Wikipedia:Teahouse

Marchjuly, 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.)

My articles have not been reviewed after several weeks of creation

I created two separate articles several weeks ago but they have not been reviewed. The subjects are notable. I have continuously improved on the articles by adding contents, citing verifiable sources, adding categories and linking pages yet the articles are neither reviewed nor posted to public space for public view. Here are the links to the articles https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammadu_Bako_III

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammadu_Bako_III Experienced editors and reviewers kindly help review the articles and post them to public space for public view. Warm regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akgideens (talk • contribs) 06:09, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

The article to which you link has already been published by yourself, so there is no need to submit it for publication. If a new-page review does not occur within 90 days, then Google will begin to index the article, making it easier to find from a search. You might like to rephrase "surprised move". Who was surprised and who says so? Dbfirs 06:21, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

You might also want to check the "first class" Emir phrase. Is this is a title or designation? You need to add sources for several factual information. For instance, the Civil service career section only referenced the last sentence. Darwin Naz (talk) 01:41, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

(ec) Hello Akgideens, the articles look quite nice. There is currently a 6,000 articles backlog at new page review. Your articles will get reviewed in due course, and if not, they'll get automatically released for indexing by search engines, three months after creation. There is really NORUSH, and three months go by in no time as we are busy building the encyclopedia (for the benefit of generations to come if all goes well). Regards! Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 06:28, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Some times one of the articles with this URL https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammadu_Bako_III get indexed but moments later it disappears from search engine index. Even when it gets temporarily indexed, not all browsers show it in search engines index.

Again, this article is some times indexed on CloudPedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Akgideens (talk • contribs) 06:40, 26 November 2019 (UTC)‎

Hi Akgideens. Have you read Wikipedia:Ownership of content? If not, then you might want to take a look at it. I'm not suggesting this to you because I think you've done anything wrong, but only because you seem to be worrying about some trivial things (at least in my opinion) that probably are things that don't need to be worried about. I think it's perfectly OK to feel a bit proud after creating a new article and want others to read it; if you want you can add the names of articles you've created to your user page for others to see. Worrying about things like when will the article created be reviewed or why isn't it indexed by Google, etc., however, seem to worrying about things that are not really all that important to being here to build an encyclopedia. All editors are WP:VOLUNTEERs who should be working in collaboration with others to try an improve the overall quality of Wikipedia, not really trying to seek some kind of individual recognition for their efforts. Many times simply not getting any feedback at all can be a good indication that you actually made a positive contribution in some way since most people only receive comments when they've done something wrong.

About the article Muhammadu Bako III, some things you might find helpful are WP:SEEALSO, H:FOOT#Reference lists: the basics, WP:CITELEAD, WP:BOMBARD, WP:ELCITE and WP:CS#Avoid embedded links. You might also want to take a look at items 13, 15 and 19 of WP:ELNO. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:12, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Akgideens, we really have no control over what other organisations do. All we can do is gently suggest which articles have been reviewed and are likely meet project standards. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 07:19, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Template:Unconstructive vandalism refraintag

Is my template, Template:Unconstructive vandalism refraintag, okay? -- Bank: Bank Robbery started a robbery (🚨) 09:02, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I might be missing something, but what is the purpose of this new template and how does it differ from the numerous existing ones (Wikipedia:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace/Multi-level_templates), and particularly Template:Uw-disruptive1 or Template:Uw-vandalism1? Hug^syrup 09:59, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm with Hugsyrup - what is the purpose of this template? We already have a series of escalating User warning templates for use when dealing with vandalism, I would discourage you from designing and using a non-standard one. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:48, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

This seems to almost exactly duplicate {{Uw-vandalism2}}, which does not seem helpful. In addition, it forces a default signature, without a timestamp, and ignores a user's custom signature. This is poor practice. I agree with the questions above, what is your intent here, Bank Robbery? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 11:32, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

​What’s an intent? -- Bank: Bank Robbery started a robbery (🚨) 11:42, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Bank Robbery, In this context, "intent" means "purpose" or "intention". In short I am asking, "what do you mean to do here?" or "Why are you creating this template?" DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 11:48, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

​​​Anyway, now I’ve changed the template usage and name. I want it to show a status. I don’t know how to code with JavaScript nor Lua, so how can I make it? I want the following to happen: if the parameter “online” is ‘y’ or ‘yes’, it will show a Userbox for online, and same for the parameters offline, busy, in class, asleep, homework, and other parameters that I want to add (though I haven’t made the parameters yet). How can I make this? -- Bank: Bank Robbery started a robbery (🚨) 10:12, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Bank RobberyNo need for javascript or lua. In your template, use a parser function #switch. Test the parameter value, and in each case display one of your boxes. Easy enough. Since you changed the name and the usage so totally, you might want to clean up the redirects left behind by the moves you used with {{db}}. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 13:56, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

​How about changing the older redirects to the template you’ve mentioned above? -- Bank: Bank Robbery started a robbery (🚨) 23:41, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Bank Robbery There is no reason to clutter up the template space with a redirect from a name that wss never in use, and that has nothing to do with the current use of the destination template. The whole point of a redirect is to take readers from a term they might have searched for to the page that will actually be useful. When a page is moved a redirect is automatically created from the old name to the new name, in case anyone might have linked to the old name or be searching for it. But when the old name existed very briefly as only a draft, and there is no similarity of function or purpose, there is no value in such a redirect. That is why I suggest having it deleted. Leaving it around can only confuse. A redirect can't be at the same name it is redirecting to -- it doesn't work like that. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:58, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

So back to the switch thing. How do I apply it? Can you give me the instructions please? -- Bank: Bank Robbery started a robbery (🚨) 10:37, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

replace title

I tried to replace the title Situational analysis by Situational logic. The new title just redirects to the old. How eliminate the old? Thanks.TBR-qed (talk) 16:24, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @TBR-qed: I see you have already proposed the move on the talk page. You need to wait for consensus before the page is moved. RudolfRed (talk) 16:38, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, TBR-qed, and welcome to the Teahouse. That is a move and is not done by editing the source article. Moves should only be done when they are obvious,m or have consensus. There is already a move discussion in progress on the proposal you mention, please wait for consensus to develop. See requested moves for the process. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:41, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I waited a week and saw no talk. How long must I wait?TBR-qed (talk) 17:51, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Verifiable

I don't understand what gets deleted and why. Women In Technology Internation was deleted and recreated. I looked at the wayback machine and I can't understand what happened. Also, I don't understand what I need to do for Cathy Colman's page. I worked on it at a Wikipedia hack-a-thon for women and it seemed ok. I'm just trying to learn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VidLit (talk • contribs) 22:48, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello VidLit, the article Women in Technology International was deleted in 2018 as it included copyrighted text and was promotional enough to be considered an advertisement. It was then recreated the next month. Your article Cathy Colman is quite good, it just needs additional citations so that people can verify the information is correct. – Thjarkur (talk) 23:10, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I's not just a matter of verifying the information. It needs to cite sources that discuss the subject, so as to establish that's she's notable in Wikipedia's sense. Maproom (talk) 23:28, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello VidLit, and welcoem to the Teahouse. must agree with Maproom above, the article Cathy Colman does not in my view clearly demonstrate the notability of Colman. I will add that reliabbel and independent sources that discuss Colman's work can also be sufficient for this. See our guideline for the notability of authors and our guideline for the notability of people in general. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:07, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Any way to view a deleted revision?

