyright under the appropriate licence. See Commons:Contributing your own work. Please note that a publicity picture taken by an agency might be copyright and not eligible to be used. Before you can upload a picture, you need to WP:Create an account, make ten edits and wait four days. Dbfirs 20:24, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Uploading images gets into some tricky territory as Wikipedia requires that images uploaded be either in the public domain, uploaded under one of the free licenses acceptable to Wikipedia and/or the Wikimedia Commons, or have a specific permission for that image to be used on file and approved with the Wikimedia Commons via the Open-source Ticket Request System.

Images can also be uploaded to Wikipedia, but not Wikimedia Commons, as Fair Use images, but that's quite tricky and not something I would recommend for a new editor. Additionally, as stated in WP:UPIMAGE, "Only logged in users with autoconfirmed accounts can upload images (meaning that the account must be at least four days old, and the user must have made at least ten edits). If you do not have an account, or you have not been autoconfirmed yet, please see Wikipedia:Files for upload."

Another complication in the case you have described is the question of whether Amy J Berg owns the rights to the image she wants to use. If it is a publicity image that was taken of her, and paid for by her as a work-for-hire, then the answer is "yes". If it was an image that you or another employee took for her as part of your job duties, then the answer is probably "yes", too. If the image is from another source, then she very likely does not have the rights to upload it here.

If Berg does have an image she can contribute upload, and is willing to allow it to be uploaded under a Wikipedia-acceptible Creative Commons license (please read the license; it is irrevocable) then I would suggest she make an account on WP, identify herself on her Talk page, and post a request to have the photo uploaded on Wikipedia:Files for upload.

For more information, check out WP:UPIMAGE for more information on what images can and can't be uploaded, and MOS:IMAGES for detailed instructions on how to add an image to an article. I am sorry the process is so involved. Carl Henderson (talk) 20:41, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Disagreements on political contents

To whomever can help with this, I was trying to edit a the Wikipedia page about the 2019 Italian political crisis because the existing depicted things from the perspectives of an outsider that did not take into consideration actual events happening in Italy at that time; however, my edit was reverted because (and I have no objections here) from one (Italian source) only. The user who reverted it did it on the pretence it was right-wing polarized. I am not here to do politics, because this is an encyclopedia, but the contents of the reverted version are considerably left-wing socialist.

My question is how can an agreement be reached so that the contents of the page actually mirror the events in Italy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giulioseal (talk • contribs) 19:33, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

@Giulioseal: Welcome to Wikipedia. Discuss it on the article's talk page. If you can't reach consensus, follow the guidance at WP:DR. RudolfRed (talk) 20:00, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

My article has delete twice

Following article has written by me:

