Wikipedia:Teahouse

Cullen328, 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.)

Not ethical behavior of Korean users How can I act if he ignores this warning?

In the article Balhae, the user User talk: Koraskadi tries to organize a revision war to block the balanced position of all three parties to the conflict in the article. I warned him about the inadmissibility of such behavior. and about that, he should improve the text if it is really poorly written and put patterns about the lack of sources if they really are not enough and not delete the text. How can I act if he ignores this warning? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Balhae&action=history Aek973 (talk) 18:36, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

That editor has previously been warned for this behavior and will be reported again.--Quisqualis (talk) 18:47, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I notice that you may be editing as an IP:185.17.129.116. If so, Aek973, this creates confusion, especially in cases like this. Do try for consistency in using one or the other (it's vastly preferred that you log in).

Also, please try to engage diplomatically with the other editor on the article's Talk page. Not being a Korea subject expert, I cannot tell what the contention is about.--Quisqualis (talk) 19:00, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it’s me - sometimes authorization flies, I don’t notice it, I’m editing it. And then I see that authorization has flown. But then I correct my signature. Making authorization Aek973 (talk) 19:15, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, and I just registered? I was wondering if this project was worth my time at all. And part of the edits made before.Aek973 (talk) 19:33, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

But I looked at the history of edits and read the edit page - this user does not accept any diplomacy - he tries to bring people to the conflict and then looks for a way to blame them for this conflict. He is overly motivated to uphold the position of his country. Instead of an equal and balanced approach.

I am not against the fact that the Korean position would be fully presented in the article, I support this. But I want the position of China and Russia to be fully presented as well. I want the article to finally become balanced and neutral in 12 years. Since there is no common position, the views of all three sides should be equally represented. I suppose it's neutral. Or do I don’t understand something about the concept of neutrality of this project? Aek973 (talk) 19:22, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

This is a discussion which should take place on the talk page of the article of the article. Just post your concerns there for all to see, and note that English speakers may have difficulty understanding what the problem is.--Quisqualis (talk) 01:44, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Theroadislong joined to user User talk: Koraskadi in the same behavior - organizing a war of edits by unreasonably rolling back an entire section with added links instead of setting the template that additional links are required, or the template to check the authenticity of the source. He clearly acts in conjunction with the user User:Theroadislong. One year ago users User:Gnomsovet and User:Hatchiko They were blocked for joint actions. Obviously, that users User talk: Koraskadi and User:Theroadislong must be blocked for the same reason. Where do I go for this? Aek973 (talk) 05:25, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

The user User:Jungguk has joined these actions. In raticle Balhae controversies He provokes a war of edits to remove the positions of three parties in order to seek information in favor of the ideology of his countries - South Korea. Help take action against this. He also did it in the Balhae article - the face is clearly coordinated work that violates the rules of sock-puppet. After that, the article was blocked on a completely incomprehensible version with a distortion in favor of South Korean state ideology - Korean ethnic nationalism. Please Help Aek973 (talk) 05:46, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Aek973, Howdy hello Aek973! As a note of caution, I would not accuse random folks of being sockpuppets, or of collusion without evidence. Doing so may be considered casting aspersions and is looked down on strongly. Before making such accusations, please look into them thoroughly, and if you think there is an actual issue you could report it at the appropriate noticeboard. But in this case, it is quite clear that Theroadislong is nobody's sockpuppet, and isn't using any sockpuppets. Just because more than one editor agrees to something doesn't make them socks, it means that they are forming consensus: the foundation of Wikipedia. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:16, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: As far as I can see, the most recent entry to which you apparently reply, is about User:Jungguk, not User:Theroadislong. --CiaPan (talk) 20:35, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

CiaPan, Two entries above Aek973 writes that Koraskadi and Theroadislong must be blocked, and then writes about Jungguk. Regardless, unless one has evidence of socking, you shouldn't just bandy around accusations of such. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:48, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Joint co-operation is not proof? On the face of double morality against Russian users because of Russophobia. Russian users were blocked for joint actions without any evidence. And Korean joint action is encouraged. Do you hate us so much? Then what kind of objectivity can we talk about?Aek973 (talk) 20:46, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Pinging User:Koraskadi. The author of the thread, User:Aek973 tried to ping you, Koraskadi, three times. Alas they used a link to your talk page instead of the User page, so you probably hasn't been notified on this talk. So now I'm notifying you on behalf of OP, and on their request (User talk:Aek973#Pinging other users). --CiaPan (talk) 11:33, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

As uninvolved user I reverted article to the state before edit war. admin protected article for few days so that people can work on solution i suggest that we not let emotions cloud judgement and use state of article before edit war which staied like that for a long time before edit dispute. last, as a Korean I remind you south korea is a democratic country without any state ideology. sorry for my bad grammar i normally use grammar checker app but i changed computers and now i cannot get app for some reason.

i also urge everyone not to edit war and follow wikipedia policy. Jungguk (talk) 17:48, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

The ability to choose from three parties constantly changing the name of the ideology of two of which is almost the same is not a guarantee of the lack of bias and state ideology. Korean ethnic nationalism The phenomenon is obvious. Attacks on US Ambassador Harris because of his racial identity (his mother is Japanese) are a reality. These are the attacks of the whole of Korean society, like #nonojapan similar Nazi boycott of Jewish businesses Mass anti-Japanese hysteria and hatred support for this hatred at the state level and support from 92% of society is all a reality and problem. The racial murder of a boy just because he is half Russian and half Korein is a reality, as is the impunity of his killers.[1] A UN warning on racism in Korea is a reality.[2] [3]The censorship of historical textbooks and a single textbook approved by the state is a reality.[4]. And the most important thing Korean nationalist historiography - this is a very standard phenomenon in South Korea and this phenomenon has not stopped and continues. Korea, as a small country with a population density in the habitable zone (outside the high mountains) of 1000 people per kilometer, needs land, and is actively justifying land grabbing from neighboring countries by rewriting history.

In addition, the Balhae controversies article did not have a edit war, or even attempted to organize it before yours. You rolled back the version that had both links and an equal weighted position to the distorted Korean version. Excluding Russia from the conflict. And distorting the position of Russia. This is a typical action of Korean users - organizing a war of edits and blocking users who take out a balanced position in an article. Which is greatly distorted in favor of Korean state ideology. But why does such an administration support it? Is that a question? Russophobia or money? Aek973 (talk) 21:06, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

• • • I ask a qualified administrator to intervene in the situation and understand the essence of the problem. Those who drew attention to the situation claim that they do not know anything about the essence of the 12-year conflict and the behavior of Korean users. And also, in all likelihood, they have no desire to delve into the essence of conflict.

I want to achieve two things

1. Equality of representation in articles without distortion of the position of all three parties. Moreover, there is every reason for this. And speaking in favor of one of the parties is not permissible.

2. Equal punishment for equal violations - since Russian and Chinese users were blocked for participating in this conflict - then Korean users should be blocked in the same way. Exaplple judging by the discussion pages of the mentioned users, these are different people. Nevertheless they were told User_talk:Gnomsovet "Even assuming that you are two people, joining a dispute for the sole reason of supporting your acquaintance is meatpuppetry and is not permitted. Personal attacks of course are not permitted either. You'll appreciate that the admins have enforced "the execution of project rules" by blocking you. Huon (talk) 01:47, 10 February 2019 (UTC)" Korean users are doing the same, but this remains without sanctions. Anyone can see the history of edits and posts of conflicting articles. See that articles are always and methodically blocked on a distorted version in favor of one point of view - the Korean State Ideology. Moreover, all attempts to present in the articles equally all three points of view are blocked. Articles are rolled back to pro-Korean distorted versions. Always blocked are users who just want to present the position of all three parties equally. Do not remove Korean. And just imagine equally Korean and Chinese and Russian. This is not correct even from an ethical point of view.Aek973 (talk) 04:14, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Draft Review

Hello. I submitted this draft more than 3 months ago and it is still under review. I read somewhere to contact users on the related WikiProject page but no one there seems to focus on Turkish art or art galleries in general so, I didn't know who to contact. Please help! :)) Kilicsultan (talk) 13:52, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

As it says in the brown box on Draft:Yahşi Baraz, "Review waiting, please be patient. This may take 4 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 4,112 pending submissions waiting for review." Category:AfC pending submissions by age/3 months ago has 466 drafts at present. The number of reviewers who can read Turkish is limited, so it might help if you were to provide English translations of the relevant parts of your references. WP:There is no deadline. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:05, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. The article is already in English. So, I will wait a little more :) --Kilicsultan (talk) 09:04, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Although the article is in English, most of the references are in Turkish. You are therefore waiting for a reviewer who can read Turkish to be able to confirm that the references support the text. You may, therefore, have a long wait. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:57, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

WP:LANGCITE may be of some value. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:44, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Waiting for the other article editors to take their turn answering

How many days should I wait for the other editors to take their turn in a dialogue I started on the talk page of Jabberwocky about putting a reference to the Muppet Show production of Jabberwocky? --AlainV (talk) 22:05, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

AlainV, Anytime you are having a discussion, you will have better participation if you use the Template:ping to let them know that you have replied. Most folks don't watch the pages where discussions are happening. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:49, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

AlainV, it depends on what you're waiting for. For instance, in the discussion at Talk:Jabberwocky, you don't need to wait for Anna to chime in before replying to David. However, if you were to form an agreement with David without input from Anna, you should probably ping her and wait a few days before going ahead and implementing it, unless the agreement is something that Anna would clearly not find controversial. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:27, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Is there a visual editor version of this ping? --AlainV (talk) 23:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

If you want to use the Insert menu option, the template's name is {{Ping}}, and then the parameter is the editor's username (without the User: prefix). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:33, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

You mean that I should type two of those curly brackets to the left, write the editor's name (as many times as there are editors in the talk page?) then type a pipe, then type ping and then type two more curly brackets?--AlainV (talk) 18:50, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

AlainV, if you want to use the insert menu which is at the top of the edit window in both source and visual editing, you should choose "template" and in the window that appears, supply "ping" as the name of the template and usernames of users you want to ping as the parameters of the template. In visual editing, you can trigger the insert template option by typing two opening curly braces. In source editing, you type {{ping|user1|user2}} to ping two editors named "user1" and "user2". That is, use pipes between usernames if you are pinging more than one. Note that what you type is what you see here, not what I have typed to generate what you need to see. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 11:09, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

That was a very clear answer! Thanks!--AlainV (talk) 13:38, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Citing Archival Sources

Can public archives be cited on Wikipedia and what is the correct format for citation? Stirpicult (talk) 23:23, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Stirpicult. I'm not sure what you mean by "public archives". Do you mean archived versions of old webistes/webpages found by using things such as the Wayback Machine, etc. or do you mean national archives/repositories like National Archives and Records Administration.

In the former case, as long as the original source material meets Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source and you're fairly sure that the archived version is a true representation of the original source (i.e. it's hasn't been changed in any way), then it should be OK and even help to cite the archived version as explained in Wikipedia:Citing sources#Preventing and repairing dead links. in this case, you're still really just citing the original source and simply providing a convenience link to an archived version of it.

In tha latter case, it depends upon the nature of the source you're trying to cite. If the content is something being generated by the public archives, then you will have to assess the archives's reliability as a source based upon the context of how you want to use it as a source. Public archives, however, generally host content generated by others; so, you're going to need to assess if what's being hosted is a reliable source for Wikipedia's purposes. Official documents, etc. are generally considered to be primary sources which can be used in some limited ways, but secondary sources are generally required when it comes to trying to add interpretations of such sources to Wikipedia article. So, once again, whether a "source" can be used depends upon whether it's considered to be reliable and the context of how it's going to be used. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:39, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Marchjuly.