I spent a good amount of time on a revision a few days ago. An administrator deleted it because it came across too promotional. I'm looking to revise and make it more neutral but because it was deleted, I cannot view my original revision and might have to start from scratch. Any way I can view my original revision so I don't have to start over? Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kadekl (talk • contribs) 01:14, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Usually you can ask for it to be made into a draft for you to work on. See WP:REFUND. This cannot be done in some cases, such as if there are copyright issues. RudolfRed (talk) 00:39, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Kadekl, welcome to the Teahouse. The above reply refers to deleted pages. I guess you refer to revision deletion of specific edits to a still visible page. If you actually just refer to a reverted edit which is still visible in the page history then you can find it by clicking "diff" at Special:Contributions/Kadekl. If "diff" is not a link then which edit was it? Administrators like me can still see your deleted revisions. Old edits are usually visible to everybody in the page history and not deleted for being promotional but some of your edits were deleted because they were judged to be copyright violations. I'm not going to publicly post an edit which includes a copyright violation but if you enable email at Special:Preferences then I can mail it. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:50, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Kadekl, and welcome to the Teahouse. It appears that no article, draft, or other page you worked on has been deleted. That is what RudolfRed is talking about above -- often people come to the Teahouse in that situation. It seems that in your case a number of editd that you made were reverted. In that case, the best way is to: 1) look at the reasons given in the edit summary of the revert, if any, and consider if the editor who reverted might have a point; 2) If you still feel that your edit was proper, post on the talk page of the articel (or other page) you were editing, and explain what the reasons for your edit(s) were and why you feel it should not have been reveerted. Concentrate on how it might improve the article, not on how much effort yiou put in to it. It would be a good idea to ping the user who reverted your edit in this duscussion. Say it was the famous User:Example. You can do that by including {{|ping|Example}} or {{|U|Example}} in your comment. Be sure to sign the comment with four tildes (~~~~)) or the ping will not work. YTour post may lead to a discussion and perhaps your view will be favored, or some compromise will be devised. But it may be that the other view will be favoed, or that it will simp0ly be ignored. In thsat case, don't get too upset or attached to any one edit. Go on to make others instead. I am not sure which of your edits you are currently most unhappy about. If you indicate thsat here, I will at least look at it. That is all that I can promise at this point. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:59, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hi Kadekl. If your question is related to the discussions you're having with Dennis Bratland on your user talk page, then I don't think WP:REFUND will be of any help to you since that is for requesting that a deleted page be restored, not that content removed from an existing page be restored. Administrators tend to only WP:REVDEL content as a last resort, e.g. they feel it's not of any encyclopedic value to Wikipedia, it's a serious copyright violation or it's a serious biographies of living person policy violation. In the first case, different administrators may have different opinions, but in the last two cases pretty much no administrator is going to restore the content for you. So, you need to figure out why it was revision deleted and then ask Dennis what your options are; maybe he'd be willing to email you a copy of it. You could also try asking for assistance at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard and perhaps another administrator will email you the content, but I suggest you try Dennis first as a courtesy. To be honest, it might just be easier and faster for you to go back to the source you used and simply try and re-write the content in a more neutral manner; then, perhaps this time around be a little WP:CAUTIOUS and propose its addition on the relevant article talk page first just to see what others think. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:07, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate everyones responses. Thanks PrimeHunter, I've enabled email. Let me know if you need me to do anything before sending it over. I'll use it to re-write and then propose on the talk page. Kadekl (talk) 07:28, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

@Kadekl: Which edit was it? Special:Contributions/Kadekl shows deleted edits to three articles. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:25, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

About my Talk page

Can you help my archive messages in my User talk:Jake The Great 908. It gets hard on my smartphone's little screen (as compared to my PC) to view my Talk messages. Thank you! Jake The Great!📞talk! 01:01, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Jake The Great 908, Check out WP:ARCHIVE. This will give you instructions on how to archive a page. Interstellarity (talk) 01:20, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Jake The Great 908. There are different ways to archive a page, and you can find out more about them at H:ARC. Some are actually quite simply in that you simply copy and paste posts from one page to another; others are more complex and involve automatic archiving. You could also simply blank your talk page if you want. So, you might also want to just look at some random user talk pages to see how others have done it. Once you figure out which way you want to archive your talk page, you can try to do it yourself, add a {{Help me}} template to your user talk page to see if someone will do it for you, or ask for assistance at WP:HD. One of the Teahouse hosts may also be willing to do it for you as well if you let them know how you want the page archived.

If you only seem to be having issues when using your phone, one possible alternative to archiving might be to simply use the "desk top" mode when using your phone; this will display the contents of the page the same way as it would be displayed for you PC, just on a smaller screen. If you scroll down to the very bottom of the screen when using your phone, you should an option to switch to "desk top mode" or something like that. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:25, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Delete my user page

How do i delete my user page?— Preceding unsigned comment added by STATEASSASIN (talk • contribs) 01:07, 27 November 2019 (UTC)‎

@STATEASSASIN: You may place {{Db-userreq}} on it. RudolfRed (talk) 01:14, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi STATEASSASIN. Please take a look at WP:UP#DELETE for more specific details. Bascially, if you simply want to blank your user page, then (1) go to your user page, (2) click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the screen, (3) remove the content, and (4) click "Publish changes". Your user page will still be there, it will just be empty. On the other hand, if you want to delete the page outright so that it becomes a red link (i.e. no longer exists), follow the suggestion given above by RudolfRed. However, if what you want to do is delete your account so that there's no record of you anywhere on Wikipedia, then, in principle, you cannot have such a thing done for the reasons given in WP:UN#Deleting and merging accounts. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:37, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Moved draft to page, but not sure it was correctly done

Hello. I've been trying diligently to do things correctly, as the last thing I want to do is create more work for other people. Each time I think I understand, I manage to do something else incorrectly. Sorry.

I drafted an article in my sandbox with many edits until it was exactly the way I wanted it. I then moved it into an article based on what I understood reading in tutorials: the problem is, I'm pretty sure I did it wrong. I think I moved my sandbox into a new space with a new name/redirect, as it now reflects all the edits I've ever done in my sandbox for this and multiple other articles.

As my newly created page reflects all the previous edits from my sandbox, is there something I could do to fix that? Such as create a new blank page and merge all the details into it? Or can it be resolved by other means so the history reflects the moment the article was created?

The page in question is Joseph Penrose Ash

Thank you. Radar488 (talk) 06:27, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello Rader488 and welcome to the Teahouse.

Your article appears to consist of original research and fails to establish the notability of your subject according to WP:NMILITARY. I suggest you move it back so it can be worked on without being in danger of being deleted.

As for the obsolete history entries, this can be solved by an administrator doing a HISTSPLIT. Don't try to fix this problem yourself (it will just make the admin's work harder). In the future, when you start work on a new subject, create a userspace draft which will also have the advantage of giving a more useful name to your draft than "sandbox". — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:26, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

@Radar488: just to add to the comment above, I can see you've worked hard on this article and it looks pretty good at first glance, but when I examine the sources it seems to be a mix of primary sources (historical registers, scans of military documents, etc) and sources that cover events surrounding Joseph Ash, but don't talk about him in detail or at all. You have then taken those sources and used them to piece together information about Ash - hence this being potentially original research as mentioned above. That would be great work for a history essay or academic work, but it is not how we write Wikipedia articles. For Wikipedia articles, what we are mostly interested in are secondary sources: what have other people already written about this individual in books, newspapers, journals etc? And if other people haven't already written about him then unfortunately, for our purposes, he is not notable. But please don't be disheartened by the response as it's clear you are a good writer and can contribute a lot to Wikipedia. Hug^syrup 09:59, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

• Hello, Radar488. Others have already commented on the original research and synthesis issues. I can't seriously add to to what they have said. But i want to address your original question. When an editor moves a page, all of its history is moved. If the page is a sandbox that has been used for multiple different purposes, the history of all those unrelated edits is moved with the page. It is possible to do a history split, but only an admin can do this, and it takes significant effort. If you want, i will do such a split in this page, but I urge you in future to start drafting in clean userspace or draftspace pages. If you want to start drafting a page about John Jay Jones, say, create User:Radar488/John Jay Jones or Draft:John Jay Jones. Thre will thus be no unrealted history to worry about. Save your sandbox for practicing editing techniques, testing templates, and the like, not part of the drafting of any future article. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:00, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

My thanks to everyone who offered help and advice. Your point is taken about original research, and now I can see the distinction; unfortunately it is what I was classically trained to do, and a hard habit to break when I am on a mission. With that being said, for that reason at this particular moment there is probably not a lot I can add to Wikipedia, so I probably will not spend too much more time muddying the waters. More likely the work would be more usefully applied in a blog or article elsewhere— in the meantime, I will move the article back to my draft space so I can save my work elsewhere. Thanks. Radar488 (talk) 19:53, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Actor Profiles

Hello, I just had a little inquiry about this. I was just curious to how I go about creating a Wikipedia Page based on an Actor that doesn’t have one. Is this something I am able to go about creating and then get approval or is it more so something that a Wikipedia Writer would do?

Thanks, Brody — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brody69 (talk • contribs) 07:19, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

@Brody69: you can certainly create one - there is no such thing as a ‘Wikipedia writer’ as such: anyone and everyone can write articles and make changes to them. That said, creating a new article is one of the hardest things to do correctly on Wikipedia as you must be sure that the subject (the actor in this case) is notable by Wikipedia’s standards, and that you have sufficient reliable sources to back that up. In essence this means the actor must have been written about in several reliable, independent publications that cover them in detail (not just a mention as part of a bigger article). If you are sure that you have those sources, then you can create a draft and submit it for review. I’d suggest taking a look at WP:YFA for more info on exactly how to create the article. Hug^syrup 07:47, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Brody69. The first thing to understand is that actors don't have Wikipedia profiles; they have Wikipedia articles written about them. The two things might seem to be the same thing and maybe out in the real world they sort of are, but on Wikipedia they have very different meanings. Please take a look at Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything, Wikipedia:Notability (people) and Wikipedia:Too soon to first do a bit of self-assessing as to whether the actor-in-question should actually have an article written about them. If after doing that you still feel the are Wikipedia notable enough for such an article to be written, take a look at Help:Your first article and Help:Referencing for beginners for some general information on how to write an article. Try and understand that writing a proper article in accordance with Wikipedia's various policies and guidelines can be a pretty hard thing to do even for pretty experienced editors. Many first attempts often end up deleted for one reason or another. So, if you're not very familiar with Wikipedia, you might want to take the Wikipedia:Adventure and then try and learn how to edit by working on improving existing articles first; you can always try and create an article at a later date once you've got a little more experience under your belt.