Article

{{Use Indian English|date=September 2019}} {{Use dmy dates|date=September 2019}} {{Infobox comedian | name = Raktim Dey Chatterjee | birth_name = Riki | caption = Raktim Dey Chatterjee During an Event | birth_date = {{Birth date and age|df=yes|1987|03|18}} | birth_place = [[Asansol]], [[West Bengal]], [[India]] | yearsactive = 2000–present | nationality = Indian | genre = Businessman | website = {{URL|www.raktimdeychatterjee.com}} }} '''Raktim Dey Chatterjee''' is a upgrowing Businessman and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_work Social Worker]. ==Early life== Raktim dey Chatterjee was born in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asansol Asansol],[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Bengal West Bengal],and grew up in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolkata Kolkata], where his father was an [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalist journalist]. He wanted to become a Cricket Player, however neither it nor business was considered financially viable career option by his father, thus ended up studying Electronics engineering at the [http://www.brevityedu.com I.I.M.T], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangalore BANGALORE], where he studied for the next four years. He is also an Masters In Busness Administration ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_of_Business_Administration MBA]) of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manipal_Academy_of_Higher_Education Manipal University]. ==Career== He started his career in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_estate real estate] business at the age of 18, later He started another company Nexus Business Solution Pvt. Ltd. in 2019 with his family. Seba Sebak Charitable Hospital is his joint venture company with his family & others. He is the Founder & CEO of one of the Intetnational [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmetics Cosmetics] Companies in India ([https://auradew.in/about-director/ Auradew]). '''Nexuse business Solutions''' partner with exceptional entrepreneurs in the US and India. Our team comprises ex-entrepreneurs who are strong “bottom-up” thinkers and “sleeves rolled up” operators. With decades of experience in building and funding globally leading companies, we manage USD 1.5 billion across funds. Our footprint in world’s two leading markets positions us uniquely with global insights and ability to serve entrepreneurs. He Started '''[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jc0i4r7rIwg Seba Sebak charitable Hospital]''' in 2018 to provides the services for the wealfare [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Below_Poverty_Line BPL] people, in around [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balasore Balasore], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odisha Orrissa]/ Fulia West Bengal/ Sodepur, Kolkata. Here they stared online free treatment facilities for BPL people also. == References == {{reflist|2}} [https://www.tofler.in/raktim-dey/director/08049991 Raktim Dey is registered with the Ministry of Corporate Affairs with a DIN (Director Identification Number) of 08049991, and is currently associated with 2 companies.] [https://www.tofler.in/seba-sebak-hospital-private-limited/company/U74999WB2018PTC225520 Sebasebak Charitable Hospital] [https://www.zaubacorp.com/company/SEBA-SEBAK-HOSPITAL-PRIVATE-LIMITED/U74999WB2018PTC225520 Zauba Corp] [https://www.tofler.in/seba-sebak-hospital-private-limited/company/U74999WB2018PTC225520 Tofler] ==External links== *{{IMDb name|1555152}} {{Authority control}}

— Preceding unsigned comment added by RaktimDeyChatterjee (talk • contribs) 20:47, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Can you provide me a link to the article? There should be a reason for its deletion. --LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 20:56, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

This isn't the place for a draft. All you need to do is give a wikilink to User:RaktimDeyChatterjee/sandbox. --David Biddulph (talk) 21:00, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

It was pointless for you to submit the draft for review in that state. There are no references and there are many misplaced external links. --David Biddulph (talk) 21:05, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

You also need to read the advice against autobiography. --David Biddulph (talk) 21:09, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi RaktimDeyChatterjee. It's generally not a good idea to try and create a Wikipedia article about yourself as explained in Wikipedia:Autobiography and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Writing about yourself, family, friends. It can also sometimes turn out to be a bad thing as explained in Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. A Wikipedia article should only be written about subjects which are Wikipedia notable as explained in Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything; so, if you meet the criteria given in Wikipedia:Notability (people), then perhaps someone else will write an article about you. If you currently don't meet the criteria, then perhaps someday you will and then an article will be written. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:12, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Hunter Biden Article (Misleading Portion)

Ladies/Gentlemen, I am new to editing Wikipedia. I have read the Wikipedia article on Hunter Biden, and believe the following statement to be very misleading: "President Donald Trump claimed that Joe Biden had sought the dismissal of a Ukrainian prosecutor in order to protect Hunter Biden and Burisma Holdings, although extensive press reporting and the Ukrainian government have found no evidence to support the claim." In fact, there is evidence that supports the claim that Joe Biden did interfere to have the prosecutor fired, as Joe Biden himself made that very claim on national television, which has been reported on September 24, 2019, by "The Federalist", as follows: "in a 2018 speech at an event for the publication Foreign Affairs. In this speech, Biden boasts his threat to withhold $1 billion in U.S. loans from Ukraine if they did not agree to fire the prosecutor who happened to be investigating the company giving his son a cushy sinecure." Unfortunately, I cannot find an "edit" button for this article. Can someone help me find the "edit" button on the "Hunter Biden" article to make this change? Thank you! Respectfully, Fred Bledsoe — Preceding unsigned comment added by AZCat49 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi AZCat49. The article Hunter Biden has been protected by an administrator because of some recent disruptive editing. When the subject of a Wikipedia article finds themselves in the middle of some ongoing news story/media coverage, there tend can be rush of people not familiar with Wikipedia and its various policies and guideline (particularly Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons) trying to edit the article to "set the record straight". Many people mean well but many others don't, but when this happens it usually causes problems that are happening too quickly and too often to be resolved through normal editing; so, the page is protected to slow things down and prevent any further problems. Long story short, the thing for you to do know is to propose the changes you think should be made on the article's talk page by making an edit request. Another editor who is able to edit the article will review the request and see if it meets relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If it does, it will likely be made; if not, it won't. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:24, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