Thank you for the follow up and information. I was referring to historical archives belonging to historical societies, museums, universities, libraries, etc. If the source is indeed reliable, what is the preferred citation for archival collections?Stirpicult (talk) 02:16, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

You wouldn't really cite the archive is such a case unless it is the original generator of the source content; what you would need to do, at least in my opinion, is assess the nature of the content you want to cite and then cite it. For example, the Library of Congress is sort of a library/historical archive, but it hosts a wide variety of content, right? So, you wouldn't assess the individual content the LOC hosts as a reliable source per se simply based upon your assessment of the LOC. Similarly, if you wanted to cite a book you borrowed from your local library or bought at a book store, you would cite the book itself and not the library or store. The most important thing is that the source be reliable and published; personal/private documents which haven't been vetted or aren't otherwise subject to some form of editorial control might not be considered reliable per WP:NOR/WP:SPS, content to which only very limited access is granted may have problems being verified, primary sources may only be able to be used in certain contexts, etc. So, if you're not sure about the reliability/nature of a particular source, then you can start a more detailed discussion about it at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard to see what others think.

Anyway, once you assess a source and decide it's OK to cite, you've got a little flexibility with how you format the citation. There a variety of ways to cite a source, and there examples of some of these ways given in Wikipedia:Citing sources. There are also various Wikipedia:Citation templates which can be used as well if you like; some people find citation templates helpful, but others prefer not to use them. The only real thing you should try and keep in mind is WP:CITEVAR because Wikipedia doesn't really have one particular citation format it prefers above all others; in other words, you shouldn't just try to unilaterally change the citation style currently be used in an already existing article to one you personally prefer without a good reason for doing so. If you're starting a new article, then you can pick a citation style that you think works best for the article as long as it's not something that is not allowed by Wikipedia in general per WP:CITESTYLE. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:23, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Getting My Article submitted

Salutations people of Teahouse,

I am working on an article and submitted it for review. Sadly this article was declined. I would like to get this article accepted, do you guys have any tips or suggestions on how I can make my article better, and worthy of submission? I really want this article to be on Wikipedia and want to make it a great one!

Sincerely, 8miceinabox --8miceinabox (talk) 02:57, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

8miceinabox Greetings. If Draft:The Irisian Republic was the draft article you referred to then you would read the texts on the pink panel where it stated what is needed to improve the draft. Also there is a personal message from the reviewer below the pink panel. Basically, the content of the draft article need to be supported by significant coverage of independent, reliable sources for verification. Kindly read WP:42. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:22, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello, 8miceinabox. This has to do with Draft:The Irisian Republic which seems to be some kind of game that you and your buddies made up recently. Your game is not eligible for a Wikipedia article unless it receives significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Unless you can produce those sources, you should stop trying to write this article, because you cannot be successful. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:28, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

The article was previously created by the blocked user SkippytheElf and deleted as promotional. You're probably aware of these facts as you said as much in your initial edit summary.

The article has been deleted again. --kingboyk (talk) 08:46, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

detective novels info database?

I am looking for better sources for an article on a "Golden Age" detective novel. Does anyone know of anything comparable to the Internet Speculative Fiction Database for sf, but for detective fiction, especially early 20th cent. (1910s-1930s)? This is a particular area of interest for me. I've done some Googling and browsed articles for a few well-known novels in the genre without finding anything.

Goodreads often has some of the info, but I'm not sure it's a WP:RS; any comments? The eBook editions of these vintage novels which I get from Gutenberg or Faded Page usually include at least a copyright date and publisher name, but that's a little skimpy, and also a primary source—moreover, it may (& should) be the edition scanned, not necessarily the first edition.

At the very least I'm looking for an authoritative source that gives publication dates, genre, basic info like that. --D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 21:18, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

BTW, is there somewhere else more topic-oriented (e.g. a WP Project) where I should be asking this question? --D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 21:29, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Goodreads is user generated content, same idea as Amazon reviews (maybe excl. their special "editorial reviews"). And Goodreads belongs to Amazon.
IOW, don't. If there is a project you find it in a project banner shell on talk pages of related books, and you could check out "how dead" a given project is on its project talk page. –84.46.53.117 (talk) 23:18, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Right, re Goodreads, I think the publication data can be considered reliable, and the editorial plot summary medium-reliable, but what I'm really after is a database that lists publishing history and all the info that should go into a good encyclopedia article. There is some database out there, like the one(s) for music CDs: When I take an eBook and update the meta-data (e.g. from Calibre) it pulls in info from somewhere, but only for one edition; probably also only medium-reliable in WP terms. I'll continue browsing WP articles to see what I can find. --D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 23:47, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Would WorldCat be of any help? John from Idegon (talk) 07:24, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

That looks helpful, assuming it's WP:RS. Thank you! --D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 19:52, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

WorldCat is something you see in a {{authority control}} for authors (untested: books) based on WikiData, and unlike IMDb or Discogs it's no UGC. –84.46.52.96 (talk) 02:16, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Tech problem: cite menu invisible

When I'm editing an article, the Advanced>Cite pull-down menu doesn't show properly. It's hidden behind the edit area instead of on top as it shoud be. This has been going on for some months. I thought originally it was my clunky old Windows 7 machine that was at fault, but now I have a new computer running Windows 10 and same problem.

The Cite menu seems to have changed recently, it now says Templates, but same problem--I can see the word 'Templates' with the triangle pointing up or down as I click, but no menu. Same problem with the Headings menu.

I'm using a desktop PC, Windows 10, Intel graphics, browser is Chrome. I haven't tried other browsers yet. --D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 22:51, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Have you tried updating chrome? It works for me when I do it in opera browser... --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 22:55, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Interesting. My Chrome says it is up to date. MS Edge browser works OK, Internet Explorer has the same problem. It's evidently browser-dependent, not a WP problem. I'll try downloading FireFox — I don't particularly like Opera. Thanks! --D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 23:10, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Firefox has same problem! This is really very strange, and frustrating as I use the Cite templates a lot. Maybe there's something subtle in the browser settings? --D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 23:25, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

More tests: Thought maybe Java problem—Edge (which works) apparently doesn't use Java—updated my Java, didn't help. Tuned ClearTyoe (Win OS), changed my Chrome fonts, no joy. --D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 00:20, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

============================

Going into my old programmer debug mode, for you fellow OOP techies, what we have is a combobox on a form immediately above a textbox; the combobox when opened is behind the textbox area instead of on top as it should be. Even tho I can't see the menu, if I click just below Templates▲ where it should say Cite web I get the Cite web form. Can't get to the Cite book etc. options however. I tried this on Wiktionary, roughly same editing layout, and the Headings combobox works fine. So there's some problem specific to Wikipedia/Javascript. Can't believe nobody else is having same problem though!

Is there somewhere else I should be raising this problem as an internal workings of WP issue?

D A Patriarche. The place to go for technical discussions is WP:VPT - you might search the archives to see if anybody has already discussed it. If not, you can either post there, or go straight to reporting it as a bug: see WP:PHAB. --ColinFine (talk) 21:58, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Colin! --D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 19:36, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Full History

I can't review the pre-history of an article after submission (or, between submissions, for that matter).

How can I review the history of an article once submitted for AfC, before being accepted or declined? (The full history, not just upon submission, but before being submitted.) -- It seems that the full history should be available, but after looking around, I cannot find a way to review any history between any submissions, or before.

I am looking to specifically dig-down to specific dates and details behind a history of actions by (1) the original draft author, and (2) parties causing conflict by creating redirects after the original draft.

What I'm asking: I'd like to see the history behind an article before/during/after the AfC process of submissions, versus the date someone goes in and creates a redirect for WIP drafts which are in the pre-or-post submission process (pending review and acceptance).

I am asking this because there appear to be numerous unhanded issues in this domain. (And this may be less a Wikipedia matter, so much as a WikiMedia Foundation matter: A problem with the core software and logging the history behind an article and/or its title.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhanChavez (talk • contribs) 04:15, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Every page has its own History tab. There is usually no more history available than what is found there. What can you not find?--Quisqualis (talk) 04:41, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

@PhanChavez: Can you give an example of a page that you can't see the history for? You can see the history of a draft the same as for an article by looking at the "View History" link. RudolfRed (talk) 04:46, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Is this about your draft? Note that reviews of drafts are done by non-admins too. If you read "The proposed article does not have sufficient content to require an article of its own, but it could be merged into the existing article at Attacks on humanitarian workers. Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, you are welcome to add that information yourself. Thank you."and "If there were one or two more references of the quality of the NY Times piece, I'd say this is clearly something we should accept into mainspace. As it is, however, I have my doubts that it would survive WP:AfD.", please take the suggestions to heart. The sources you need do not exist. Pushing harder is famously ineffective on Wikipedia.

Based on" A problem with the core software and logging the history behind an article and/or its title", I would suggest you report a suspected bug to the WP:Village pump/Technical--Quisqualis (talk) 04:53, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that the Original Poster has identified a bug in the software or logging function. At least, they haven't provided what appears to me to be a case that there is a bug. It appears that they are saying that multiple administrators and the software are engaged in a conspiracy against them. Maybe they are only saying that if multiple administrators revert their edits, the administrators are engaged in meatpuppetry in order to defeat the three-revert rule. Maybe what we have is an editor who thinks that everyone is conspiring against them. Or maybe they haven't explained what their issues are. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:41, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Example

I'm going to try my best to provide an example, round-about.

This is old news, back-history... Draft:Group of Five conferences -- There is a history behind this. Not sure if it is fully available. I edited a map and list from Power Five conferences with the complimentary information for the other 5 conferences in NCAA Division I Football Bowl Subdivision to provide a complimentary page; listing conferences, teams, map, etc.

The first submission was declined, due to lack of notability. No big deal. First time, need to revise, etc.

The second submission was declined. The reason was WP:SPLIT or WP:SPINOUT. At first I couldn't understand why. The "Group of Five" and "Power Five" were two distinct entities within NCAA Division I College Football.

After digging deeper, it appeared that someone created a Redirect using "Group of Five conferences" to a lesser-used or dissimilar term, Mid-major. This caused some conflict.

I went about things the wrong way. But, the reviewer who declined, due to WP:SPLIT or WP:SPINOUT, cited redirect for deletion on the AfD suggestion page, with a Procedural Close. (Why did I try an AfD for a Redirect? Because I'm new and dumb and learning.) I also received the same response here on the Teahouse, that this was likely a redirect for deletion issue.

Long story short, the WP:RFD page suggests/recommends, right at the top: Be Bold! -- That a redirect should be converted, transformed or merged to an existing article.

In any case, the above example is my own, but I've since run across it in duplicate (same decline, by the same user). First noticed when I was reading through the Teahouse, trying to get a grasp of my own issue.

In the process of reviewing things, when I first looked at the edit history behind my draft of Group of Five conferences, I could not see edits I'd saved before the first time I submitted my new AfC. And, again, after I submitted for consideration a second time, upon being declined, I could not see the history between the two submissions. ← (this is the reason for this question, right here)

I've mentioned coming across a second issue, very similar to and related to my own (same user, same reason for declining). And that is Draft:Aid_Worker_Security_Database. There is also a redirect for this term, which points to Attacks on humanitarian workers.

The first revision I can see of Draft:Aid_Worker_Security_Database is on 27-June-2019. The redirect itself was created on 11-May-2019.

These dates are close enough that I'd like to perform a FULL INVESTIGATION of what is going on behind the scenes. Is this a coincidence? Or are people creating redirects and causing or inciting conflict in the article creation process.

NOTE: I have no conflict of interest with the counter point, or secondary example, so much as, I saw the same reviewer performing the same action against similar circumstances. It is only after the dust-up over my own concern that I'm coming here, saying: "Hey, WTF with these redirects screwing with article creation?"

I did my thing in a day, and it was something like several days before it was reviewed. I'm not sure when User:HumOutcomes first submitted Draft:Aid_Worker_Security_Database. That's what I want to see. I want to see when the original draft was saved and submitted, versus the date the redirect was created, per the date the draft article was reviewed.