Some other Wikipedia pages you might want to look at for reference are Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Writing about yourself, family, friends. I'm not sure if they apply to you, but from looking at User:Brody69/sandbox it looks like they might. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:52, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

where should policy changes be proposed?

I have recently had a couple of "run-ins" involving the existence of unregistered editors. My latest was to discover that an unregistered editor had decided to "Americanize" the spelling of an external link. So while editing the page, I discover that the link is broken and essentially wind up chasing down how it is that the link initially had the correct (i.e. "working") British spelling, and someone (i.e. an unregistered editor) subsequently "fixed" it.

Of course, registered editors can be just as bad about making mistakes, but with registered editors, there's the possibility that they will learn from their mistakes, whereas with unregistered editors, the likelihood of this is greatly reduced.

I am guessing that the reason WP allows unregistered editors is just the novelty of the idea that one can edit Wikipedia without even having to register, but it is really a counter-productive policy.

I presume the Teahouse is not the right place for such discussions, so please advise where I should be raising this issue, and feel free to include your opinion of just how slim the likelihood of such a policy change would be. Fabrickator (talk) 08:50, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Fabrickator Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You can discuss or propose the formation of new policies at the Village Pump. However, I would suggest that you review the perennial proposals list, as you are not the first person to have this idea. I'm not sure that I agree with the premises of your proposal, but you are free to discuss it. 331dot (talk) 08:57, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Editing. 331dot (talk) 08:58, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

@Fabrickator: There is a current discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Require registration to edit. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:32, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Fabrickator, do see Wikipedia:Perennial_proposals#Prohibit_anonymous_users_from_editing. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 14:03, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

PrimeHunter, DESiegel: I had gone through the "perennial proposals", but had not noticed the "village pump" discussion. Whew! Makes one wonder about governance, i.e. how the WP community even decides which of several variations should be considered, never mind how it is decided which one (if any) of the proposals ought to be implemented. I might find myself drifting into a "meta-discussion", but there would really be nothing productive about that. My sense is that there are clearly benefits to be had from mandating registration, but I can't see how to reach the consensus required to implement such a change. Anyway, thanks for the pointers! Fabrickator (talk) 18:25, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I need a page edited. PLEASE HELP!

I'm not sure if this is the proper way to go about this. My boss wants me to update her Wikipedia page and has provided me with a couple sources for verification. Wikipedia won't allow me to make the edits due to conflicts of interest. How can I submit these edits? Every time I try they're reverted back. Please help! Relaxandlaugh (talk) 15:28, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

@Relaxandlaugh: Welcome to Wikipedia, and to The Teahouse. As a rule, we much prefer not to people to edit articles about themselves, or their boss. However, if you wish to do so, you should submit these edits on the Talk Page of your boss's article, where other editors can review them and then implement them for you. Before you do any more editing, however, it is essential that you read WP:PAID and place the required disclosure on your user page. I will also put a note on your talk page to remind you, and so that other editors can see that you have been informed. After that, I suggest you read WP:COI to familiarise yourself with the rules of editing with this sort of conflict of interest. Hug^syrup 15:36, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

@Relaxandlaugh:. Also, I see you have already been given this information two days ago here as well as by Theroadislong on your talk page, and still have not made the required declaration. You must do this or you risk being blocked. And please do not keep asking the same question in multiple places - it creates confusion and wastes people's time. Hug^syrup 15:46, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't mean to cause problems. I'm posting in multiple places to maximize exposure so I can solve this. I've read the links you and the other use sent but I literally can not figure out how to do these things. I've said in numerous posts I'm not that smart, which I understand is frustrating to deal with. I want to declare my COI as well and everything else but I don't know how. The links you provide lead me in a rabbit hole of page after page as I can't figure out how to make these changes to my profile. Relaxandlaugh (talk) 16:02, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

DO NOT post in multiple places, you have been told more than once about it. It is disrespectful to all of the VOLUNTEER users that are using THEIR OWN time to answer YOUR question. They are not here to serve you. - X201 (talk) 16:06, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

@Relaxandlaugh: There is no need to maximize exposure, especially when every time you post, you quickly receive an answer. I hate to say it but, while people at these boards tend to be very helpful, we have to assume a basic level of competence to use wikipedia and to follow instructions when we link to them. If you struggle with that, then maybe editing wikipedia is not for you.

For now, to make the disclosure: click on your username here: user:Relaxandlaugh, this would normally take you to your userpage, although you will probably find that it prompts you to create your user page as no one has yet created it, that is fine. Add this into the page: {{paid|employer=ACME|article=Example}} replacing 'Acme' with the name of your boss, and 'Example' with the name of the article you have been asked to edit. Then click publish page. This will fulfil the requirement to disclose your status as a paid editor on your userpage. Do this before you make any further edits. After that, you can continue the discussion that I see you have already started at Talk:Dipa_Shah. Hug^syrup 16:42, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I will use this link to update my profile. And yes I agree as I've said in other posts I have no interest, or skill, in editing pages and am only doing this as per a request from my boss. Relaxandlaugh (talk) 16:50, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Heads up info so that more time isn't wasted: The article in question is Dipa Shah. The OP claims that this actress has changed her name. No reliable sources have been provided to authenticate it. IMDB have changed her name, but I don't know what info they based the change on. - X201 (talk) 16:09, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Page views for WikiProject articles?

Hello and thank you for reading. I am interested in working on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Breakfast and would like to get a picture of which pages are getting more views than others so I know where to direct my attention. Is there an easy way to do that? Anything else that I’m missing, or helpful things to know about working on such a project? I am new to Wikipedia editing. There’s so much to learn. -KathrynJZ (talk) 18:19, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

You appear to have found the correct location by now, it is indeed at User talk:Community Tech bot/Popular pages config.json :) – Thjarkur (talk) 21:45, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

@Þjarkur: Yay! :) I really appreciate you following up. I was not sure I was doing that right, but I'm glad I don't seem to have broken anything. Thank you! -KathrynJZ (talk) 22:23, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Biography

Please I need a particular Editor to upload a biography for me... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gbemileke Jeremiah (talk • contribs) 2019-11-27T16:59:37 (UTC)

Hello, Gbemileke Jeremiah. Did you read the reply to your previous question? It appears that you think the issue is simply who "uploads" the material: I'm afraid it's not. The biography you have prepared, unless it has been written by an experienced Wikipedia editor, is almost certainly inappropriate. Writing a Wikipedia article is one of the hardest tasks, because 1) it requires finding and evaluating several reliable, published sources, wholly independent of the subject; 2) it requires summarising what those sources say and nothing else, and 3) it requires making sure that the resulting text is neutral and not slanted either way. Do you see why this is especially difficult for the subject or somebody closely associated with the subject? They have to forget most of what they know about the subject.

Please have a look at DES's long list of steps in his answer to the next question below. That is what anybody who wanted to write an article about you would need to do. If you are really keen to have an article about you (and do have a look at WP:an article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing), then your best bet is to start through those steps. If you have got through the first step successfully, you will have a much better chance of getting somebody interested in working with you. But if what you want is to promote yourself, or add to your on-line presence, then please do so somewhere other than Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 18:51, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

New to editing articles. Could use some friendly advice

Switfoot (talk) 17:13, 27 November 2019 (UTC)Hi Hosts, I'm basically brand new to (editing) Wikipedia and I've read that one way to get started is to pick a niche that you know a little about and isn't well covered here and dig in. I've decided to focus on the podcast industry, how it's all put together, and the major players and had my first article accepted a few days ago (Dolly Parton's America). It seems that a lot of my favorite podcasts don't have entries so I was going to start filling them in.

Anyway, things have been going along ok, and then today I started putting together a stub for Nicholas Quah and his Hot Pod newsletter. These are the first industry news sources for the podcast industry, and I figure that since people cite them all the time in other articles that they should at least have small wiki entries. But I couldn't find a ton of sources or material easily and so they are basically just stubs. Maybe I should have realized that these would be recommended for deletion. I didn't do a great job with them. So I'm starting to make my case in the talk section of those articles.