But, AzCat49, please first read the discussions already on the talk page, especially Talk:Hunter Biden#sept 2019 trump scandal news. If you have something to add, edit the existing discussion to add it, rather than starting a new section. But note that you are unlikely to change the consensus unless you adduce reliable published sources which address the issues already discussed. --ColinFine (talk) 21:40, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Help Creating a new topic page (CPPAX in Massachusetts)

(Internal Q To EDITORS) I am drafting/writing a new topic - but hope a host can review it before it is posted live. The topic is "Citizens for Participation in Political Action (CPPAX), 1962-1999" There is a lot of potential material (re presidential politics, Massachusetts electoral campaigns, etc) I have 1 3-page initial draft but welcome feedback and edits before anything goes live. Goal is to get something up soon, and then expand and perfect as your descriptions encourage. (Note I was the Director/staff leader from 1968-1989 but want it to be factual history, not personal promotion. I can SEND A DRAFT if anyone is in a position to give feedback or advice. If you can assist contact me - an email version will go to your Help page. Thank you! Richard Cauchi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Racauchi (talk • contribs) 21:20, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

@Racauchi: Welcome to Wikipedia. The best way forward is to follow the guidance at WP:YFA on creating an article and then using the wizard there to submit a draft for review. RudolfRed (talk) 21:28, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

@Racauchi: Like RR said, do take careful note of all of WP:YFA, even though it's admittedly kind of long. Even an article that is well-written and suitable for publication in magazines, newspapers, or even journals, needs some work to become a suitable Wikipedia article. For example, inline citation of reliable sources and adherence to our Manual of Style are important issues that will save some edit cycles. Thanks for helping Wikipedia! —[AlanM1(talk)]— 21:49, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Racauch. If you were Director of the organisation, then you need to be aware of how Wikipedia treats conflict of interest: start by declarating your relationship. One of the reasons that writing with a COI is hard is that it is even easier than in the general case to make the mistake of writing what you know rather than what the sources say. Every single piece of information in a Wikipedia article should be derived from a reliable published source; and nearly all of them should be from sources wholly unconnected with the subject. Wikipedia has essentially no interest in what the subject of an article says about themselves (including in interviews and press releases): it is only interested in what independent commentators have chosen to publish about the subject. --ColinFine (talk) 21:52, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Has rudeness become acceptable between editors on Wikipedia?

An editor called Theroadislong recently referred to my editing as 'unsourced trumpery' and 'ridiculous.' I had to look up 'trumpery' on Google and Definition sites say it means, "worthless nonsense, garish, vulgar, tasteless, gaudy, showy etc." I have been an occasional editor on Wikipedia for over 10 years and people never used to talk to each other like this. Is this the new normal? Do women editors receive more rudeness?Agnesgerlach (talk) 22:18, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

@Agnesgerlach: Unfortunately, it happens sometimes. I don't think it is normal, nor targeted at specific subsets of editors. RudolfRed (talk) 22:28, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I referred to the content of your edits as trumpery, as I understand it, this means "of little or no value" you have repeatedly added content which is NOT supported by the sources given, hence it has no value. You are a single purpose account and do not seem to understand how Wikipedia works as regards to reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 22:30, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

@Agnesgerlach: Nope, rudeness between editors is not acceptable here, though sadly it happens all too frequently. There is, however, currently a bit of a sea change happening on English Wikipedia, where some of the 'old guard' of experienced editors (aka 'unblockables') are being challenged in some of the ways they conduct themselves and speak to other editors. And, sadly, a few editors aren't respectful to female editors, and that's not acceptable either. We do actually have a forum where complaints can be made against editors who act inappropriately. We have a shortcut link to it (called WP:ANI), where both sides of any complaint will be investigated in depth. But I would advise against it in this case. In my view, we should all behave like the stereotypical British policeman (polite, respectful, but firm in stopping people doing bad stuff, and helping good people on their way), so there should be no need for anyone to go to the Adminstrators' Noticeboard if they respect and take the time to understand how an encyclopaedia of nearly 6 million articles needs to operate. The editor you mention is one on of our skilled gatekeepers, with much experience of identifying promotional articles, and reviewing draft pages that have been submitted by users, so for them to use those words against you personally seems most out of character, and well worth investigating.