I want to know what the hell is going on, or I want someone with the ability to do so to sit-down and take the time to review things and start implementing a fix.

Or deal with the meat/sock puppets who are going in and getting these actions approved.

Bottom line is, one way or another, eventually this is going to come to someone else's attention, and the matter is going to have to be dealt with and handled appropriately by someone with a spine and a backbone. (But that's just my IMO, my two-cents. Maybe nobody cares until it comes to bite them in the arse. But, again, day-to-day, nobody cares.)

PhanChavez (talk) 08:19, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

@Rosguill: Hey, sorry to bother you. But you seem to pay attention to detail. IF if you have a more in-depth view of details like original submission or draft dates, revisions between submissions, etc... IF you have a more advanced view, could you look into the two dates/observations above. When I was scanning Teahouse entries on my previous issue, I ran across this, and it bothered me. That's why even though it's not my article, I've taken up the mantle, so-to-speak, in trying to get it pushed through; it's time-frame related to User:Robert McClenon, and I can't help but feel that a similar issue might be in play. If you don't have a more nuanced or in-depth view of things, then, my apologies, no worries, and, again, I'll just drop it. But I'm asking on the off-chance that there's somehow a pattern of illicit actions or behavior in play. Thanks again, P.Chavez PhanChavez (talk) 09:04, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

@PhanChavez: With regard to Draft:Aid Worker Security Database, I don't think that the redirect has anything to do with the draft, except that the redirect's existence may have prompted HumOutcomes to create a draft in the first place. HumOutcomes originally created a draft at User:HumOutcomes/sandbox at 17:29, 19 June 2019. This was declined the same day and tagged for speedy deletion as a copyright violation, and it was deleted by RHaworth at 09:26, 20 June 2019. (Only if you're an admin can you see the revision history of deleted pages.) HumOutcomes then created a new draft at User:HumOutcomes/sandbox at 14:58, 27 June 2019‎, with the edit summary "Re wrote [sic] article to ensure no copyrights were violated". All the subsequent edits to this draft are visible in the revision history of Draft:Aid Worker Security Database (including its move to draft space). Nothing shady was going on; a user submitted a copyvio draft that was deleted as such and then submitted a revised draft that has been declined. I don't see a problem. Deor (talk) 19:15, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

@PanChavez: I don't see any foul play. The article was deleted once the new version was accepted in article space because the old one was no longer necessary. The only edits in that draft's history were you building the draft and then it getting declined by reviewers. I do note that there was an improper CUTPASTE edit carried out to move the article to mainspace, but it wasn't caught by a reviewer so it went unaddressed. I've now merged the history of actually creating the article (i.e. before the reviews) so that we don't lose that. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:33, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

New Entry Inquiry Edit Review

Hello! I could sure use an extra pair of eyes after the changes made as per a reviewer's suggestions. Many thanks in advance. EMETIB MAILLIW (talk) 04:19, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Marisol_Deluna

Looks good. I made a few edits. Do you have access to WWD? That would be a "bonus" source, as I'm sure they have covered her.--Quisqualis (talk) 06:58, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks! I am going to continue digging. Question: She has been covered by the Austin Statesman and Hispanic Business Magazine (for example). Can you direct me to a Wiki link so I can learn to reference an offline archive? EMETIB MAILLIW (talk) 10:20, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

EMETIB MAILLIW, same way for online sources. Just omit the |url= parameter. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 17:54, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Kindly help resolve this issue

Thank you everyone for the work you do here. I created an article NECLive that has been flagged for lack of notability and advert contents. I wish to humbly state that the subject of this article is notable to be on Wikipedia. The subject, "NECLive" enjoys wide media coverage and is mentioned in several headlines and should not be described as "trivial mention". This article cites several independent and veritable secondary sources as can be seen in the references section. Many of the secondary sources are leading national media organizations such as Punch, The Guardian (Nigeria), The Sun (Nigeria) Premium Times, The Nation, Vanguard, Channel Television among several other secondary sources. I am a beginner editor and may not be conversant with all the rules of Wikipedia but before I contribute any article I spend time conducting research to ensure I obtain enough facts and secondary sources to back it up. I urge senior editors to have a look at this article, help put it in good, lift the notability tag and review it to go live.

This article is also flagged for being written like an advert but I can't understand the nature of advert contents therein so I could do a clean up of those contents. As I said earlier, I am a junior editor learning how to edit and contribute to Wikipedia but I wish to kindly say that there are no intentional advert contents inputted in the article. Gideens (talk) 08:06, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I've removed a lot of material from the lead, as both promotional and not directly about the subject. Maproom (talk) 09:36, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

O.N.Sundaram Ex.MLA

Hi,

I have quoted reliable references for the the wiki page 'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:O.N.Sundaram'. Why is not accepted? What reliable sources are needed? The sources provided are reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shan snk (talk • contribs) 08:59, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Shan snk, Draft:O.N.Sundaram was declined as there are no sources. You had a source to another Wikipedia article, but this isn't permitted (we can't say something is correct because we said it was correct).

For an article, we need sourcing, from independent, reliable sources, in order so that users can verify what you have written.

wp:42 is a shorter overview of what reliable sources are, or you could read the full policy at Wikipedia:Reliable sources ~~ Alex Noble - talk 09:10, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Also, they are probably presumed notable, which means that if you can find sources just to support what you've written, rather than having also demonstrate they are notable. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 09:12, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

B-sides by other artists

In the case of a recording artist releasing a single with another artist's track as the B-side, should this be noted in the info box, i.e. next to the listed B-side should the alternate artist be listed? I believe they should, another editor does not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YouCanDoBetter (talk • contribs)

I would say not, in the article in question (Stay (Faraway, So Close!)) credit is discussed in the main text. Cheers, Polyamorph (talk) 12:58, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I would say definitely yes, otherwise it gives a false impression about who recorded the B side. Current revision looks good to me.

You might want to take this up with one of the WikiProjects and/or look to see if this is already covered in any style guides. --kingboyk (talk) 08:58, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

BLP & alleged gossip

On Marianne Githens page, there is a statement which is seemingly true, but also seems like gossip.

"In 1986, Githen's widowed mother, Anita, married her deceased husband's younger brother William French Githens." Oiona (talk) 09:29, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Marianne Githens

It's not really related to the subject of this particular page?

So, is it against the rules to delete it?

many thanks for any help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oiona (talk • contribs) 09:43, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

An editor agreed with you and deleted the content for reasons of not being about the subject of the article. David notMD (talk) 10:33, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

PROD notice removed without due diligence - what now?

I gave reasons to support deletion on Talk:Bindu (2009 film). It looks like the user who removed the PROD notice did not read the talk page as the notability concern was mistaken for a verifiability concern in their edit comment. The article is still not on a notable film. Does this mean that the next option is AfD or can the PROD removal be undone? I know it says an article can't be PROD'd more than once. --Danielklein (talk) 11:23, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

@Danielklein: Next step is AFD. PRODs can be removed by anyone in good faith and removal can only be undone if it's clearly vandalism and not a disagreement with the proposed deletion. Whether the reasons for removal are sufficient is not relevant though. Regards SoWhy 11:36, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

@Danielklein: I've added the {{old PROD}} info on the talk page, perfectly unnecessary after you already picked AFD. Otherwise it could be helpful if folks consider a new PROD years later, missing an old PROD in the edit history. –84.46.52.96 (talk) 00:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Michael John Treanor. How to create a visible Wikipedia page on Google?

Hello my name is Michael John Treanor and I am a British actor.I was wondering if anyone could help me create a Wikipedia page as I have done some great work and worked alongside many A list actors and have appeared in many TV series and feature films and I would like to expand my business with a visible Wikipedia page.

I was also part of the cast of "The World Is Yours" which has a Wikipedia page and my role was Glasgow Ranger.Can you add me please?

I really don't understand how to do this but I was wondering if anyone could help and point me in the right direction?

Thank you.

Here are links to my IMDb page and website which shows my CV.

https://www.imdb.me/7842996 https://www.michaeljohntreanor.com

Here is a newspaper article from Spanish paper 'El Pais' in which I have a great write up in the 7th paragraph down and a picture and also 2 other articles. https://elpais.com/cultura/2019/08/09/television/1565351638_290898.html http://www.firstshowing.net/2018/first-teaser-for-romain-gavras-the-world-is-yours-playing-at-cannes/

https://pro.imdb.com/news/article/ni62326418/nm7842996?ref_=news_nm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael John Treanor (talk • contribs) 13:15, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

@Michael John Treanor: In short: Don't. Wikipedia is not for promoting yourself and you would have no editorial control over anything in that article. You might want to read Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. If you are really notable, someone else will sooner or later create an article anyway but we do not accept requests from people who want an article written about themselves. Regards SoWhy 13:22, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Michael John Treanor: Welcome to Wikipedia and to the Teahouse. To begin with, it's important to understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to promote yourself or, as you put it, 'expand your business with a visible Wikipedia page'. We also have policies that advise against autobiographies or editing with a conflict of interest so it would be worth reading those before doing too much more. Finally, IMDB and your personal website would not be a suitable source as they are not reliable or independent. Newspapers are better, but a single article that only dedicates one paragraph to you, half way down, and a web page that mentions you in the context of a list of actors, isn't really enough to meet our notability guidelines. I'm sorry if that comes across as blunt - it's not in any way to diminish your acting achievements, it's just that we have strict guidelines on who qualifies for an article and, on the basis of what you've provided, I don't think you do. Hug^syrup 13:27, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

The Vogue Theater how to modify hyperlink ?

hyperlink "Early San Diego theaters, Theatre History in the Nineteenth Century" has new location [ within same website ], [ old : http://www.sandiegohistory.org/collections/theaters/theaters.htm, new: https://sandiegohistory.org/collection/photographs/theaters/ ] should i just modify with new hyperlink ? Leela52452 (talk) 13:30, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

hyperlink ""World Cinema History" in references, seems to be not fit in any manner. should i go ahead and move it to external links or delete it ? Leela52452 (talk) 13:37, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

i have gone ahead converted hyperlinks to references. how do i fix reference section ? Leela52452 (talk) 13:50, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

@Leela52452: Just to note that you do not need to (and indeed, should not) start a new section for each follow-up point to the same question. You can simply edit the existing section and post any follow-ups below it. I have merged all three of your questions into one section as it will be easier for editors to respond to in this way. Hug^syrup 13:54, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

@Leela52452: I could see a few issues with how this was structured. You seemed to have listed all of the references directly in the references section, rather than inline, but still referenced them using <ref name=""/>in the main body, and then added the {{reflist}} tag within a separate section called 'notes'. I'm not entirely clear on what you were trying to achieve with this, but I think I have resolved some of the issues by embedding the references inline in the body the first time each was used, and putting the reflist under the references subhead, then removing 'notes'. The final step is that each of the three references that still have a bullet point rather than a number needs to be cut and pasted into the body at a relevant point. I am not sure what those points are so I haven't done it, but if I have time later I'll have another look. Hug^syrup 14:39, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

How to add info to an existing article

Hi everyone,

I would like to know if it's possible to add information to an existing article and what path should I follow to do so? I have reliable sources for the info that I want to add.

Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeBurkeee (talk • contribs) 14:30, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello MikeBurkeee! Wikipedia:Tutorial may help. Most articles are open for everybody to edit, some are WP:PROTECTed, shown by a padlock in the upper right corner. As a newcomer, there's probably lots of "rules" (policies and guidelines) you don't know about, so don't be too surprised if you get reverted. If it's unclear why, ask. Be WP:BOLD and get into it, learning by doing (and asking) is the way. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:21, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Easy Timeline

Hello, I was wondering if anyone can help figure out why the timeline chart in this article Super Junior#Timeline which was built using Wikipedia:EasyTimeline does not show up on mobile? Lulusword (talk) 16:23, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

@Lulusword: The problem is that the <img> element of the image has width and height attributes set to 0. As to why that's happening, I don't know, but I'll guess that it might be because they are set to 1000x300, which seems kind of big for a mobile view, so maybe try reducing them and the other size parms and see if that helps. I'll also note that this is a really old feature, and there may be a newer way to do it that is more mobile-friendly. WP:VPT would be your next stop for more technical help. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 17:46, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. :) Lulusword (talk) 18:35, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

How do I respond?