But maybe someone can help me understand the right way to do all this. As I said, I'm basically brand new to editing articles, but wanted to get started. I was going to probably put together 10 or 20 podcast related articles this month, but if I'm misunderstanding the nature of notability maybe I shouldn't?. Switfoot (talk) 17:13, 27 November 2019 (UTC)switfootSwitfoot (talk) 17:13, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Switfoot I think you are misunderstanding the nature of notability here on Wikipedia. The prime way of demonstrating thsat a topic is notable is via the General notability guideline. This requires multiple Independent published reliable sources, each of which discusses the topic in some detail and depth. Exactly how much depth is needed is a judgement call, and standards vary from one editor to another, but if there aren't several paragraphs devoted to the topic, it is probably not enough. Creating articles from a blank start is one of the harder tasks here on Wikipedia, and I fear that most podcasts aren't notable, in the special sense that Wikipedia uses that term, just as most local newspapers aren't notable.DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:53, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

However, below are sokme steps which often lead to successful articles:

• First, review our guideline on notability, our policy on Verifiability, and our general notability guideline (GNG). Consider whether your subject clearly meets the standards listed there. Also, check if the topic is already covered, perhaps under a different spelling or in a section of an article about a wider topic. You will waste a lot of time, if you create a new article, and then find that the encyclopedia already has an article about that.
• Second, read how to create Your First Article and referencing for beginners and again consider if you want to go ahead.
• Third, If you have any connection or affiliation with the subject, disclose it in accordance with our guideline on Conflict of interest. If you have been or expect to be paid for making edits, or are making them as part of your job, disclose this according to the strict rules of the Paid-contribution disclosure. This is absolutely required; omitting it can result in you being blocked from further editing.
• Fourth, gather sources. You want independent, professionally published, reliable sources with each discussing the subject in some detail. If you can't find several such sources, stop; an article will not be created! Sources do NOT need to be online, or in English, although it is helpful if at least some are. The "independent" part is vital. Wikipedia does not consider as independent sources such as press releases, or news stories based on press releases, or anything published by the subject itself or an affiliate of the subject. Strictly local coverage is also not preferred. Regional or national newspapers or magazines, books published by mainstream publishers (not self-published), or scholarly journals are usually good. So are online equivalents of these. (Additional sources may verify particular statements but not discuss the subject in detail. But those significant detailed sources are needed first.)
• Fifth, use the article wizard to create a draft under the articles for creation project. This is always a good idea for an inexperienced editor, but in the case of an editor with a conflict of interest it is essential.
• Sixth, use the sources gathered before (and other sources you may find along the way) to write the article. Cite all significant statements to sources. Do not express opinions or judgements, unless they are explicitly attributed to named people or entities, preferably in a direct quotation, and cited to a source. Do not use puffery or marketing-speak. Provide page numbers, dates, authors and titles for sources to the extent these are available. A title is always needed. Submit the draaft when you thimnk it is ready for reviewq. Be prepared to wait a while for a review (several weeks or more).
• Seventh, when (well perhaps if) your draft is declined, pay attention to the comments of the reviewer, and correct the draft and resubmit it. During this whole process, if you face any unresolvable editing hurdles, or cannot comprehend any editing issue, feel free to post a request here or at the help desk and ask the regulars. Repeat this until the draft passes review.

Congratulations, you have now created a valid Wikipedia article. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:53, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks DES I've got some reading to do. Switfoot (talk) 18:28, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Good luck on your reading! And even though it seems daunting at first - Wikipedia always needs people willing to step up and plug a little gap in an interest somewhere. Not every podcast will be notable enough for an article, but some definitely will - I'm honestly surprised that Dolly Parton's America didn't have a page yet.

You might want to check out podcast awards for sources, as I've found that mainstream media focus a lot on the podcasts hosted by celebrities, whereas podcast awards feature moreso dramas and fiction. (However, make sure you've got more than just awards in your sources!) Good luck on your Wikipedia journey! --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 23:07, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Does Wikibooks have it's own Teahouse?

I have some instruction manuals I would like to put on Wikibooks. Does Wikibooks have its own Teahouse? How do you ask questions specifically about Wikibooks? Shenaw2016 (talk) 20:10, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Shenaw2016. I don't work at Wikibooks but see wikibooks:Wikibooks:Reading room. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:34, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Request feedback on my first edit

Hi, I just performed my first edit and was hoping to get some feedback. The page is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercavitation, which is on the list of articles needing copy edit. I'm not sure what level of edit is desired. I edited the first two paragraphs for errors and to smooth out rough patches. I'd like to know if the level of my edit is too light, too heavy, or just about right. I tried to not alter the meaning of the text. If my edits are too heavy, please let me know and I will undo the edits and re-edit with a lighter touch. Also, please let me know if there is any guidance on editing levels for Wikipedia articles (in addition to the Be Bold page). Thanks and I'm looking forward to helping reduce the backlog of articles needing copy edit! — Preceding unsigned comment added by CopyEditTechSurf (talk • contribs) 23:28, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

You have done a good job in your editing of Supercavitation, CopyEditTechSurf. I went over the same two paragraphs closely, and changed a few more things. The only repetitive things you missed are small and frequent editing errors you will see fairly often in Wikipedia articles: too few commas, and (especially in articles started some time ago) the use of two spaces following a period (full stop). If you have the inclination, you can use the "red pencil" more heavily, as I have done. Thanks for your copyediting efforts!--Quisqualis (talk) 02:23, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

@CopyEditTechSurf: Note, however, that some elements of comma use vary according to who you ask, even at Wikipedia. See MOS:COMMA, this search of the MoS, and this search of WT:MOS.

The use of double spaces after a period is also a matter of personal style, and is not generally to be changed if it is consistent throughout the article. It makes little difference in the size or performance of the wikitext, and no difference in the appearance of the rendered article. See the intentionally ambiguous non-prescription at MOS:DOUBLE SPACE and one of many discussions at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 183#Double spaces after period?. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 07:22, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks so much for reviewing my edit and providing the valuable feedback that I needed. I now have a much better understanding of copy editing practices on Wikipedia, and I'm ready for my second edit, yeah!. CopyEditTechSurf (talk) 14:08, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons copyright credit

According to the Creative Commons policy, if you want to take an image from their collection and post it on a different social platform not connected to any of the wikis, you must give credit to the creator. Where do I find the names of the creators? When I click on the image files, I will often see a section saying "author" followed by the name of a Wikipedia account. Does this mean I need to show the creator's Wikipedia user name in the credit and not their real name?Prana1111 (talk) 01:02, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

You do not have to find out the person's real name, but you should click on the WikiMedia user name on the image page so you can look at their WikiMedia user page (not the same as their Wikipedia user page) just in case they have a note regarding their actual name in "Real Life" for the express purpose of giving credit.--Quisqualis (talk) 01:55, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Creating an non existent page

I want to create a page which i think would be beneficial and also the area doesn’t have its own wikipedia page to inform people about the area whereas the surrounding smaller areas have it own page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alikhan12345699 (talk • contribs) 02:20, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Alikhan12345699, and welcome to the Teahouse. Creating a new article, which is what you are proposing, is one of the harder tasks on Wikipedia, easy to get wrong and lead to frustration. Have a look at the advice in #New to editing articles. Could use some friendly advice a few sections above, where this is discussed in detail. The key is notability. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 02:48, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect info

Season 6 episode 16 winner of forged-in-fire is Caston not Cass — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrcaston (talk • contribs) 04:08, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Forged_in_Fire_(TV_series)#Season_6_(2019) RudolfRed (talk) 04:32, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello Jrcaston. You are better off raising this at the article's talk page. Exactly which sources support the information you want changed wasn't immediately clear to me. The article looks generally undersourced. So, discussing this with the editors who are interested and have previously contributed to it would be your best bet. Regards! Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 12:27, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Protests or riots?

I was recently looking at the Hong Kong protests article and it seems there iss a big debate about whether or not they should be to referred as such. My question is, what determines whether this certain event (or any event) is a protest or riot? Is this determined by textbook definition or by how the media calls it (especially since there are opposing sources by both sides)? Do a certain number of riotous actions or a certain percentage of people rioting make it a riot?

All answers are helpful and thanks in advance. YouGottaChill (talk) 04:57, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Judging from the detailings from the article itself (and by a numerous amount of sources, including media), they were mostly all referred to as protests, so the name remains the same, so I support keeping the protest tag instead of riot for now. I suggest you could add the debate as another section or page as well - happy editing! dibbydib ^💬/_✏ 06:23, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification! Also, how exactly do you start a debate page? YouGottaChill (talk) 15:13, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

When selecting the title of an article, editors need to reflect how the preponderance of reliable sources describe the topic. As far as I know, most reliable sources still call this six month campaign "protests". On the other hand, some individual Hong Kong protests recently have ended in violence but only two people have died so far. I grew up in the Detroit area and vividly remember the 1967 Detroit riot which took place when I was 15 years old. That riot lasted five days, 43 people were killed, about 1200 people were injured, and about 2000 buildings burned to the ground. Almost all reliable sources called the Detroit violence a riot at that time, though more recent sources sometimes call it a rebellion. Wikipedia editors simply cannot look at the big picture in Hong Kong, and on their own, conclude that it should now be called a riot. Editors are obligated to summarize what reliable sources say. No more and no less. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:47, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! I'll be sure to use reliable sources as the point of view regarding articles. YouGottaChill (talk) 15:13, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Found a page on the english wikipedia that is clearly fake

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

This event does not exist - I have knowledge of japan, and have spoken to 3 residents of Japan - this is not a real thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.52.232.33 (talk) 11:46, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Im not sure Id agree that its 'clearly' fake. There are a lot of results if you google Labor Thanksgiving Day Japan November 23. Timeanddate.com also list it as an official public holiday in Japan. Do the residents you spoke to all agree that there is no harvest festival on the 23rd of November? PrimalBlueWolf (talk) 11:57, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