To me, 'trumpery' means puffed-up, empty and meaningless, whilst 'ridiculous' means it makes me scoff, or laugh at it. I looked at the edit to the page you created (pIvan Lindsay) where Theroadislong used both those words to describe, not you, but the contents of your edit that they had deleted. It's this one. Honestly, it really did make me laugh when I investigated it further. In fact - and I don't mean this offensively - it's really rather a masterclass in how a completely unreliable source can be used to 'big up' a subject. You wrote: " Lindsay is invited to lecture and teach on the subject of stolen art and this book is considered the most definitive on the subject and has been reviewed as, "a fascinating reference book," and, "this book is an absolute treasure and a delight to read," and, "Lindsay's book is supported by extensive research material form archives and contemporary sources, providing both factual information and exciting anecdotes about each period." In that edit, I'm afraid you cite no independent or reliable source (just this) to support or verify anything from reliable sources. You would be sorely mistaken if you were to think any competent editor would permit an Amazon sales page and a couple of 'buyer reviews' to be used on Wikipedia in this way.

So, those words of yours (but not you personally, madam) are indeed puffery and trumpery in my book, and to attempt to cite two random reviewers who happened to buy the book and leave a nice comment on the Amazon seller's page is, quite frankly, laughable. (You do it elsewhere, too, I'm afraid). I have not looked at all the other 42 two edits you have occasionally made here over the ten years you mention above, though I do note that every single one all but two of them relates to this sole individual whose article you created. Whilst you are indeed welcome to edit on such a narrow topic if you are so single-minded to do so (providing you don't have an undeclared Conflict of Interest in the subject), you are however required to follow our policies on Reliability, Verifiability and Notability. The first two of those clearly weren't met in that edit, and the latter is currently up for discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ivan Lindsay, which is a common procedure, even for pages that have remained here for years, as this one seems to have done until now. Yes, trumpery and ridiculous is, I'm sorry to say, a perfectly adequate and quite apt description to use, not only for deleting that edit, but also for much of what you appear to have added in the last week. (see diff). There's barely one verifiable citation in there, just lots of links to websites that don't mention Ivan Lindsay at all, or only in passing. If you say that someone taught Jungle Warfare for four years in Brunei, you have to prove it, and not simply give a link to a Jungle Warfare homepage which makes no mention of him. "If in doubt, leave it out" would be my motto here. I'm sorry if you find all this a harsh truth, but, honestly, there's no rudeness intended from me or from TheRoadIaLong. And lest anyone doubts my conclusion, I would point to this diff where you support a Guardian article written by Ivan Lindsay by citing a "contemporary review" suggesting it was "a masterclass". In fact, you quote and link to a one sentence (spam?) blog comment on Lindsay's own website. It is indeed a masterclass. Are you connected with the subject in any way, might I ask? Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:10, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, unfortunately such language is now pretty mild for WP. Last week I was called a c*nt by an admin. Because we've allowed this, and a couple of editors were particularly "vocal" in justifying it, we now seem to have abandoned any attempt at controlling language. I see this as a great loss. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:32, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley: I'm hoping you've not missed my point. I have just taken the last two hours working through that article and reviewing those edits. The words used in an edit summary to delete one paragraph were, in my view, completely valid and justifiable and there was absolutely no rudeness present in that action. That's not to say that rudeness isn't any everyday issue, and especially unpleasant if directed towards women editors. But I find none in the action taken to delete one puffery-laden edit. It is unfortunate if an editor has interpreted this as such. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:39, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

I deleted some inappropriate content from the article, but also left Delete at the AfD. I would also like Agnesgerlach to explain what - if any - personal connection to Lindsay — Preceding unsigned comment added by David notMD (talk • contribs)