Hi!

I recently submitted a page for approval, and it got denied. The message said I had to respond before proceeding, but I can't find where to respond.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annacappelli (talk • contribs) 16:35, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

@Annacappelli: I think there are three separate (but linked) things going on here.

• Firstly, your draft, Draft:JetBlue Vacations was declined due to a lack of references and being written too much like an advertisement. You don't need to respond to that, but you would need to resolve those issues if you were to resubmit. However...
• Secondly, your draft was then deleted under criteria WP:G11, meaning that it was purely promotional and therefore contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. I am unable to see the deleted draft so I cannot assess if this was fair, but some of the admins who comment here might be able to advise more. You could try asking the deleting admin Cryptic on their talk page and they may be willing to restore it as a draft for you to improve, but they may not.
• Finally, someone has also warned you about our policy on paid editing as they believe you may be a paid editor. This is the one you need to respond to. Either you must confirm that you are a paid editor, and do so with a statement on your user page stating who is paying you and which articles you are paid to edit. Or, you must confirm that you do not meet the definition of a paid editor by responding to the warning - you can do that at your talk page by clicking 'edit' or 'edit source' and then posting directly under the message.

I hope that helps. Hug^syrup 16:42, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest help / Promotional content

Hi! I work for a communications company and was asked by a client to update their Wikipedia page with some basic information. So far, my proposed changes (with my conflict of interest noted) have been declined, and the page itself has been subsequently chopped down to a bare minimum. I've attempted to remove any/all promotional tone from the changes and add additional sources, but those revised changes have been declined as well.

The page in question is here: CorePower_Yoga

As it appears now, the page doesn't provide users with much useful information. Is there any way that I can make it so that this Wikipedia page contains basic information about the company?

Thank you!

50.78.86.177 (talk) 16:36, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello. Since you made edit requests on the article talk page, I assume you are familiar with the conflict of interest and paid editing policies; you will need to formally comply with the paid editing policy and formally declare your paid status; this is a Wikipedia Terms of Use requirement. Second, you seem to have a common misconception about what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia is not a business directory that provides "basic information"; it is an encyclopedia that summarizes what independent reliable sources state. Press releases and similar announcements are not independent sources. Most of the text you wanted to add was very promotional in nature. Wikipedia has no interest in enhancing search results for a business or aiding its customers; we're here to build an encyclopedia of human knowledge for the benefit of humanity as a whole. Wikipedia is only interested in what third parties have chosen to say on their own about article subjects, not in what the company wants to say about itself. The company is free to tell the world about itself as it wishes on its own website. 331dot (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

@331dot Thank you for your response! A couple of follow-up questions:

- Did I improperly disclose my conflict of interest on the Talk page? If so, I apologize, and would love some guidance on how to fix this.

- Are the sources I provided in my latest "Proposed Changes" (January 30, 2020) not sufficiently independent? They include Forbes, LA Times and MSN.com. Please advise!

- Are there any next steps we can take to provide factual information for the CorePower page? The company's aim in these changes was to update out-of-date information.

Thank you again for your time.

50.78.86.177 (talk) 18:06, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

The only formal disclosure on the article talk page that I see is by an account called Tyler Wilcox. If that's you, then you just need to remember to log in before editing. I do see where you state under your IP address that you work for the PR firm. Regarding the sources, I would urge you to review the notability criteria for businesses as well as what a reliable source is to get a better idea of why the sources you have offered are not acceptable. In short, routine business announcements, staff interviews, and press releases are not acceptable. The MSN.com source you mention is basically an instructional advertisement; the Forbes source is an interview with CorePower Yoga's CEO, and while I cannot read the LA Times piece due to a paywall I get the sense it is much like the MSN source. Wikipedia wants independent reliable sources that have chosen on their own to give significant coverage to the subject- not fluff pieces about the company, staff interviews, or anything that just tells about the company or its offerings. The company is free to tell about its offerings on the company website and offer any comments by its CEO.

I will add that PR people like yourself usually have a difficult time editing on Wikipedia, as the goal of PR and the goal of working on Wikipedia are fundamentally different. Wikipedia articles strive to be accurate, but are not meant to provide up-to-date current information especially when it is the subject itself(or its representative) that wants to do the telling. I get that the company probably has an interest in the Wikipedia article about it, as it will show up highly in search results and Google Knowledge graphs, but those are not concerns of Wikipedia. We're only interested in how others describe the company, not in what it wants to say about itself or what it considers to be its own history. If outside sources have studied and written about the history of this company on their own without direct involvement of the company(as many other high profile companies like Microsoft, Apple, Sears, etc. have, that's different, but I don't think that's the case here. I regret that this is likely disappointing to hear, but I must be honest with you. Feel free to show representative of your client this discussion. 331dot (talk) 20:21, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Joining a WikiProject

Hello, I am trying to join a wikiproject, but I am not quite sure how to do it. The help page mostly talks about how to find a project, but not specifically how do you join it. Do I sign up anywhere? Thanks in advance! MGatta (talk) 17:13, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi MGatta, and welcome to the Teahouse! Usually wikiprojects will have pretty specific instructions of how to join in the main page. Was there a specific one you wanted to join? If si, I can show you where to join. Thanks! Puddleglum ^2.0 17:26, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I am trying to join the WikiProject Africa.MGatta (talk) 17:37, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

@MGatta: On the main page for that project, in the section "Project Members", it gives instructions on how to join. RudolfRed (talk) 18:42, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Note that you don't have to join a WikiProject to edit articles or make posts to the project. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:13, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Great, thanks!MGatta (talk) 09:29, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

wayback archives of youtube videos

Should we expect wayback archives of youtube videos to work?

I've tried several from existing articles, with no success. Here's one example:

• http://web.archive.org/web/20200108163203/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMA3eDNS0jw

The archived youtube page will display, but the video only displays

• Sorry, the Wayback Machine does not have this video (MMA3eDNS0jw) archived (or not indexed yet).

That of course suggests that Wayback knows how to play the videos. What is the next step? Is there somebody who can officially contact the Wayback folks to get a resolution, i.e. if Wayback has decided not to archive any more Youtube videos or if there is some other reason they aren't working?

I'll note that this problem was previously observed in 2016. See Wikipedia Talk:Link rot#Archiving youtube videos.

If this has already been established as a long-term or indefinite-length problem, does IAbot take appropriate action based on this limitation? Fabrickator (talk) 20:08, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Dunno, but I recall a case where I found an old FLV on WayBack (VP6 converted to VP9 uploaded on my YT channel), and another case, where the video was archived separately (SG/A2/B2#19) –84.46.52.96 (talk) 03:06, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I've found some archived youtubes from a couple of years ago which are working properly. It seems that wayback queues a request to archive the youtube video when it archives the youtube page, so the youtube archive page exists, but there can be an extended period of time before the video becomes available. This is really an anomaly in how wayback works, in that wayback shows a web page has been archived, when critical components of the archived page are missing. If wayback won't agree to fix this (e.g. "hide" archived pages which are missing critical content), then our bots should ignore archived pages that are missing critical content. Anybody have some constructive suggestions for moving forward on one of these solutions? Fabrickator (talk) 07:40, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

For the purposes of a License reviewed by YouTubeReviewBot on commons that's a good question: Archived meta-data without the video is not completely useless, if all you want to check is the licence or anything else in the video description. I can't tell if the relatively new YT LR bot does something smart about the video. –84.46.52.96 (talk) 08:14, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

There is also the case of older youtube entries that are not working, and even if the youtube page had many captures, it appears that if the video is not available for one capture, then it is not available for any capture. Anyway, the general problem with youtube pages existing without the video being available is apparently a known problem (or at least, a previously-reported problem). See https://archive.org/post/1102732/many-youtube-videos-which-used-to-work-on-the-wayback-machine-dont-work-anymore ... Fabrickator (talk) 10:12, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Post an article

I wish to post an article in Wikipedia, ho to do it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Gang-Ming Zou (talk • contribs) 20:40, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Dr. Gang-Ming Zou Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Successfully creating a new article is the hardest task on Wikipedia, it takes much time and practice. New users who dive right in to creating articles without an understanding of the process often end up disappointed and with hurt feelings as their work that they spend hours on is mercilessly edited and removed by others. I don't want you to have bad feelings here- so I would suggest that before you attempt to create an article, that you first spend time editing existing articles in areas that interest you, so you can understand how Wikipedia works and what is expected of article content. Using the new user tutorial is also a good idea.

However, if you still want to attempt to create a new article, you should read Your First Article and go to Articles for Creation to submit a draft for review before it is formally placed in the encyclopedia- so you get feedback on it beforehand, instead of afterwards. 331dot (talk) 20:51, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Israel or Palestine?

Hi, I recently came across this edit. Which brings up an interesting question: Do we use the name Israel or Palestine in our articles? In this case I think that "Israel" should be used for consistency with both the rest of the article, and the source that said it was #1. Also, what WP policy can I cite for this and future edits? Thanks DarthFlappy (talk) 21:06, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, DarthFlappy. In that instance, Israel appears to be correct as it's referring to an Israeli chart. But more broadly, the two names aren't necessarily interchangeable, are they? So it would depend on context which should be used. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:20, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Ok, thanks DarthFlappy (talk) 23:57, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, in Christian churches, it is referred to as the Holy Land, both because that is the historical Christian nomenclature, and to avoid the issue, but that doesn't answer the question. Is the place in 1948-1967 Israel, or in 1948-1967 Jordan, in which case the term can be West Bank? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:00, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, the issue is whether a specific song, Out of the Woods by Taylor Swift, was a #1 hit in Israel or in Palestine instead. The song was certified #1 by Media Forest, which is an Israeli company that started out by monitoring the music business in Israel, though they have since branched out to other countries. The company is based in Netanya, a city on the Mediterranean coast which has been part of Israel since its founding in 1947, and which has a 99% Jewish Israeli population. So, "Palestine" is incorrect in this context. The song was not a #1 hit in the West Bank and Gaza. It was a big hit in the State of Israel, as verified by the Israeli music chart. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:19, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Andrew Naimanye

I would appreciate the comments of other experienced editors on Draft:Andrew Naimanye. I was reviewing AFC submissions that were in user space but tagged for AFC review, and they included User:Fsmatovu/sandbox16. I tried to copy it to Draft:Andrew Naimanye, and was told that that title already existed. In looking at it, I saw that the draft in draft space had been submitted by User:Wkigenyi, and had been declined four times, most recently in November, and had been resubmitted. I saw that the version in the sandbox of User:Fsmatovu was a copy-paste from draft space into their sandbox, followed by resubmission. I declined it as a duplicate of Draft:Andrew Naimanye and as not establishing biographical notability. I asked User:Fsmatovu why they had done a copy-paste without attribution, which violates the terms of Wikipedia's copyleft. They replied that they had been asked by Wkigenyi to help them, and were concerned that the draft would be erased or deleted, and so copied it into their sandbox. Fsmatovu expressed concern that Wkigenvi is becoming frustrated and may be giving up on editing Wikipedia. It appears to me that Wkigenvi was only editing in order to publish one article, on Andrew Naimanye, and there may be a conflict of interest (and Wkigenvi may be Andrew Naimanye). So I have at least two questions. First, what should Fsmatovu do at this point? Second, what comments do other editors have on the draft? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:13, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I deleted content from the draft that in my opinion was either redundant or did not contribute to notability or did not belong (college scholarships, memberships). David notMD (talk) 00:55, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: The draft won't be deleted under (under G13 at least) for 6 months as the clock has been reset by David's edits, which gives both users plenty of time to resume work on it. The help that you are told is forthcoming can happen in draft space, and that too will, as you know, delay deletion. Therefore, I don't see much merit in the argument that the text needs to be in user space because it might get deleted.