@IP 108.52.232.33: You’re mistaken. It’s one of Japan’s official public holidays[1]. Perhaps the English translation of the original Japanese (労働感謝の日) seems odd since it’s technically not a “Thanksgiving” type holiday in the sense of the Thanksgiving Day celebrated in some other countries, but that seems to be the official English translation used by the Japanese government. — Marchjuly (talk) 12:47, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Omer Šipraga

Why don't you allow a good article to upload? Data sources are most relevant to a given area. Phylosofer (talk) 14:31, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

@Phylosofer: Could you help us answer your question by telling us what article you are referring to, and in what way it has been prevented from being created? Was it deleted, or was it submitted for review and declined? Hug^syrup 14:38, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

The article iOmer Šipraga is a biography of the partisan leader and secretary of the communist youth organization in the Municipality of Šiprage. He was only 16 at the time. I was not allowed to create directly but went to the sandbox (about a month ago).Phylosofer (talk) 14:55, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

As far as I am able to see, you have not made any edits other than to this page, and one edit to Šiprage. Did you create a draft in your own sandbox and then submit it for review? If so, can you please provide a link to your draft. Hug^syrup 15:00, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Phylosofer, all new editors are blocked from creating new articles directly into the encyclopedia, because that is the single most difficult task for a new Wikipedia editor to master. You are required to use Articles for Creation until you become autoconfirmed, and it is very strongly recommended that you use AfC for the first few articles until you get the hang of it. In short, the subject of your attempt to create an article isn't blocked for article creation, but rather you are restricted (irregardless of the subject) as to how you may create it. John from Idegon (talk) 23:34, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

We cannot make any other comment on the suitability of your subject for a biography because that wholly depends on sources, of which we have none. Perhaps if you read the two applicable notability guidelines you can make that judgement yourself. Those are WP:ANYBIO and WP:NPOL. What decides whether or not a given subject gets an article is how well the subject has been covered by reliable secondary sources, not anyone's perception of the subject's importance. John from Idegon (talk) 23:40, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Editing help

How do I delete Nazi and Fascist propaganda that you have sprinkled throughout numerous entries? For instance under Der Stűrmer, I have tried everywhere to delete this offensive statement. I have written to editors to

Isn't anyone else offended that this sentence is included about the Nazi paper, that it is a "serious paper of record," and that Der Stűrmer is was "sometimes even libelous"? I have been trying to correct this but Wikipedia refuses to correct fascist or Nazi propaganda. I had the same problem with their history of the National Front which I spent two days editing (I have written a highly cited book with several chapters on the National Front (Police Power and Race Riots; Urban Unrest in Paris and New York)) so I know the topic well. Every edit was rejected. Now you insist on this antisemitic Nazi propaganda statement. Next I will contact ADL and see if they can get you to delete it.

"Unlike the official organ of the NSDAP, the Völkischer Beobachter (the Völkisch Observer), which was a serious newspaper of record, Der Stürmer published sensationalist and sometimes even outright libellous material."

The Völkisch Observer was not a serious newspaper of record!!!!!!!! ARE YOU ALL NAZIS? HAVE YOU EVER HEARD ABOUT NAZI PROPAGANDA? HOW ABOUT TOTALITARIANISM? and Der Stürmer was not sometimes libelous. It was nothing but libelous, it was used to spread vile stories about Jews to drum up violence against them and support for the holocaust.

WTF is wrong with you people? Have any of your editors ever read a single book? Seen a single film on the holocaust or World War II? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cschnei (talk • contribs) 14:47, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

@Cschnei: If you have specific concerns about the content of an article, it is best to bring that up on the talk page of that article. Bear in mind that Wikipedia does not make claims or judgements about topics, but simply reports what reliable sources have said about them. If you have reliable sources with a different perspective then it may well be possible to get agreement from other editors to change the content. However, bear in mind that any articles about Nazi Germany and fascism tend to be closely monitored and any attempts to push a point of view that is not supported by sources will be swiftly reverted. You will also get a much better response from people if you moderate your tone and discuss this topics calmly and with civility. Hug^syrup 15:04, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

@Cschnei: unfortunately, you're not the only one who's encountered this problem. (Meh, I'll ping Hugsyrup too because the K.e.coffman's Signpost op-ed is worth reading.) Rotideypoc41352 (talk) 17:37, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

@Cschnei: I would also like to add that something over 100,000 different people make a total of millions of different edits to Wikipedia's nearly 6 million articles in every month, and virtually all of them have little or no knowledge of what any of the others have done. Neither has anyone any more responsibility or capability of supervising these edits than anyone else, so complaining what "you people" have "done" or "allowed" is highly insulting to virtually all of us (who are 100% unpaid volunteers, by the way), and certainly anyone who will be (voluntarily) monitoring this Teahouse in order to respond to requests.

As a registered user, you have no less (though no more) responsibility than anyone else to point out and/or correct (according to the community's rules) vandalism or otherwise inappropriate edits as you see them. Many people do so, all the time, by following the W:BRD process or by coming to the Help desk, Teahouse or other appropriate fora without being immediately rude to everyone else. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.217.209.178 (talk) 17:55, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

@Cschnei: on second look, the your edits to the article space to date only include those to Cathy Schneider and your 2015 edits to National Rally (France). A few points:

• Any revisions appear in the article history and user contribution history immediately.
• If undone, both the original edit and the undoing remain on the article history and contribution histories of the performing editors.
• Even if they are deleted (which only happens in extraordinary circumstances, like copyright violations), they remain publicly visible as grey text, crossed out.

If [f]or instance under Der Stűrmer, [you] have tried everywhere to delete this offensive statement, some technical hiccup may have prevented you from saving your edits to Der Stürmer, as well as whatever you may have written to editors. (The only edits of yours (again, to date) are to Hugsyrup's talk after this original post, this post, a talk page comment to some IP address, and an old 2015 talk page comment.)

You could try making some test edits to see if those stick, and go from there.

If you've done the edits you mentioned while signed out, you may have to kindly give us a pointer that would let us find these edits and take a look. You may also ask for help from those who have also edited in the subject area (which is why I wrote my first comment).

I understand that this topic clearly matters a lot to you, and I'm sorry you've had such a frustrating experience contributing. If there's anything else we can help you clear up, please feel free to reply. If you'd like my attention in particularly, kindly ping me by adding {{ping|Rotideypoc41352}} before your comment and ~~~~ after.

I also see you are a professor. Congratulations on the promotion! I think you may find some like-minded folks over at WikiEdu. They may also be able to give you some pointers on navigating Wikipedia as a member of academia. Rotideypoc41352 (talk) 19:34, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

• Rotideypoc41352, Wiki.edu helps academics design coursework using Wikipedia. They are not an association of professors who edit Wikipedia. John from Idegon (talk) 23:25, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

You're right, and I thought they could give a fellow professor some advice navigating Wikipedia, but that's neither here nor there. Rotideypoc41352 (talk) 00:25, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

• Cschnei, it is 100 % unacceptable to refer to anyone, but especially a fellow editor, as a Nazi, without reliable secondary sources to that fact. You should strike that. I realize that was basically hypothetical. That's the only reason you are not blocked now. John from Idegon (talk) 23:19, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Cschnei and personal attacks like this [2] and now this [3] are totally unacceptable. Theroadislong (talk) 11:19, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Title Change

I was clicking the random article button when I stumbled upon a small article about the NDCAC. I'm unable to change the article to the National Domestic Communications Assistance Center rather than the DCAC. Is it possible for anyone to change the name of the article?

Page: Domestic Communications Assistance Center NDCAC Official Page: https://ndcac.fbi.gov/

Thanks in advance. YouGottaChill (talk) 15:38, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi YouGottaChill, thank you for letting us know. I have moved the article accordingly. Moaz786 (talk to me or see what I've been doing) 16:27, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

A question about fair use of a comic image not on a page about the comic itself

I feel the article List of webcomic awards would benefit from more images illustrating the comics or people that have won awards. In particular, I'd like to illustrate the section on the Ursa Major Awards with some image from Housepets!, which has won the award nine of its sixteen times.

Wikimedia Commons has no image from Housepets!, and my reading of Template:Non-free comic is that it is likely only within that fair use policy to use such an image in an article on the comic itself. (Housepets! does not have an article as it is not considered notable.)