@Agnesgerlach and Theroadislong:I'vee given TRIL a courtesy ping since I have mentioned them. I am a new editor, it's been a year. I am still learning the ropes,and while I have sympathy for your complaint as there are over bearing, privileged, senior editors who make assumptions and provide sloppy, facetious and even farcial edit summaries. I will tell you this. Theroadislong is not one of those. He reviewed,and reviewed and reviewed my first article, had me pulling my hair out in frustration. I thought that he was WP:HOUNDing me (before I knew what WP:HOUND was. But all came to good, that article is now published and it is a good article, thanks to his constant critic and unwillingness to accept trumpery, unreliable sources, etc. And I know that if I try to publish an article in the future he will be as critical the second time around, and he should be. As regards the advicee of User:Nick Moyes above, the man is a gent, and patient and I would most certainly take his suggestion and criticism at heart. So take a breath, sit back and follow the guidance you have been offered.

By the way, one complaint that I have is that some editors use the template that your submission does not meet the standards of WP, without taking the time, at least in the comments to explain why. If they can't explain why something is inadequate or wrong, it can't be corrected, but that is a template and a lazy editor problem. .Oldperson (talk) 02:10, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

"I mean, if you're the police, who will police the police?"

After only a few days trying my hand at editing - I give up. This seemingly organic website - which I previously held in high esteem - seems to be nothing more than an arena for people to impose their will on others - to the detriment of all. Having made a few edits in the past few days - I have been told that my edits are "...too detailed and not helpful..." and that "...Wikipedia doesn't care what random forum members may or may not want to know...". The result of these comments - the total deletion of my edits. This highlights to me that, we have administrators who are governing what we read, and deciding (without consultation) what can be posted with unfettered discretionary powers and no proper guidance. The most concerning point is that these administrators do not seem to be answerable to anyone. The continuation of this arbitrary and unaccountable behaviour is dangerous - and serves only to undermine wikipedia and diminish its objectivity. An administrator should not have sole control over what is maintained on wikipedia - we all have different views on importance and relevance. Perhaps what is needed is a system which requires two administrators to agree before edits are simply deleted from the pages of history, never to be read, considered or challenged in a proper forum. To quote a great poet and source of wisdom from our time - "I mean, if you're the police, who will police the police?" Until that question is properly answered - I see no point contributing further, nor using this site as a reference point (NRoss427 (talk) 22:48, 26 September 2019 (UTC))

@NRoss427: Welcome to Wikipedia, and sorry that you are not having a good experience so far. The rules for what may be added to an article is not arbitrary. All Wikipedia policies and guidelines are built on the consensus of volunteer editors, except for a few things like copyright and WP:BLP which are due to legal requirements. Remember that this is an encyclopedia, and that anything you add to an article must be backed by citations to reliable sources. If you are willing to try again, I suggest you start with the interactive learning game at WP:ADVENTURE, which may help you become more familiar with how to make improvements to the articles. RudolfRed (talk) 23:30, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

NRoss427, To answer the question in the title of this section, there are several forums on Wikipedia for hashing out disagreements with other users. First, start a discussion on the talk page of the relevant article. If you fail to come to a consensus there, there are further remedies such as requests for comment, dispute resolution, and more. Administrator's don't have special privileges when it comes to decisions about article content, they just have access to restricted tools (such as article deletion, article protection, and applying blocks) to enforce the community's consensus; you are allowed to disagree with administrators and to argue against them. Be sure to follow the bold, revert, discuss process for making changes and engaging in discussion with other editors on Wikipedia.

If you have a truly intractable problem with another editor's behavior, there's the administrator's noticeboard, but be advised that starting a discussion there should only be done as a last resort, and will invite scrutiny toward your own edits and behavior. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:42, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I do not wish to address editors behavior, much of that is personality conflict. What needs to be addressed is the Concept of consensus. I have noticed talk page discussions, ANI discussions etc that lead to "consensus", this is a carry over from the academic community. WP is pregant, yes I said pregnant, with contentions articles from politics, to religion, to "morality", to ethnics and ethics, even sports and favorite movies can be a site of battlegrounds with POV pushers cleverly disguising their POV by trying to (successfully) appear neutral, when in fact they are anything but. In fact neutrality is almost impossible to find, except in folk like me who are totally disinterested in subjecdts like golf, soccer, swimming competitions and even Olympic sports, and totally disinterested in fandom.