You could legitimise the copy and paste (not my preferred option for obvious reasons) or, ultimately, take the sandbox, the draft or both to WP:MFD.

It seems to me the path with the least friction is to take Fsmatovu up on their offer on your talk page to delete the sandbox themselves.

With regards to the potential COI; some hallmarks are there but no firm evidence, and we should assume good faith. Template:Uw-coi could be used as it is informational in tone and has the "i" icon. WP:COIN likely wouldn't be interested at this stage.

Summary: If the sandbox is deleted and only the draft stays, the draft will at some point be deleted for the last time, or promoted to mainspace, and that would be the end of the matter. --kingboyk (talk) 07:34, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

With regards to the draft itself, my gut feeling is that the subject is not notable independently of the organisation he works for (Uganda Road Fund - new article) and is a "puff piece" but 1) I have not assessed the quality nor quantity of the references, 2) we should beware of systemic bias, 3) This revision mentions that the subject has some coverage as a chess player. From what I can tell, his chess accomplishments are not at the level where WP:NCHESS presumes a subject to be notable, but it might be worth double checking that if you want to be extremely thorough. --kingboyk (talk) 07:50, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

empire and multiethnic kingdom

what is difference between empire and multiethnic kingdom? Jungguk (talk) 01:25, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

@Jungguk: This is the page for getting help with editing Wikipedia. You can ask your question at WP:RD, but not if it is a homework question. RudolfRed (talk) 01:43, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Where the "Big Bang" occurred in known universe?

An explosion expels matter in all directions. Shouldn't there be a place in our known universe where all matter is moving away from? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.155.26.163 (talk) 02:36, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the teahouse. You will want to post this question at the WP:RD/S. MarnetteD|Talk 02:40, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

[Non-astrophysicist comment] This question fundamentally misunderstands the nature of the Big Bang. It was not an explosion per se, but a beginning limit of expansion of every point in space away from every other point in space. So no, there should not be a place in our known universe where all matter is moving away from. All places are moving away from each other, with some local variability due to gravity. 97.115.240.136 (talk) 04:47, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Nicely described; this clarifies much of the confusion I have when attempting to understand attempts to describe the [nature of the] Big Bang. not necessarily not from Earth (talk) 19:09, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Flagging edits

Can you please provide me the steps to flag a section that need more information (could be edited) on a page. I do not have rights to edit it myself but should notify the community, the editor of the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AudreyDufour (talk • contribs) 09:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

@AudreyDufour: It might help us to help you better if you tell us which article you are concerned about.

In general terms, you can discuss problems an article might have on it's talk page.

I note from your user page that you have a potential conflict of interest and have read our guidelines; if this query concerns a page where you have a COI you might want to read WP:COIEDIT again as that contains guidance which may be relevant. --kingboyk (talk) 09:17, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Edit to Optical Express Page - Feb2020

Hi,

I am still looking to propose an edit to the opening paragraph of the Optical Express Wikipedia page. After seeking your advice and feedback from the Treehouse I have amended the tone of voice for the edit as well as stated that I am a paid editor. However, the edit has still been rejected due with the feedback being that it is not appropriate for an encyclopaedia article. I have then asked for advice as to how the statement can be amended to be more appropriate however, I have received no further feedback.

Can you please offer advice as to how the following statement can be amended to a more encyclopaedic tone? It is based purely on facts and I have provided multiple references to back up the points.

The statement is as follows:

‘Founded in 1991, Optical Express is the UK’s largest provider of laser and intraocular lens surgery, with almost 130 clinics. As well as providing eye surgery, the company also supplies glasses and contact lenses.’

The independent sources to reference this can be found here:

Optical Express is predominantly a refractive surgery brand and Europe's leading provider in laser and intraocular lens surgery. Please refer to the which states 'The biggest chain is Optical Express: it is said to do 6 out of 10 laser eye procedures in the UK, and has over 100 clinics.'

More information to back up the point that Optical Express is the UK's largest provider of laser and intraocular lens surgery can be found in the following Mintel Reports:

Optical Express also has almost 130 clinics in the UK. The list of these can be found here:

Your feedback is much appreciated.

Thanks,

Trees88 (talk) 09:18, 4 February 2020 (UTC) .

On the talk page of Optical Express, you proposed adding the claim "Optical Express is ... Europe's leading provider in laser and intraocular lens surgery", citing a source which states "Optical Express ... is said to do 6 out of 10 laser eye procedures in the UK". Europe is not the same as the UK, and "is" is not the same as "is said to be". You are, understandably in view of your CoI, finding it impossible to take the neutral stance which is expected of Wikipedia contributors. Maproom (talk) 09:38, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: I've blocked Trees88 as a single purpose account not here to build an encyclopedia --kingboyk (talk) 10:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I consider the blocking an over-reaction. Trees88 registered last fall, and has complied with declaring COI and PAID, and has been asking for advice at Treehouse. Yes, to date only editing the article in question, but could expand to other topics (not paid) in time. David notMD (talk) 11:24, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I would concur with David. I would ask kingboyk to please reconsider. 331dot (talk) 11:29, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I have great respect for your judgement 331dot, so as you believe a block is not warranted at this time I will of course unblock. --kingboyk (talk) 11:37, 4 February 2020 (UTC) (e/c)

+1, as the OP shows willingness to discuss things. Lectonar (talk) 11:33, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Done. --kingboyk (talk) 11:40, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank your for your feedback. In order to get the opening statement amended, I am still keen to understand how I can amend my proposed statement to make it an acceptable encyclopaedic update. From the feedback given from Maproom, would the following wording now be acceptable?

‘Founded in 1991, Optical Express is said to be the UK’s largest provider of laser and intraocular lens surgery, with almost 130 clinics. As well as providing eye surgery, the company also supplied glasses and contact lenses.’

If this is still not deemed to be the correct tone of voice, I would appreciate any feedback on how this can be amended to be more acceptable? Trees88 (talk) 17:03, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Fixed cite ref errors from missing </ref> that hid the other Teahouse discussions and appended {{Reflist-talk}} to this section. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 18:06, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

References

@Trees88: Suggestion: "supplied glasses" → "supplies eyeglasses".

I'm OK with renaming the Teahouse, but I refuse to be called "Spanky". —[AlanM1(talk)]— 18:24, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Arbitrary edits to Wikipedia article on Higher Education Commission (Pakistan)

A couple of days ago, I worked hard to edit the article on Pakistan's Higher Education Commission (HEC). I did it at the request of the institution. It involved major pruning. A little while ago, I was shocked to see that Flyer22 Frozen undid my edits without any justification. Now the article mentions two figures for the HEC's budget, i.e., 102 billion rupees and 57.8 billion rupees.

When I checked the history of Flyer22 Frozen's edits, it emerged that he is in the habit of reverting edits. This person left a message for me on Wikipedia. How do I respond to him?

Editors should not be allowed to hide behind pseudonyms. I think people who don't give their real names should not be allowed to edit Wikipedia articles. It will greatly improve Wikipedia's credibility.

In conclusion, let me say a few words by way of introduction. I studied international relations in Islamabad and media in London. I have worked for several English-language newspapers, mostly as a copy editor. I have written a critically acclaimed book on the English language. Entitled "Handbook of Functional English", it has been published by Ferozsons, one of the most prestigious publishers in Pakistan. I have edited dozens of Wikipedia articles with the utmost sense of responsibility. I never used a pseudonym. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shakil Chaudhary (talk • contribs) 09:47, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Shakil Chaudhary: you removed a lot of content, including seven references, from the article, explaining it merely as "a major pruning". Flyer22 Frozen then restored what you had removed. HeShe has as much right (in fact rather more, see below) to restore it as you did to remove it. You should now discuss the changes on the article's talk page. There were changes to many sections, and it may be necessary to discuss each separately.

Above, you state that you acted at the request of the institution. You therefore have a conflict of interest, which you need to declare on your user page; and you should not make any edits to the article which might be contested. Instead, you should detail changes you want made on the article's talk page, preferably with references to reliable sources. Maproom (talk) 12:58, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I see from your Contributions that you learned how to leave a message on Flyer's Talk page. In answer to your comment about User names, the vast majority of Users choose to not use their real names. Wikipedia's advice: "Consider carefully before creating an account in your real name or a nickname which might be traced to you, as these increase the potential for harassment, especially if you edit in controversial subject areas." David notMD (talk) 14:06, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Maproom and David notMD. Since Maproom covered the issues, I don't see what to state. I mean, this edit clearly shows Shakil Chaudhary removing a sourced budget and replacing it with unsourced material. I saw the edit via WP:Huggle and am not invested in the article. So this means that Shakil Chaudhary will not be guided further on this matter unless someone else steps in. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 20:42, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

publish on wikipedia

Hello,

I need help in knowing the steps in creating a Wikipedia Page. I work at a Social Media Agency and have a client who wants to open their own Wikipedia Page.

Awaiting your assistance.

Thank you, Christine Saifi Communications & Content Manager Mindfield Digital — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.98.143.196 (talk) 10:21, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia has articles, not mere "pages". This is a subtle but important distinction, as I think it is shaping some misconceptions that you might have about what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia is actually an encyclopedia and not a place for people or businesses to tell the world about themselves as social media is. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage(not just press releases, staff interviews, or routine announcements) state about article subjects that meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability. Wikipedia has no interest in what a subject wants to say about itself, only in what others say about it.

You have what we call a conflict of interest, and meet Wikipedia's definition of a paid editor. You will need to review and comply with those policies(the latter is a Terms of Use requirement and mandatory). If you make those required declarations, you may be able to use Articles for Creation to create and submit a draft for review by an independent editor. This is the only way you could create an article about your client- and I must warn you that most people in your field find it difficult to write in the manner required by Wikipedia, as the goal of your field is very different than the goal of Wikipedia- which is to simply write an encyclopedia of human knowledge for the benefit of humanity.

Also please understand that a Wikipedia article is not necessarily desirable. There are good reasons to not want one. You or your client would not have exclusive control over it. You cannot lock it to the text that you might prefer, or prevent others from editing it(except temporarily in cases of blatant vandalism). Any information, good or bad, can be in an article about your client as long as it appears in an independent reliable source and is not defamatory. Please keep these things in mind. 331dot (talk) 10:30, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Christine: In case it wasn't clear, please click on these links: WP:NOTSOCIAL, WP:NOTPROMO, and WP:OUT. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 18:42, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Help with understanding conflict of interest specificity

Hiya, I'm back editing and writing after a 7 year hiatus due to severe ill health. User:WendyGrowler It's great to be back but also a steep learning curve!

My question is do I count as having a conflict of interest with the article Draft:Boleskine House Foundation? I am not a member of the board of trustees and I haven't met any of the board. But I have volunteered to help the charity build and develop a library because of previous experience working as a librarian. I'm based in Birmingham but the Foundation is up in Scotland and I haven't met them other than email contact.

I volunteered to make the charity a wiki article because I have written articles in the past (albeit long time ago because of my health) and because I have experience as a researcher and writer as a published postgraduate student and previous job as archivist and research assistant. I have just added this to the draft article's talk page and my own user page. The article is my own research and work.

I'm still editing and improving the draft article because it needs more secondary and tertiary sources but I would really appreciate some clarity on the situation with me writing the article.

Thank you so much for your help (in advance) and taking time to read this

WendyGrowler (talk) 11:34, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

WendlyGrowler Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Thanks for returning and I hope your health is improved. To respond to your question, since you are in contact with the Foundation about writing a Wikipedia article for them(even if not face to face), I believe that counts as a conflict of interest. I believe the notice you have put on your user page is sufficient as a COI declaration. I would note that even if you are just an unpaid volunteer, this may still count as being a paid editing relationship- you don't have to be paid in cash money or anything tangible to be a paid editor- volunteers are compensated with the experience of the volunteer work. I would advise you to read WP:PAID carefully.