Have I correctly interpreted the fair use policy? Or could I use a panel or book cover from Housepets! to illustrate an article that covers the Ursa Major Awards? If so, how would I need to go about it to ensure such use is within fair use? HenryCrun15 (talk) 20:50, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, HenryCrun15. nd welcome to the Teahouse. The real key is the policy section of Wikipedia:Non-free content which copies from which copies from Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. Your idea might have trouble with points 3 (Minimal usage:), and 8 (Contextual significance). In particular you would need to make a case that the image would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. It is not true that a fair use image can be used only in an articel about its subject, but 8 is much easiere to demonstrate for such uses. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:16, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi HenryCrun15. As DES has pointed out above, Wikipedia's non-free content use policy is quite restrictive. For cover art (e.g. book covers, album covers), non-free use is generally allowed for primary identification purposes at the top of or in the main infobox of a stand-alone article about the work in question, but (as explained here) it's much harder to justify the non-free of such things in other articles or for other reasons. A comic cover might, for example, be allowed as a representative example the creator's work in an article about the creator, but there would typically need to be some sourced critical commentary particular to the cover art itself and how it's referred to as the representative work of said artist; even then though, there may be some who disagree and challenge the non-free use. Since the article you'd like to use the image in is a list article, any non-free use for individual entries of the list is highly unlikely going to be considered acceptable per WP:NFLISTS; in some cases, a single representative image used at the top of the article might be considered OK, but use for individual entries is typically not. If you'd like some more feedback on this from others, you can try asking at WT:NFC, but once again this type of non-free use over the years seems to have pretty much never been considered OK. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:01, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks DES and Marchjuly. Based on your advice I've decided not to include non-free samples of comics that won awards in this article. Instead, I'll be finding and perhaps including logos of awards organisations to provide context on those organisations. My reading is that this is more appropriate - adding a logo of an organisation to illustrate an article on that organisation appears well established by other articles as within fair use. HenryCrun15 (talk) 00:29, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

@HenryCrun15: Adding a non-free logo of an organization to the infobox or lead of a stand-alone article about that organization would most likely be OK; adding a non-free logo about of an organization mentioned in a subsection of another article about something else, no so much unless the logo itself is the subject of sourced commentary or otherwise critical discussed; essentially you'd be running into the same problems with WP:NFCC#3, WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFLISTS. Wikipedia's non-free content use policy encourages to try and keep non-free content use as minimal as possible; it's doesn't mean a non-free image can only be used in one article, but it usually means the more times an image is used the harder each additional use becomes to justify. Most of the time, content about an organization's choice of branding, etc. is going to be found (or expected to be found) in an article about the organization itself, or maybe an article about its history. I'm not sure such information would be encyclopedically relevant in an article such as a list articles about awards given out by lots of different organizations, which would make seem hard to justify any such non-free use as not be WP:DECORATIVE. If you feel, otherwise, then make sure to provide a separate, specific non-free use rationale (per WP:NFCC#10c and WP:NFC#Implementation) before adding any non-free files to the article so that others at least have something to assess; be advised though that just providing a rationale doesn't not automatically make a non-free use policy-compliant and others who disagree may challenge the use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:16, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Can I specify the fake news article?

Hi Senior users of Wikipedia,
Regarding the edit below,
Can I specify the fake news article? edit section "it was fake news" below
Actually, to support the previous ruling political party, The Chosun Ilbo created so many fake news to mislead the people, and it is tiny one of several examples. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 22:08, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

[The Chosun Ilbo]], one of the south Korean newspapers, reported on May 30, 2019 that Kim Hyok-chol, the lead working-level negotiator for North Korea at the Hanoi summit, was executed in March 2019, along with four other diplomats. The paper also reported that Kim Yong-chol, a top aide to Kim Jong-un, was sentenced to hard labor. However, it was fake news as Photos were later released on June 3, 2019 showing Kim Yong-chol alive and attending a musical performance alongside Kim Jong Un and Ri Sol-ju

Yes, certainly add the news articles that contradict the rumours, but perhaps refrain from using the expression "fake news" since these reports do not use that perjorative term. Dbfirs 02:41, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your guide: YES, perjorative term was missing from another article. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 19:16, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

References

Exclusive economic zone

Regarding:

Exclusive economic zone

The Wikipedia article "Exclusive economic zone" is very interesting, balanced and helpful. It's easy for non-experts to understand. I was wondering, however, if it is possible to add two maps. You already have maps called "EEZs in the Atlantic and Indian Ocean" and "EEZs in the Pacific Ocean." Would it be possible to add two maps similar to these? Specifically, one map showing "EEZs in the North Atlantic Ocean" and one with "EEZs in the North Pacific Ocean"? Ideally, using the same layout, colors, feel of the maps you already have. Adding yet another map called "EEZs in the Caribbean" would also be really intresting. Since most of the necessary data already is on maps elsewhere in this Wikipedia article, it may not be that difficult. Thanks for considering. BTW, I'd be happy to help but don't know who mechanically I would do this. -- Hugh

QUESTION: Would it be possible to add two maps? Specifically, add one map showing "EEZs in the North Atlantic Ocean" and add one with "EEZs in the North Pacific Ocean." Thanks for considering. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.28.181.206 (talk) 00:11, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Removed an accidental codeblock and fixed a link in this section (will not affect page _{touch wood ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)}) on 02:04, 29 November 2019 (UTC) by dibbydib ^💬/_✏

How to remove persistent language links from an article

I'm trying to remove the (below) Basque, Italian and Latin pages, that refer to the taxological article Lazarus taxon (the Italian article having been deleted), from appearing on the language box of the physics article the Lazarus effect. I tried making a null edit on Lazarus effect, purging the cache with ?action=purge, purging the local browser cache with ctrl+f5 and I also tried inspecting the wikidata page for any errors but there weren't any. I remember this happening to me in the past once and that time purging the page cache did the trick. I'm at my wits end here, what do I do?

(eu:Lazaro efektua, it:Lazarus Effect, la:Lazarenus_effectus) NinuKinuski (talk) 00:56, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

The problem appears to be a mix-up in the wrong Wikidata/Wikipedia links from "Lazarus effect" and "Lazarus taxon", which have different Wikidata items, and different pages at the various Wikipedias. I feel I should leave it to someone more involved in Wikidata to sort out. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 01:36, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

@NinuKinuski: The problem was that the article still had the manual eu, it, and la interwiki links at the bottom. I removed them here. It now shows just the de, sk, and zh links defined at d:Q2604707. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 10:35, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

why is wikipedia singling out asians?

Why is it "Asian" month?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:CF:4600:4F40:759A:8F3B:56BA:A556 (talk) 01:42, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Please elaborate? dibbydib ^💬/_✏ 01:56, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm guessing this is about Wikipedia:Asian Month. Discussions are at Wikipedia talk:Asian Month. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 02:29, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Asian month is not about Asians as a race, it is about content related to Asia as an area of the world, which isn't necessarily well represented on Wikipedia. Anyone can create an article about a topic related to Asia, not just Asians. We have no way of knowing the race of any user. 331dot (talk) 08:25, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

How and why does Wikipedia allow anyone to make such major changes as this one?

In the last couple of days, an editor created redirects from Ages of consent in North America and Ages of consent in South America, merging the content into Ages of consent in the Americas.

I realize that depending on where you went to school, you either learned that "America" is a single continent or that "North America" and "South America" are two distinct continents, but this is not really material to the question of whether it's perfectly okay for somebody to make such a change without obtaining any sort of consensus (having said that, I'm generally skeptical that WP has mechanisms that are particularly effective at settling disagreements such as this).

These additional questions occur to me:

• Would a regular editor be able to revert such a change (never mind that this would likely lead to an edit war)? Or would this require admin authority?
• Are the old "redirected" articles accessible (e.g. to examine edit history)? The inability to examine the history of edits from the redirected articles is a significant loss.

Fabrickator (talk) 04:13, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

The editor didn't appear to have gone through the processes described at WP:Merging. Yes, you can examine the history of the redirected articles. When it redirects you will see at the top left it says, for example: "(Redirected from Ages of consent in North America)", and you can click on the link there. --David Biddulph (talk) 04:41, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Fabrickator. Wikipedia is the encylopedia that anyone can edit (as long as they follow our policies and guidelines), and that open editing principle is what has made Wikipedia the world's #6 website, and by far #1 in originally written educational content. Only a relative few articles are protected from open editing, and only if they have been subject to chronic vandalism or other disruptive editing. So, any editor can redirect an unprotected article, and any editor can undo the redirect. There is no assumption that a challenged redirect should stand.

It is a really bad idea to predict an edit war in advance, at least without evidence. It is far better to assume good faith of your fellow editors and to try to discuss changes that you do not agree with. No one is obligated to seek consensus before making a bold edit, but if other editors object, discussion leading to consensus is the way to go. Despite your skepticism, Wikipedia has a variety of dispute resolution mechanisms available for you to use. Yes, the edit history of the vast majority of redirected articles is visible to anyone, except for the very small percentage of edits suppressed as copyright violations, libel, threats of violence, and the like. For what it's worth, I have no opinion about whether or not these redirects are appropriate. You should discuss that directly with the editor who made the redirects, and/or on the talk page of the target article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:11, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Are you sure that any editor can undo the redirect? I thought that move over redirect could be done by non-administrators only where there is just a single line in the page history? --David Biddulph (talk) 05:21, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

David Biddulph When I click on the "redirected" link, it sets "&redirect=no" in the url, but I don't see any way to see the history. Actually, I can get a "history" if I add "&action=history", but it only has the last couple of changes (i.e. associated with the merge). Also, supposedly the "talk" page was moved to be under the new name, but as far as I can tell, it's gone as well. Perhaps it was moved to an "archive", if so, I couldn't figure that out either. Fabrickator (talk) 06:19, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

You don't need to add "&action=history" manually to the url; just click the history tab. The history shows that the page was moved, so the history (and the talk page) moves with it. Click on the link to the new title, & see the history there. --David Biddulph (talk) 06:25, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

David Biddulph Here are the steps I am taking:

1. I click on the "redirected from" link, it takes me to the "redirect page".

2. I click on "view history", it shows me the revision history, but this shows just two edits, showing the information about the redirect.