Where consensus falls apart is in the highly contentious area of politics, religion, "morality", sexuality, free speech, abortion, gun control,etc. Some subjects attract, like flies, the participation of persons who have a deep personal, emotional or ideological, religious stake in the subject, and use the Support-Oppose argument with practiced aplomb to attempt to force a decision, based on consensus. In other words WP consensus is not consensus, when weighted by forces pro or con. and some subjects attract partisans like honey or feces on a piece of bread.

I can imagine Alfred Wegner trying to obtain consensus over his theory of continental drift, but he was ballyhooed and ridiculed and would have been so on WP with claims of [[WP:OR} or WP:Soapbox. As we know now he has been vindicated however, in apparent embarrassment by a community that ridiculed him, his theory has been renamed Plate Tectonics, not Continental Drift.

My purpose here is to bring to light the problem of consensus, something virtually all newby's encounter. There is probably another, more obscure, board, of which new editors are unawares, where I will most certainly be told to take it as it is deemed not appropriate here on the Teahouse. Yet it is.Oldperson (talk) 03:18, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Somebody please look at my "talk page" and my edits on "Mercedes Benz CLK" and see what I am dealing with! This is not how WP was designed. An administrator troll vetting and censoring my every edit because he thinks it is not relevant. Graham87 is not the voice WP, and is not the voice of the readers of WP - how is it possible that he alone dictates what is important and what is not. what is relevant and what is not. I was asked to have a second try at editing and i did, and i suffered the same result - deletion because a Graham87 didn't like my edit and saw fit to remove it for the fourth time. Citing (while deleting a two sentence edit - "...still too much detail, it's a car that got crashed in a race driven by somebody who doesn't even specialise in car-racing...". Fine this chap likes kittens and not cars - let others post! What is the point... UNSUBSCRIBED!!!!! (NRoss427 (talk) 11:34, 27 September 2019 (UTC))

Best way to disambiguate this...

I want to create an entry on a significant documentary about the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill. The documentary was called Sea of Oil. Problem: Someone created a FORWARD at Sea of Oil, which forwards to "Stingray (1964 TV Series)," because Sea of Oil was apparently an episode in the TV series.

The documentary I'm writing about is referenced in another entry, titled "List of POV (TV Series) episodes," because the Sea of Oil documentary was broadcast as part that TV series' fourth season.

I'm still really new at this, but based on my understanding, that forward would ideally be replaced with some kind of disambiguation.

Do I just create my article, call it Sea of Oil, then add a hatnote sending to the other usage? Or because they forwarded it first, do I create a stub for the other Sea of Oil usage first to be polite? What's my next step? Sonyasen (talk) 04:00, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Sonyasen. You can find out more about this in Wikipedia:Disambiguation, but I believe that when multiple article subjects share the same name that the first thing to do is determine which one of them is the primary topic, and then disambiguate the others based on that. Determining the "primary topic" doesn't necessary mean figuring out which article was created first, and in some cases there may not even be one or even need to be one. There is no article yet written about Sea of Oil, so you could possibly create one without doing something like Sea of Oil (XXXX film); however, the redirect (i.e. forwarded page) for "Sea of Oil" was at one time actually an article that someone created, but which was then subsequently redirected to the other article (most likely because the episode didn't warrant it's own article). So, that means the older page history will either need to be deleted or otherwise dealt with. Which one is done depends upon whether you think item 9 of WP:R#DELETE or item 7 of WP:R#KEEP is most applicable. Only an administrator can delete the history of page; you shouldn't overwrite the redirect with new content until what to do with the page's history has been resolved. The safest thing to do might be to work on a draft as Draft:Sea of Oil for the article about the movie (assuming you feel it satisfies WP:NFILM) and when you think it's ready, submit it for review to Wikipedia:Articles for creation. If the draft is ultimately accepted, the AfC reviewer or an administrator will most likely then figure out how to deal with the redirect. If the new article needs to be disambiguated instead, the AfC reviewer will figure out the best way to do that as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:51, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Marchjuly. I really like your suggestion to just write and submit it (ie., let the admin figure it out). :) The more I got into it, the more I was realizing just how much else it was going to affect just to do this little change. (I need to get better at understanding the history of past edits, though. And I really appreciate you taking a look and giving me your input!) Basic question: When you mention writing a draft, you mean to create one in a personal sandbox, right? Sonyasen (talk) 05:50, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