Once you feel your draft is ready, you may submit it for review using Articles for Creation. 331dot (talk) 11:40, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@WendyGrowler: welcome back to Wikipedia. I think, as you've identified, COI isn't always a clear line, but a grey area. You probably don't meet the classification of a paid editor, given that you don't seem to be paid, but you do have a COI regardless of whether you have met the trustees or not and, because you have specifically agreed to write an article on their behalf, you come close to the definition of being a paid editor. My personal advice would be to play it safe and act as if you were a paid editor: provide a disclosure on your user page and on the article talk page (as you have already done), only edit the article in draft (as you are currently doing), and when it is ready do not move it direct to main space but submit it through WP:AFC. If you do all this, I don't think anyone can possibly object. Once it is live, you will then have to decide if you edit the article directly or make edit requests on the talk page. Doing the former is 'strongly discouraged' for paid/COI editors, but doing the latter may be frustrating as lower-popularity articles can struggle to get the attention of editors to implement your requests. You are better off playing it safe and going for the latter route, but ultimately that decision is down to you. Hug^syrup 11:45, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Hugsyrup Note that WP:PAID states "Interns, on-loan staff, and unpaid workers, including volunteers, are deemed to be employees." 331dot (talk) 14:10, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello, User:WendyGrowler. There were at least two versions of drafts on the Boleskine House Foundation. The one at Draft:Boleskine House Foundation was trimmed by User:Quisqualis and User:Rosguill, and should be the one that is being evaluated. There was also a version in your sandbox that contained a redirect to the draft, but also had a longer version of the article that contained non-neutral material and excessive detail. I removed the redirect from your sandbox and declined it, and would suggest that your sandbox either be left alone or used as a sandbox. The version in draft space is not currently submitted for review. I think that what I have done is consistent with what Quisqualis and Rosguill have done. I thank you for asking about conflict of interest and for being transparent. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:27, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi User:Robert McClenon thank you so much for your help and clarity. I totally agree that the draft was no good and I understand a lot more about why now thanks to helpful editors and doing more reading about the wikipedia process. I'm concerned that the heavily edited version is now full of redundant references for sentences that no longer exist so I was hoping to rewrite the whole thing again and then resubmit so I wanted my previous version as a reference to not make the same mistakes. It might take me a while to redo it so I thought sandbox was the place for that kind of work? Have I got this wrong? I'm so sorry for all my errors; it's a learning curve and I do appreciate everyone's help. Can I rewrite the article in my sandbox and resubmit it when I think it is ready? I'm also sorry if I'm asking dumb questions I just want to get it right and make a useful contribution. Hopefully once I've got this one right I will be able to contribute more and more with much less difficulty! WendyGrowler (talk) 21:47, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

User:WendyGrowler - First, do not say that you are sorry for all your errors. There is no need to apologize when you are learning, and apologizing too much can be annoying. Second, you can do almost anything that you want with your sandbox. (You may not use it to house copyright violations, biographies of living persons violations, malicious code, or a few other bad uses, but you may do almost anything that a reasonable person would want to do.) Third, maybe I do not understand what you are saying about rewriting it, but I think that you are creating unnecessary work. You are concerned that the heavily edited version is not full of redundant references for sentences that no longer exist, but I think that Rosguill and Quisqualis are good editors who tried to keep the version that they were editing in good shape. My advice would be to do any further editing on the version that they have already edited. They may have made mistakes, or you can improve on what they have done, but I would think that their version is the version that you should work from. Maybe I have misunderstood. If so, maybe you can explain. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:15, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi again User:Robert McClenon thank you I understand now, penny has finally dropped as they say WendyGrowler (talk) 08:12, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Refused page Draft: Sigismund Thalberg International Piano Competition

I am the president of the Sigismund Thalberg international Study Centre The Sigismund Thalberg International Study Centre was founded in Naples in June 1996 by Principessa di Strongoli Francesca Ferrara Pignatelli, grandniece of the great Austrian pianist, and by me. The Study Center organizes a series of initiatives aiming at increasing the knowledge of the figure and the music of Thalberg. In October 1996 it organized the 1st International Congress entirely dedicated to Thalberg. The Study Center organizes too the Sigismund Thalberg International Piano Prize since 1998. Over the past 22 years the Prize has been won by some pianists who have subsequently won other prestigious awards like Sofia Gulyak first prize at Thalberg Competition and then first prize at the Leeds International Piano Competition or Michail Lifits third prize at Thalberg Competition and then first prize at the Busoni Competition in Bolzano and many others. We have done a page for Wikipedia - Draft: Sigismund Thalberg International Piano Competition - but it has been refused for several reasons, some of which are not true; for example "This submission appears to be a news report of a single event and may not be notable enough for an article in Wikipedia". We are talking about a Piano Competition that has been held for 22 years and which is dedicated to one of the greatest pianists who lived in the 19th century. What can we do to get this entry accepted on Wikipedia? Thank you Sigismundthalberg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.251.55.231 (talk) 12:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. First, you will need to review conflict of interest and paid editing, as you have some mandatory formal disclosures to make. Regarding your question, your draft has no independent reliable sources with significant coverage about your event. This is why it seemed like a news report or press release. Wikipedia is not interested in what an article subject wants to say about itself; Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources say. Your event certainly sounds like it could be notable if there are a sufficient number of independent sources that have chosen on their own to write about it. You may find it helpful to read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 12:14, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Deletion of article

Hello there! I created the page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Theophilos_Priovolos but was rejected with the reasoning that wikipedia is not a resume. Still there are innumerable pages with the same format and are up and running. What was the problem with our approach? — Preceding unsigned comment added by OgilvyAthens (talk • contribs)

@OgilvyAthens: quick questions: when you say 'our approach' who else are you referring to? And does your username suggest that you represent the Athens Office of the marketing agency Ogilvy or is that just coincidence? Hug^syrup 12:22, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

OgilvyAthens (edit conflict) Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Your draft has not been deleted, but it was declined as a potential article. It is not a good idea to cite the existence of other articles as a reason to justify your own; please see other stuff exists. As this is a volunteer project, it is possible for inappropriate articles to go undetected, even for years. If you would care to point out some of these other articles, we can certainly address those issues.

I would ask you who "our" is. If you represent the subject in some way, you must read and comply with the conflict of interest and paid editing policies(the latter is a Terms of Use requirement and mandatory). The draft seems like a resume because it just lists things that Mr. Priovolos has done. Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say about an article subject, showing why they meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability(in this case, the more specific definition of a notable person). I might suggest you read some other articles about people(Barack Obama, Boris Johnson just as examples) to get an idea about what is being looked for, and reading Your First Article and using the new user tutorial might help you as well. 331dot (talk) 12:22, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

If your username is that of a company or agency, you must change it immediately. Please make a request to do so at Special:GlobalRenameRequest or WP:CHUS. 331dot (talk) 12:24, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Note the article Other stuff exists, explaining that the presence of unjustifiable articles on Wikipedia does not in any way justify the adding of any more of the same.

Corrections to Spanish Wikipedia

I’m not very fluent in Spanish, but my grandfather has a Wikipedia page in Spanish. It shows his daughters, but not his sons. I’ve tried to add the latter. There is a record of the attempts, but the corrections don’t appear. Any idea how I can correct this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.250.50.46 (talk) 15:25, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The Spanish Wikipedia is a separate project with its own editors and policies, so we can't really help you much with that project. Maybe a Spanish speaker will be able to help you- though I can say it sounds like your changes were just reverted, you would need to check the article's edit history. 331dot (talk) 15:27, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Most Wikipedias, including the Spanish one, have an embassy where you can ask questions in English or other languages about their articles. See es:Wikipedia:Embajadas for more details. Regards SoWhy 16:38, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

YouTubers

What requirements do YouTubers need in order to have their own wiki page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoldenPioneer150 (talk • contribs) 16:26, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

GoldenPioneer150 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia has articles, not mere "pages". This is a subtle but important distinction. There are no specific requirements for "YouTubers" to merit an article. Any person must have significant coverage in independent reliable sources that shows how they meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable person. It doesn't matter if they have 5 followers, or 50, or 5 million, or if they have a lot of videos posted- they must be written about by independent reliable sources that have editorial control and fact checking. 331dot (talk) 16:31, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

In other words, it depends on the YouTuber. For, say, Tom Scott (entertainer), "entertainer" and WP:ENT would fit. For Emma Blackery it could be "musician" and WP:NMUSIC, and so on. There's an essay WP:NYOUTUBE about the issue with a list of relevant AFDs (deletion debates), and there's a List of YouTubers, who were considered as notable. –84.46.53.59 (talk) 17:15, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

unable to insert citation using oclc

i am unable to insert citation using oclc 1131999189. i assumed oclc is ok. is this normal ? Leela52452 (talk) 16:38, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

OCLC or a WorldCat entry would be something I'd add on a WikiData item and import on the corresponding article here with {{authority control}}, what are you planning? –84.46.53.59 (talk) 17:21, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

@Leela52452: I haven't used advanced visual editor on mobile but found a free Google Play Books version of that text. When inserted into the citation tool on my (source editor) interface, it generates <ref>{{cite book |last1=Brooks |first1=James Wilton |title=History of the Court of Common Pleas of the City and County of New York: With Full Reports of All Important Proceedings |date=1896 |url=https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=qu0tAAAAYAAJ |language=en}}</ref>, into which I could insert the OCLC parameter as described in Template:Cite book#Identifiers. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 17:32, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Google and Wikipedia

Why google and wikis info are different? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bengal Informer (talk • contribs) 16:41, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Bengal Informer. I have inserted a header above.

Are you by any chance referring to a photo or text shown to the right of a Google search? Google's Knowledge Graph uses a wide variety of sources. There may be a text paragraph ending with "Wikipedia" to indicate that particular text was copied from Wikipedia. An image and other text before or after the Wikipedia excerpt may be from sources completely unrelated to Wikipedia. We have no control over how Google presents our information, but Google's Knowledge Graph has a "Feedback" link where anyone can mark a field as wrong. The same feedback facility is also provided on Bing and some other search engines. --ColinFine (talk) 17:14, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

For example, J-15's top speed is 2940 kmph in Wiki,while J-15's top speed is 2551 kmph in Google. Why they are different? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bengal Informer (talk • contribs) 16:45, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Because the info is drawn from different sources. Both may be wrong, or either. Note that in the the WP-article it's marked "unreliable source?" Google doesn't seem to say where they got their number. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Pinging Bengal Informer. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:10, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Also, not only is it using different sources, but there is no single figure that is the correct top speed of an aeroplane. It depends on many factors including air density (linked to altitude), weight the plane is carrying (weapons load, fuel load), wind speed and wind direction, etc. Normally figures are quoted as "in level flight at sea level" to avoid this confusion. QuiteUnusual (talk) 18:56, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

where can I go to find unedited articles?

Hey -

I recently joined Wikipedia, yesterday and I was wondering if there is a specific guide or place I can look to help assist me in finding articles that need to be edited. Lwilliamson (talk) 17:50, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks!

@Lwilliamson: welcome! Wikipedia:Task Center contains brief guides, Wikipedia:Community portal/Opentask open tasks. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 18:13, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Lwilliamson, welcome to the Teahouse! Wikipedia:Community portal may be of help to you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:14, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello Lwilliamson,

To find maintenance work, you could press the random button (in left column) - sooner or later you'll find something that needs fixing. If you want instances of specific problems, have a look through Category:Wikipedia maintenance categories sorted by month, which shows pages labeled with specific problems, by when the problem was tagged. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 18:16, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

In my experience, articles in the biomedical sciences are often edited by people with less English ability, and therefore are in need of copyediting. If you are fluent in biomedical terminology and concepts, there's a lot to be done there.--Quisqualis (talk) 20:51, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Art And Animation studio - Czech CGI studio - Help to improve article

I'm new in the creating pages - This was not prooved. Please can anybody help me, what is missing, or what is wrong? Thanks.