Any idea what I'm doing wrong? Fabrickator (talk) 06:49, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

@Fabrickator: One half of the set was moved and the other was added into that one. The moved article was Ages of consent in North America. That one is now located at Ages of consent in the Americas, so its history is as well (everything but the most recent three edits are really the history of the pre-merge 'North America' article). The other one (Ages of consent in South America) had its content removed out of it and manually redirected (with the contents merged into the "new" article): that one does have its history at the location of the redirect with its name. AddWittyNameHere 06:58, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

• David Biddulph, it's my understanding that anyone can undo a redirect as long as there are no subsequent edits following the redirect. John from Idegon (talk) 07:02, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

​You are free to follow WP:Bold, revert, discuss and undo this edit and request at WP:RM/TR that the other page be moved back. I would however recommend that you start a discussion on the article's talk page first, pinging the other editor. Wikipedia encourages editors to be bold if they think they can improve an article. I don't see anything wrong with merging the articles to cover all of "the Americas" apart from the article being fairly long. – Thjarkur (talk) 13:06, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Follow-up to Primary Source Verification page

hi

I want to edit the page on the DataFlow group. I did not create the page though. I believe I can do this directly? or do I need to submit the edit form? I want to improve and update this page with some numbers for example and text. But when I click on the edit some coding opens up- is there a way to submit this to you and you could update? Also, I see some warnings highlighted on the page, looks like some other editors have expressed that? Not sure. e.g. The article contains content like an advertisement. Please advise how we can deal with that?

Thanks K — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dataflow1234 (talk • contribs) 06:13, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

@Dataflow1234:, welcome back to the Teahouse. No, you should not edit the article DataFlow Group directly. Some information about that has been added to your user talk page. Before you do anything else on Wikipedia, you will need to read and comply with this policy, and you should change your user name to one that only represents you as an individual. You can go here to request a user name change. --bonadea contributions talk 06:24, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. So you said i should avoid editing the dataflow page? Did you mean if i work for dataflow (which I do) i should not? I read the info on talk pages. I did not create the company page though. We want to update some facts about the company? As an employee, i should be first submitting a request to Wiki?

Thanks

K — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dataflow1234 (talk • contribs) 06:45, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

@Dataflow1234:, first of all you need to comply with the requirements described in WP:PAID, and you also have to request a user name change – user accounts with names that represent a company rather than an individual will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. After doing those things, you can start thinking about submitting edit requests. If you have questions about WP:PAID or changing your user name you can ask them, of course, but don't make any other edits until those issues are solved.

Please do not start new sections if you are responding to a post here – if you start a new topic you should start a new section, but when it's the same conversation it belongs in the same section. --bonadea contributions talk 07:13, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Okay thanks but I am not sure how to continue the conversation here as there is no option to respond to the thread. I am now trying using the edit option and seeing that works to respond to this thread. So after changing the user name and comply with the requirements, I can edit? Inspite of the fact that I work for this company? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dataflow1234 (talk • contribs) 09:02, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

I have confirmed my email address to change the user name under preferences but I still do not understand where is the moption to submit the user name to a new user name that is an individual name? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dataflow1234 (talk • contribs) 09:19, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Dataflow1234 You can make edit requests(click for instructions) on the article talk page, but you should avoid editing the article directly. Keep in mind that Wikipedia is interested in what independent reliable sources state, and not necessarily in what the subject wants to say about itself. Some things can be cited to the company itself(such as location, number of employees etc.) but most information should be from independent sources that those sources have chosen on their own to provide(not republished press releases or routine announcements).

You can submit a username change request at Special:GlobalRenameRequest. 331dot (talk) 09:21, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Dataflow1234. Changing your username doesn't mean that your conflict of interest goes away; in other words, you're going to still be considered to have such a COI regardless of what account you use because the COI is due to your connection to your company, not the account's connection to the company. Does this mean you can never edit the article about your company; no, but you're going to be expected to follow WP:PAID, WP:PSCOI#Steps for engagement and WP:COIADVICE when doing so. So, if you make a minor edit, e.g. fixing a typo or correcting some grammar, that pretty much any editor would feel is an improvement, then you're probably going to be fine as long as you leave an edit summary explaining why and mention your COI. On the other hand, if you start to try and remove/add blocks of content or otherwise rewrite large parts of the article, you may find yourself at odds with other editors. The best thing to do in such a case would be to make an edit request on the article's talk page and propose the change so that others can review it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:27, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Listing relevant endangered languages to specific articles (Could I get a clear explanation of the norms?)

I would like to ask what are the rules concerning adding yellow stars to articles written in minority languages that don't represent featured articles (on the list of languages on the left hand side).

I only found this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_articles but the guidelines aren't yet clear to me.

For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quechuan_languages In this case, the Quechuan Runa Simi article has a yellow star on the list of languages but is 2/3 of the way down the list.

Just like featured articles have a star, could an icon be used for example:

https://hsb.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbšćina https://dsb.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbšćina

The two Sorbian languages (Upper & Lower Sorbian) articles about the Sorbian languages.

Or to have a direct route to minority language article at the top of the article rather than at the foot of the page.

I reckon that this could would be of service to young people from generations that have lost of the use of their heritage language. By being presented with the article when they might not have known it existed it could inspire individuals to expand the article if it is lacking in depth and therefore lacking in knowledge-value which would present the main threat for a language's survival. I would be interested to see if this could be applied to many endangered languages. Thank you for your attention! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jiménez de Quesada (talk • contribs) 09:36, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

​For users who are logged in, the order of the languages shown is tailored to them based on which projects they visit most often. I thought this was a setting somewhere, but I can't find it. So if those websites are advertised in school and people visit them, they should show up in the sidebar for those readers. We currently only add stars to indicate article quality. What I think would be feasible were to make a feature request to the developers to sort the language sidebar based on user's location, so Sorbian could be shown higher up in Eastern Germany but not in Indonesia. – Thjarkur (talk) 11:38, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

@Þjarkur: Or maybe adding to the interface language dialog (that pops up from the gear icon) a section where the user can specify a list of preferred languages to be listed first. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 19:25, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Rocket Science - Company Page Creation Question

Good Morning,

I work for a 3 year old UK film company, Rocket Science, which has now financed and produced a dozen films and we wanted to try and create a wiki page. I tried previously a couple of years about but was declined and since then we've gone about our business. We now have citations on existing wiki pages of the company (one of our films earnt an Oscar nomination last year) and I wanted to check if a new attempt to create an entry for our company is likely to be verified as legitimate, or not.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At_Eternity%27s_Gate_(film)>

Thanks for your advice.

All the best,

Jonathan Lynch-Staunton Jonols71 (talk) 10:55, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Jonols71 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. First, you must review and formally comply with the conflict of interest and paid editing policies(the latter is a Terms of Use requirement and mandatory). Please note that Wikipedia has articles and not mere "pages"; this is a subtle but important distinction. Wikipedia articles must summarize what independent reliable sources state about subjects that meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability(in this case, that of a notable organization). For this reason, Wikipedia is not interested in what a company wants to say about itself, but in what independent, unaffiliated sources say about it. One of the company's films being nominated for an Oscar would probably merit the film an article(if it doesn't have one already); it would only merit the company an article if independent sources write about the company itself, and not just the film, getting an Oscar nomination.

It is much preferred that independent editors write about your company based on what they see in independent sources. Most users in your position have a difficult(though not impossible) time writing in the manner required of an encyclopedia article, and in using independent sources(which does not include staff interviews, press releases, or other primary sources). However, if you believe that you can write an acceptable draft, you can use Articles for Creation to create and submit your draft for an independent review. You may wish to read Your First Article before you embark on such an endeavor. 331dot (talk) 11:07, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Jonols71: Hi Jonathan, welcome to The Teahouse. First off, as you seem to wish to edit on behalf of the company you work for, it's very important that you read our policy on paid editing and our policy on editing with a conflict of interest. The first thing you should do is put a disclosure on your userpage that you are a paid editor. As to your question, having produced successful films may help, but the real key is has your company itself been the subject of substantial coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources? If the coverage is all of the films and doesn't mention Rocket Science, or only mentions it in passing, then all that does is establish that the films are notable but not the production company. On the other hand, if you can find three our four WP:reliable sources that cover Rocket Science in reasonable detail, then you should feel free to create a draft article and submit it for review. You can find out more about how to do this at WP:AFC. Hug^syrup 11:10, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

How to Cite for a topic without Notable Headlines

I am currently writing a bio page and my first submission was rejected because it needs "independent, reliable sources (such as from newspapers) to verify the content claimed."" Its about a state legislator whose name also appear on the wiki page for the state assembly. But in general news sites, he was hardly singled out for mentioning for article subjects in relevant issues i want to cite. He is mostly mentioned as a group, considering he is not a major house officer.