There are two types of drafts: a userspace draft and regular draft. They are essentially the same with the only real difference being the namespace where they are located. Both can be used to create drafts for future articles, but the preferred location for drafts which are ultimately headed for an AfC review is the draft namespace. Content on any Wikipedia page can technically be edited by anyone at anytime (unless the page has been protected for some reason), but most experienced editors will refrain from editing the pages in another user's userspace, except when asked to or when there is some serious policy or guideline problem that needs to be taken care of. The draft namespace on the other hand is seen more as a community namespace and many experienced editors seem less hesitant about trying to improve things and help (if possible) bring the draft more inline with relevant policies and guidelines. The draft namespace also is really only intended to be used for new article creation and not really for working on improvements to existing articles. Although there are no deadlines for creating a new article, you tend to have a little more freedom time-wise with respect to a userspace draft than a regular draft. You can pretty much work at your own pace in both cases, but regular drafts which go unedited for six months are eligible for speedy deletion per speedy deletion criterion G13. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:09, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Follow-up to Sandpit

Hi again

Can someone please provide a succinct instruction on where I find my ‘workspace’ to create a page?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redbaron370 (talk • contribs) 07:25, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Redbaron370 and welcome back to the Teahouse. You can continue to edit in your Sandbox at User:Redbaron370/sandbox where you will need to add WP:Reliable sources before submitting for publication. I assume that you have read WP:Your first article. If you are starting an article on a different topic, then you can create a new sandbox at User:Redbaron370/sandbox2 (just click and start typing). Dbfirs 07:31, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

@Redbaron370: Also note that there is a link to your sandbox that appears in the header at the top of all Wikipedia pages when you are logged in (Talk Sandbox Preferences Beta Watchlist Contributions Log out). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 08:29, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Editing a Wikipedia Table

Hi Folks,

I came across this wiki page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_model#Economics and within the table, a company called 'Sauce Labs' is described as the leading company for Selenium (an open-source project). That being said, the citation used - https://www.battery.com/powered/boss-index-tracking-explosive-growth-open-source-software/ clearly mentions BrowserStack and Sauce Labs. Could you guide me to the best way of incorporating 'BrowserStack' into the table? I am a novice and want to be cautious as there is also a conflict of interest (I work for BrowserStack).

Thank you in advance for removing the time to reply.

WP:PinkLock

Hey, so it might just be me being new but can someone explain WP:Pinklock? i'm not finding the page on wp:protect helpful :/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stainless Steel Stalinism (talk • contribs) 08:23, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Which part of the section at WP:PINKLOCK don't you understand? --David Biddulph (talk) 09:00, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Dead link deletion

If i see a dead link, should i immediately delete the hypertext or leave it as is? ArkayusMako (talk) 09:57, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

You'll find advice at WP:Link rot. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:01, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not very interested in editing articles about places and people

Hi all! I've been contributing to Wikipedia a bit in my spare time. Since I'm pretty new, I've mostly been making small changes to random articles that I find with Special:Random. Unfortunately, most articles seem to be about people or places - and I'm not much of a historian/geographer.

Is there a way I could get random articles about other subjects instead? --Spaghetti Noire (talk) 10:26, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

"Write what you know" is (sometimes debated) advice given to writers. I suggest you edit what you know. If you have knowledge due to your work or hobby, working on articles in those areas may be more interesting. David notMD (talk) 11:18, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't know of a specific way to randomly choose articles while excluding certain subject areas. 331dot (talk) 11:26, 27 September 2019 (UTC)