Draft:Art And Animation studio — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kral Petr (talk • contribs) 17:44, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

In the feedback, on the draft and on your user talk page, the words in blue are wikilinks to detailed advice. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:54, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

What is missing, Kral Petr, is independent sources which discuss the company. Filmcommission.cz may be independent and reliable, but the page cited is clearly from Art and Animation. And the pcworld.cz, as far as I can tell, is about how the film was made, not about the company. Remember that Wikipedia has very little interest in anything said by the subject of an article: it is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject have chosen to publish. --ColinFine (talk) 18:17, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Get on Google and look for reviews, as well as articles specifically about the studio. They must be out there. If they are in foreign languages, it is still fine to use them, as Google Translate is pretty effective. That is what is needed.--Quisqualis (talk) 20:56, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Brain-copyright- etiquette

Good afternoon, I have a couple actually and I guess I can come back and add to this later. Here is the hypothetical. You grow up next door to your grammar school to the point you can see into the conversation next door(I’m serious about that). Live there and go to school there. But when I go to create the page I’m getting copyright questions about the school song, colors, how many floors. It’s in my head!! But its 2020mand sure this question has come up before.

I have an etiquette question also. Say I’m starting a baseball player, could I go to another players completed article, click the edit button and see how they did it? Even if I specifically came there to do that? Not doing any editing just backing out?

Thanks for pointers if you got’emTheemurman (talk) 19:04, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Good question, Theemurman. Wikipedia is crowd-sourced, so just imagine how much bovine excrement would end up in our articles if people could just post what they "know" and swear it was true. The problem has been solved by requiring that contributors cite Reliable sources for their assertions of fact, and only submit facts, not opinions. See WP:Citing sources for how to cite your reliable sources. Edit: note as well that, while high schools are all considered notable enough for a Wikipedia article, most grammar schools are not.--Quisqualis (talk) 20:45, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Quisqualis, for future reference, bear in mind that in the UK a Grammar school is a type of secondary school. Rojomoke (talk) 06:55, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Theemurman. As for your last question: absolutely. If you pick "Edit", and then abandon the edit, you haven't done anything. so there is no problem at all. --ColinFine (talk) 22:02, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

someone came by and just deleted everything, so goodbye wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theemurman (talk • contribs) 01:08, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps you won't read this @Theemurman: if you are leaving but I think this problem has come up because you are mixing up the differences between needing reliable sources and copyright violations. In writing about the grammar school you need to find reliable sources to back up what you remember. This is both a Wikipedia policy but also a good practice because the human memory can easily be corrupted or mistaken so you should check what you think you remember is true. The copyright violation is a separate issue - song lyrics are usually copyright, so they can't be in articles. In addition, many editors would consider it not to be encyclopedic to put things like this in an article about a school. QuiteUnusual (talk) 09:50, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Deleting an article

I found an article that has no sources and is written in biased language. (I learned how to find articles that don't comply with NPOV [Thanks @TheAwesomeHwyh].) How do you get an article deleted? Is there a process for it or something? Thanks, King of Scorpions 19:14, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

What article is it? TheAwesomeHwyh 19:15, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Priyadarshini College of Computer Sciences King of Scorpions 19:18, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi King of Scorpions, and welcome to the Teahouse! I agree, that article does need to be deleted, I've gone ahead and nominated it. For the future: Do you have Twinkle installed? If you do, here is what you do: 1) hit the "TW" button in the upper right of the article. 2) press the "XfD" button in the pop-down screen. 3) fill out the forms it requests, and 4) press "Submit Query". If you don't have Twinkle, I would recommend you install it, if you don't, I can tell you how... Does that help? If not, please feel free to inquire further. Thanks! Puddleglum ^2.0 19:51, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I do have Twinkle. Thank you for showing me! King of Scorpions 19:52, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Missing Information

I edited the page for a movie called Hillary's America and all my edits disappeared overnight. The edits were important do there being missing info. The rotten tomatoes score was outdated and so was several other areas. If anyone could tell me how to get them back I would be most greatfull.

Thanks, Hælfden.

. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hælfden (talk • contribs) 19:26, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Hælfden, your edits were reverted by User:1990'sguy as "Words like "awful" and "wonderful" are not NPOV, and we don't include audience scores on any movie articles because they're self-response polls."

In essence, all edits to the encyclopedia should follow a neutral point of view. We should only summarise what reliable sources have said - terms like the wonderful audience score aren't neutral.

~~ Alex Noble - talk 19:32, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Creating a page for my company- frowned upon

I want to create a wikipedia page for my company, but I've read that that's generally frowned upon. What's the best way to do this? Ask others to create a page/edit the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CalOlive (talk • contribs) 19:48, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

CalOlive Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. First, since your username is that of your company, you will need to request that it be changed immediately; you can do so at Special:GlobalRenameRequest or WP:CHUS. Your username must indicate that a specific individual is exclusively operating your account. Please review conflict of interest and paid editing.

Regarding your question, you can visit Requested Articles and make a request, but there are thousands of requests and it will not be done quickly. Your company will need to have significant coverage in independent reliable sources (not press releases, routine announcements, staff interviews) that shows how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable company. Wikipedia has articles, not mere "pages". 331dot (talk) 19:58, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello, CalOlive. I'm afraid that the best way to do this is not to do it at all. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, which contains neutrally written articles about notable subjects. If an article is written about your company, it should be based almost entirely on what people who have no connection with you have chosen to publish about you, not on what you say or want to say. You will have no control over the contents of the article, and your involvement should be limited to suggesting edits. And if your company does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, no article will be accepted however it is written. See An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. --ColinFine (talk) 22:14, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Follow-up to Ongoing issues

Hi...

This message is in response to this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Lee_Olesky

Per the issues outlined here [5], I have updated the page. As described in the note from when I submitted the edits, I left in two articles that are behind a paywall (one there originally, one added) because they are the best sources for information all in one place. They are top outlets in the industry and thus should help confirm notability. I can send the full text to anyone who wants it in order to prove how useful they are.

I believe this should take care of everything in order to get it approved. If not, please let me know what else needs to be done. Wpearce1983 (talk) 19:52, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Would you please post here the URLs of the two paywalled sources? Thanks.--Quisqualis (talk) 20:36, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Ah, yes, here they are:

https://www.fnlondon.com/articles/tradeweb-chief-takes-stock-of-electronic-bond-trading-revolution-20181114

https://www.risk.net/derivatives/7179876/tradewebs-ipo-shows-how-otc-markets-are-changing

Wpearce1983 (talk) 21:39, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

"wants to create" is a clear-cut case of WP:TOOSOON--Quisqualis (talk) 01:15, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

What happens after an article is nominated for deletion?

So, what happens after an article is nominated for deletion? King of Scorpions 19:59, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

It depends which of the 3 deletion processes has been used, see WP:Deletion process. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

King of Scorpions for a brief summary, if a speedy deletion tag is added, it is placed in a category for that tag, which some admins will watch. The admin can then delete on their own authority without any further discussion.

A proposed deletion (nearly always refered to as PROD) is similar, except an article doesn't have to fix a fixed speedy deletion category, but the article has the tag for a week before deletion, during which any editor can remove the tag for practically any reason. This gives a contested prod, which then can't be reproded ever.

The final, more discussion based deletion methods is Articles for Deletion§, here, a discussion occurs for 7 days, after which a closing user (not always an admin) closes the discussion and implements the result, based on the consensus of the discussion.

§There is also a few other XFDs: Files for discussion, redirects for discussion, and Miscellany for deletion, which deals with anything that doesn't fit into the other categories. These mostly operate the same as AFD.

~~ Alex Noble - talk 20:46, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for answering my question! I just nominated an article for Articles for Deletion... King of Scorpions 20:47, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

On lists

Okay, so I was wondering, is there any special way in which a list article needs be created? I would assume not, but perhaps I do not have all the information. ThanksMulstev (talk) 20:19, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

See WP:Lists and Help:List. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:22, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Rule that unsourced information cannot be added?

Hi! Forgive me if I’ve missed something obvious here, I’ve recently had two different situations where editors have insisted the correct way to handle unsourced content was to remove it. Note:this is not BLP articles.

Personally I would try to source it/verify it if it’s true, tag for {citation needed} if I thought it was dubious but didn’t have have time; or maybe used a talk page to resolve before deleting it unless I felt it was likely untrue and damaging to have on the article.

Is it a rule that one cannot add content without a source? Gleeanon409 (talk) 20:37, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Keep in mind that WP:BLP applies to any content about a living person in any article, not just standalone articles about living people. I am assuming that the content at issue was not about a person- if so, it really should not be added in the first place, but if it was, it can be tagged with a citation needed tag. If it's been there for awhile though without improvement, the information should be removed or put on the article talk page. 331dot (talk) 20:45, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, not a BLP issue.

One editor, a rollbacker, says that any unsourced “business” information added should be deleted on sight. (No {citation needed} tags, or discussion.

Another editor on a different article says there is a rule on Wikipedia against adding unsourced content. Gleeanon409 (talk) 21:33, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

It is true that unsourced content should not be added(see WP:CITE) but if it's not about a person it's okay to tag it for a bit in case others can cite it. I'm not aware of a rule that says business information that is unsourced should be removed immediately. Perhaps if it is defamatory, but not all business information is. 331dot (talk) 21:38, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! Gleeanon409 (talk) 22:31, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Gleeanon409, see WP:PERENNIAL#Require inline citations for everything. Any information added should be sourced, but in general it is not obligatory to cite the source unless it is challenged. --ColinFine (talk) 22:21, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! Gleeanon409 (talk) 22:31, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Marcia E. Farr article

I checked and double-checked all of the citations in the article. I would appreciate it if someone would send me the article highlighting the problems they see. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maltzmd (talk • contribs) 20:46, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

@Maltzmd:, looking at Draft:Marcia E. Farr, I see two problems. First, big chunks are copied and pasted from Her faculty profile without any attempt at attribution. this is why that big copyright notice has been placed there by Praxidicae. Secondly, you really don't have any citations in the article, at least, not citations as we often understand them. Yes, the citations of Dr. Farr's publications are exemplary, but the entirety of the article's actual biographical text is unsourced. The policy on biographies of living persons requires citations for any biographical text. Take a look at the Alice Goffman article, for example, and you see endnotes for every substantial claim and those endnotes are all given in the "References" section. This is what the Farr article needs for acceptance. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:15, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I would like to contribute to Wikipedia as a translator (Spanish into English)

Hello. I suspect I am not using the most appropriate means for asking my question, but I couldn't find a more appropriate way to do so.

I am a native English Speaker who is studying Spanish (I currently speak Spanish at a DELE level between 3 and 4) with the goal of eventually becoming a certified Interpreter/Translator, and I thought that I might be able to gain some excellent translation experience by contributing to Wikipedia as a translator. As you can see I have created a Wikipedia account, and I have been reading various Wikimedia pages relative to working as a translator, but I find them confusing and after reading them I don't know what concrete things I would need to do in order to get started as a Wikipedia translator.

By comparison, in my looking around your website I discovered a Wikipedia page relative to the process of editing (as opposed to translating) which I found to be very understandable, and I was able to navigate through a tutorial tab into a sandbox, which explained the process of editing and which allowed me to practice.

My question is whether there is a Wikipedia page relative to translating, analogous to the page about editing which I just described? Or do you have a suggestion for any other resource which I might find on your website which could walk me through the process of translating Wikipedia pages as a volunteer translator?

Any help you can give me, I will appreciate.