I provided many links to relevant news websites, yet it was rejected. Though I have done some reviews and changed some of the links to citations. Are there any more areas to look into? Here is the article by the way https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Kelechi_Nwogu — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dannyogolo (talk • contribs) 11:20, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Dannyogolo Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Members of state legislatures meet the notability criteria for politicians, so that is not an issue. Often, the only significant coverage the politician gets is about their campaign and/or election, especially if they are not in a leadership role(such as the leader of the legislative body or the party caucus of the body). Some of the sources you have in the draft might be acceptable, but you need to remove the promotional/opinionated wording ("Kelechi has shown love for fellow humans"; "Kelechi loves fashion and has an eye for unique dresses", "Kelechi loves hip hop and R&B music. He also hob-nobbs with the best of the music artistes in the industry", and so on). I'd start by just focusing on the person's election to the legislative body. It might help you to look at other articles on politicians to get an idea of how they are structured; I only know about American and European politicians, but some examples are Donald Trump, Susan Collins, Mitch McConnell, Sara Gideon, Janet Mills. 331dot (talk) 11:30, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Article not approved

Please help me with the article that I've made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noreen Ly (talk • contribs) 11:56, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Noreen Ly, the sandbox article requires more reliable sources. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 11:58, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Courtesy: draft is at User:Noreen Ly/sandbox. All of your references are either by the person or interviews of the person who has created a way of doing business. This type of content is not considered as valid to confirm notability of a person or business strategy. The reviewer Rejected your draft. That is more severe the Declined. In effect, this experienced reviewer is of the opinion that no amount of revision can get this topic to accepted status. David notMD (talk) 20:52, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Page title edit

Hello,

I am trying to add an accent in the title for the page of Arancha González, which is currently with the accent on the first 'a' in 'Gonzalez'.

Is this easily done without creating a mess? This should arguable also be done in other languages as well, eg French.

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

@TradeHack: I moved the page for you. Interstellarity (talk) 14:36, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks Interstellarity — Preceding unsigned comment added by TradeHack (talk • contribs) 14:48, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Photo link

How can I provide a link to a photo on Wikipedia or Commons without embedding the photo itself? GOLDIEM J (talk) 16:38, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

To provide a link from a talk page to a photo, put a colon at the start of the file name, as [[:File:filename.jpg]]. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:59, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

@David Biddulph: could've tagged me to notify me ( {{Re|user}} ), but thanks for the help👍

Draft moved to main space

Hello, My Draft Draft:The Voice Nigeria season 2 was moved to article space The Voice Nigeria (Season 2)
But I don't understand something because the draft page still shows that review is pending Pls I need to be enlightened Thank youTaymeedeeray (talk) 17:19, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Your draft was not moved to mainspace. The article The Voice Nigeria (Season 2) was created there by another editor. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:24, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

David Biddulph, it looks like the article was copy-pasted from the draft without attribution. That seems very wrong. Can we deleted the article as copyvio and let AfC decide the fate of the draft? Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 18:34, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Submission

I submitted an article on a Jamaican table tennis player named Joy Foster. I had it reviewed once before, and I made all the indicated changes, but I have not received any feedback since my last edit. Is there anything else that needs to be changed before the page is published? Here is the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Joy_Foster — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onydn89 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Onydn89, you would need to resubmit the draft for evaluation. There is a resubmit button at the bottom of that notice that says it was declined.

The subject is probably notable. But you seem to have misunderstood the comment that was left the last time it was reviewed. You have written the answer to why she's wikipedia notable, like it's your reply to that specific question to the reviewer. That's not what they meant. What they meant was you need to organise the article better to make it clear what makes her important at the outset. For example: Instead of starting the article with "Joy Foster was born in Jamaica in 1949", write something like "Joy Foster is a Jamaican table tennis player. She set the Guiness World Record as the youngest sportsperson to represent their country in an international match, when she participated in the West Indies Championship in 1958, aged eight. She is also the first and youngest recipient of the Sportswoman of the Year Award." Then you can proceed with elaborating exactly what happened in her life and career. Good luck! Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 18:57, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Dead Ends

There's a dead end in every mission that involves editing. How do I get through it????? -User:Prahlad Balaji — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prahlad balaji (talk • contribs) 19:58, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

This is regarding the "Earth" part of the Wikipedia Adventure. Are you sure you aren't just finished with the task and can therefore click "Next"? – Thjarkur (talk) 22:27, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Looking for Outside Advice: Where to go to resolve a particular dispute.

Preface: I'm frustrated by this situation and doing my best to try to maintain WP:GOODFAITH but I'm really struggling, which is why I came here in hopes of getting some independent advice from an uninvolved party before I do anything. Also, I have tried to navigate the Wikipedia administration process on my own twice now, and both times I got it wrong which resulted in basically my whole issue being ignored, which is somewhat embarrassing. I am also feeling very much "not heard" right now after spending weeks trying to resolve this issue on talk pages and failed administration attempts which is further challenging my resolve. My hope is that the people here will be more willing to take time to help walk a newbie like me through the appropriate processes and (hopefully) help me feel heard (even if the outcome is different from what I desire going in).

There are general sanctions on all blockchain and cryptocurrency pages. As far as I know, there are no other official restrictions in place besides the ones listed there, and the editors I am struggling to find common ground with seem to agree on that. The source of the dispute is that these other editors are treating all primary sources and trade sources for the entire space of Blockchain and Cryptocurrency as deprecated/blacklisted (WP:CONTEXTMATTERS and WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD are not being applied). They tell me that I should go to WP:RSN if I don't like it.

My question is whether their advice to "take it to RSN" is the appropriate course of action, or should I take the issue to one of the ANI boards since they are not following Wikipedia policy on WP:VERIFIABILITY and WP:RS.

Bonus Inquiry: From my point of view (which may be wrong, I'm fairly new!) they are basically implementing their own set of rules contrary to Wikipedia policies and guidelines and then telling me that I need to go convince a bunch of other people that the Wikipedia policies should be followed. It feels to me like the onus should be on them to convince a bunch of people that normal Wikipedia policies should not be followed in this case. I'm concerned that there is some reason I don't understand (due to my unfamiliarity with Wikipedia politics and administration process) that is causing them to want me to open the issue instead of them. For example, maybe they have witnessed that I have bunged up my two previous administration attempts and they are hoping I bung up this one too, or they know it is a lot of work to go through the process and they don't want to do it. If me going to WP:RSN is the appropriate course of action, can you help me understand why the onus is on me to craft and submit an official plea that just re-asserts that WP policy applies? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MicahZoltu (talk • contribs) 19:59, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal 3 —[AlanM1(talk)]— 22:48, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

AlanM1 Is that link for me? If so I'm not sure how it addresses my questions above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MicahZoltu (talk • contribs) 22:55, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

I think the link is for the rest of us here at this board to better understand what the situation is about – Thjarkur (talk) 00:20, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

The linked article is not what this is about. That is just something unrelated I stumbled on and started participating in while researching how to address my real problem. It is also not what I was referring to for my failed administration attempts.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MicahZoltu (talk • contribs) 00:28, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Other editors have given good explanations about why they disagree with your edits. It does take time to get used to editing here, but it's really not usual for people to get into so many different content disputes in their first weeks here. I do very much understand your frustration, but I would recommend just following the guidance of the other editors for now, and I'd recommend against posting on WP:RSN or WP:ANI. – Thjarkur (talk) 00:20, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate you taking the time to reply Þjarkur. Unfortunately, this response didn't result in me feeling heard, it feels like the same vague non-answer I'm getting elsewhere "there are rules, we can't explain them to you or point them out, just do what we say". I suspect that wasn't your intent, but it comes across as just "brushing me aside" rather than helping me understand what I'm doing wrong.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MicahZoltu (talk • contribs) 00:28, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

How to become an editor

How do I become an editor and start editing on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:120A:788:9894:FF90:869D:C0F (talk) 20:13, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi 2604:6000:120A:788:9894:869D:COF, and welcome to the Teahouse! You can be an editor by being bold and choosing to edit. If you're interested in an interactive tutorial, I would reccomend the Wikipedia adventure. If you have any other questions about editing, feel free to ask here. Clovermoss (talk) 20:51, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

I wish to update the Wikipedia page Theodore Rappaport

User:kgberg I am a public affairs officer at New York University Tandon School of engineering. I wish to update the Wikipedia page for Theodore Rappaport to indicate that he was elected to the Wireless History Foundation Hall of Fame In 2019. Footnote to that addition would be: https://wirelesshistoryfoundation.org/whf-hall-of-fame/ or http://wirelesshistoryfoundation.org/theodore-rappaport/. What would be the best means of doing this addition, which would be both to the first paragraph, right after mention of his having been elected as Fellow of the National Academy of Inventors in 2018 and also to the sidebar, as a bullet right below the bullet noting his having won the Eric Sumner award (2020)? Thanks I don't want to make the change if it risks flagging the article. Thanks for any suggestions or assistance!