TS — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shazertom (talk • contribs) 21:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

You'll find advice at WP:Translation. --David Biddulph (talk) 21:12, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shazertom (talk • contribs) 21:21, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

@Shazertom: and WP:PNT provides a place to start off, by providing hands-on experience of already translated pages which need proofreading and copyediting. Such fun. Lectonar (talk) 09:28, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Editing in General

What is the best way to edit pages, and how do you add headings, titles, pictures, etc. on the visual editing version? — Preceding unsigned comment added by VeryUnculturedSwine (talk • contribs) 23:42, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I recommend using the visual editor, You can always practice your edits at the Sandbox! Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 01:18, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

VeryUnculturedSwine, you can start with Wikipedia:How to edit a page (concise), then Wikipedia:FAQ/Editing, and also perhaps Help:Editing. Be sure to read the articles at the blue links which appear in those 3 articles, as needed.--Quisqualis (talk) 01:19, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

oops posted an article as a userpage

Clearly distracted by my upcoming supper, I tried to post a new article, but inadvertently posted it as a user page. It's about Charles T. Moses, a multi-term Virginia state senator. Please correct my error. My laptop's also almost out of power, tho not as freaky today as my phones. Thanks.Jweaver28 (talk) 00:14, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Jweaver28. You can WP:MOVE User:Charles T. Moses to Charles T. Moses when you have the time, or maybe another person will do so for you. The only reason I'm not going to do so myself is that I'm not very familiar with WP:NPOL and although Moses seems Wikipedia notable, the sources you're citing are not really something which make verification of his notability such an easy thing to do. I also don't think "Find a Grave" is generally considered to be a WP:RS per WP:RS/P#Find a Grave and WP:UGC. I did, however, add {{Userspace draft}} to the top of the page just to let other's now that the page is a "draft" that someone is working on. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:26, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

@Jweaver28: I moved it to Draft:Charles T. Moses (seems like there are people/bots that look for user pages for non-registered users, so best not to leave it there I think). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 00:47, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Shaw Academy - How to flag scammers and fraudsters

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaw_Academy There are so many complaints about this company that cheats money from customers accounts. How to flag this page? Tirutirutiru (talk) 04:06, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Tirutirutiru. Wikipedia articles should be written so as to neither promote nor denigrate their subjects, but should always strive for neutrally worded content which reflects the type of coverage the subject is receiving in reliable sources, which are ideally independent and secondary in nature. It's not really Wikipedia's purpose to assess or evaluate a company's business practices and pass judgement upon them as explained in Wikipedia:Tendentious editing#Righting great wrongs. If this company's business practices have been the subject of coverage in such reliables sources, even if that coverage is negative, then it might be possible to include such information in the article as long as it's not undue and written in a neutral voice. If you have any concerns about the current version of the article or that any of the content contained therein is not in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, then you may bring them up for discussion at Talk:Shaw Academy, but please try and remember that article talk pages are places to discuss ways of improving Wikipedia articles and are not just a general forum for discussing anything and everything which might pertain to the subjects of articles.

If your feelings towards this company are that it needs to be "flagged" so to speak, then the best way of making your concerns about it known are probably through relevant business/governmental organziations like your local Better Business Bureau, Chamber of Commerce, consumer affairs office, etc., or local media/watchdog outlets, rather than trying to use Wikipedia to "expose" the company.

Finally, please don't make any more edits to Shaw Academy or any other articles like this, this, or this no matter how right you think you are or how badly you feel you've been treated. Such edits are not in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines no matter how you try to justify them, and continuing to do such things is only going to likely lead to your account being blocked by an adminsitrator. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:30, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Marchjuly | But, it is not just my subjective opinion | Please see so many complaints. They do not have any active phone numbers | Wikipedia authors should also check for authenticity | I understand that it was not a great idea to report in their page, but many check wikipedia page for authenticity of a company. How does wikipedia continue to be authentic, if it is providing misleading information? Kindly advice how I can take it within Wikipedia !!

Tirutirutiru (talk) 06:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

As I stated above and on the article's talk page, it is going to be considered subjective opinion unless it can be shown that reliable sources also are saying the same thing. Wikipedia article content is only intended to reflect what is being said about the subject in reliable sources, but the articles themselves are not considered reliable for any purpose. Wikipedia articles don't determine the authenticity of a company or any subject for that matter, but it isn't also supposed to host hoax articles. This article, however, was previously discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shaw Academy and the consensus established per that discussion was that the article is not a hoax; it may be poorly written and sourced, but the subject matter was deemed to meet WP:NORG.

If you have specific concerns about the article in that some of its content doesn't satisfy some Wikipedia policy and guideline, then the place to discuss that would be on the article's talk page. An article talk page, however, is just not a place to post general complaints about the subject or otherwise engage in general discussion about it. If you want to "expose" the company for what you truly think it is, then Wikipedia is not the way to do that and you should make your concerns to whichever private/governmental group handles such things out in the real world where the company does business. If your efforts are successful, then there's a good chance that content reflecting such a thing will end up in the article in some form, but it needs to be done in accordance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:21, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Help adding a comment, more information to a 3 pages

Hi,

I am looking to provide more information on 3 pages and I have a COI as it is related to our products. I am unsure how to proceed, can you help me pleas? Is there a private forum to interact for help?

Thanks a lot in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by AudreyDufour (talk • contribs) 08:00, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello AudreyDufour, thanks for asking and for the statement on your userpage! Start with suggesting changes at the talkpages of those articles. If you don't get any replies in a few days, you can try the Wikiprojects that are hopefully mentioned at the top of those talkpages (they have talkpages too). It may be good to start small. Basically everything on WP is done in public, it's a big part of the point with it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:08, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

For the three anti-depression drugs in question I agree that there is a referenced mention of increased suicide risk in the Lead that is not adequately expanded upon in the body of those articles. However, I disagree with what you have proposed to add as being too long and too detailed. I also have a concern I did not try to check that the proposed text is copied verbatim, perhaps from a "black box" product warning, and hence a copyright violation (or could just be your ability to write medicalese). What Vortioxetine, Escitalopram, and Citalopram need is an MD or pharmacist editor to address your valid concerns. David notMD (talk) 12:06, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

A different path would be to copy content, with references, from Antidepressants and suicide risk, and make that a subsection under Adverse effects. You would need to attribute where the content was copied from in your Edit summary. As what you would add would not be in your own words, your COI would not be an issue. David notMD (talk) 12:11, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Declined page draft - RMZ Corp

Hi guys,

I had recently submitted a page draft for review: RMZ Corps which was subsequently declined. I have since made changes and resubmitted the draft, however its been almost a month without any response.

Can anyone help me out please?

Regards, Contributor Indian

Hello, there is a four - six month backlog, so you'll just need to wait I'm afraid. You can expect extra scrutiny because you were paid by the subject of the article. This will result in a very careful examination of the draft before it is accepted. QuiteUnusual (talk) 13:06, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I have 2 questions

1. I wish to create a page, I have finished it in Sandbox. What is my next step to get it published for real? 2. I want to upload a picture for this page but it is denied because they can't determine whether it is suitable. It is a picture of the building the page refers to that I took with my own camera.

Thanks so much for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thechurchsandviken (talk • contribs) 13:15, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

1. Special:Contributions/Thechurchsandviken shows your question here to have been your first edit, so it doesn't look as if you saved your draft to your sandbox. Might you have saved it from a different account?

2. If you took the photograph yourself you can upload it to Wikimedia Commons: commons:Special:UploadWizard.

--David Biddulph (talk) 13:26, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Table in external links

In the EastEnders external links section, the ratings table that belongs in the viewership section is being displayed. When I attempt to edit the article, the table isn't in "External links" in the raw coding. Does anyone know why this is happening, and if you can fix it? – DarkGlow (talk) 13:21, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

The table wasn't correctly terminated. This edit hopefully cures it. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:32, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Submission declined on a topic which is obviously notable

Hello everyone,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Flutterwave had previously been declined as not notable, as the notability was not well explained. I made some edits to ensure this came out more clearly, but it was declined again.

I do not have any direct connection to the topic (I created my Wikipedia because I want to bring more attention to the African tech space, which is underrepresented on Wikipedia). Flutterwave is a prominent player in this space, and the coverage already speaks for itself. Dedicated articles in Forbes, Techcrunch and Quartz Africa should normally in itself qualify for notability. The company is also from a notable origin (Andela), with a notable founder (Iyinoluwa Aboyeji), and is funded by several notable VCs. According to the criteria in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies), this submission must have been declined by mistake. Or am I wrong?

Equatorialviking (talk) 13:29, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Equatorialviking, Haven't read all the sources, but note the Forbes article is from a contributor, not staff, so is deemed to be practically self published, and not seen as a reliable source - see its page at Perennial sources.

Haven't looked at, and no comment on, the rest of the sourcing. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 13:37, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Google news results show it to be notable, I suggest improve which sources are cited. Also note, that unless you have a conflict of interest it is by no means essential for articles to go through AFC, you can always create an article directly in mainspace, it will still need to be reviewed by NPP and tagged with any content issues. Cheers, Polyamorph (talk) 14:45, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

It is currently essential for now, as the user isn't autoconfirmed. 10 edits over 4 days are required, whilst the user currently has 7.

But yes, once you have a few more edits you can avoid AFC, although we generally don't recommend this to new users. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 14:49, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

How to make edits without being reverted immediately

I try to keep a neutral tone and provide plenty of peer reviewed references before submitting but my posts get deleted instantly. What can I do?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dezicnated (talk • contribs)

(copy/paste of the answer I gave the user on my talk page) Hello @Dezicnated:. A few things about your edit. 1) it was completely unexplained. Please make sure to use the edit summary box so other editors understand what you are doing. 2) you made the same edit yesterday. At that time other editors reverted you and invited you to discuss it on the talk page of the article. Instead of doing it, you just reinserted the same change without any kind of explanation. I'm not sure what outcome you were expecting there. 3) in case of disagreement on a change, the correct way to proceed is to discuss it on the talk page of the article (see WP:BRD). There is nothing bad about having an edit reverted, this is part of the editing process. 4) the lead of the article acts as the summary of its body (see WP:LEAD), so changing large chucks of the lead without updating the body first is very unlikely to be correct as the lead would not summarize the article anymore. I hope that makes things clearer. --McSly (talk) 14:49, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Dezicnated Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Any large, substantive change to an article, especially if it is reverted by another editor, should be discussed on the article talk page- as the editor who removed your edits invited you to do(you can check the article's edit history yourself). In this case, it seems like you are adding a lot of references but not much substance to the article itself. Note that Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state about article subjects. It does not provide equal time to all point of view, but differing views must be presented in a way that is proportional to their coverage in independent sources. 331dot (talk) 14:55, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Kerry Taylor Businesswoman

I have noticed that the entry for Kerry Taylor Auctions is marked as "maybe having been created in return for undisclosed payments". I work at this auction house and we were unaware someone had set up this entry, so it certainly wasn't set up for money! How can I have this notice removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.83.103.26 (talk) 16:08, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy link Kerry Taylor (businesswoman). Hug^syrup 16:14, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

It looks as if Melcous added the tag so the best thing is probably to ask them about it, either on their talk page or on the article talk page (probably better, so everyone can see it). It would be good to understand what reason they have for suspecting paid editing and then you, they, and other editors can agree whether the tag should remain in place. Hug^syrup 16:17, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

The tag was placed as the original author was blocked for undisclosed paid editing, and it seems like the kind of article that would have been created for pay.

The tag is there to alert editors to possible problems with an article. An editor with experience in paid editing will find it through the template sooner or later, and either fix any problems and remove the tag, or nominate it for deletion.

Although anyone can remove the tag, as with any maintenance tag, we would strongly recommend any editor with a conflict of interest not to do so. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 16:19, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Changing the display picture of an article

I would like to change the display picture on the article of a public figure, the image that I want to use is already authorized for public use in the commons The question that I have is, do I need to have a specific reason on why I want to change the image of an article? Or can I simply request it as long as the new one is in the commons?

Thanks for your help