Wikipedia:Teahouse

David notMD, 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

Citing Pages in a Multi-Page Document vs. Only Including Said Pages in a Subset Document

I have an instance where an outside source (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Promessa_Organic) has suggested including a cover letter and only certain pages (Page 77 and 79) in a .pdf file documenting a 'Proof of Concept' test relating to promession (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Promession), and I am questioning the validity of that approach, as opposed to citing those pages in the reference in the (existing) WP article, but including the whole document in a .pdf. The whole document is currently of undetermined length (I just haven't asked how long it is) and was written by an external company to the outside source. The .pdf document (whether the 3-pager or the whole thing) would be stored by Promessa and referenced by a URL in the WP article. The problems with their approach, as I see it, include:

• The pages in the current short .pdf document mainly contain images of a test result, but that doesn't preclude the possibility of other images that may give conflicting test results.
• WP users wanting to validate information relating to the test can't see any (unknown) context around the test that may or may not be in Pages 1-76, 78 and 80-end.

Basically, I think the whole document - currently only in paper form as I understand it - should be converted to a .pdf and included by Promessa.

ADDENDUM: What a complete and utter waste of time Wikipedia's archiving bot (Munninbot) makes of this Teahouse sometimes. It archived my question (above) "because there was no discussion for a few days" when I entered it on May 14 and it's only May 16 now (i.e. a "couple of days" is not "a few days"). I'm dealing with a company in Sweden re this matter and am waiting on a related response to an email I sent to them on the 14th, Marchjuly's first response gave me lots to look up, I'm not full time on this and I sleep sometimes. And why is MY question archived anyway? I see questions that have been dormant since May 10!

What's the hurry re archiving after only 2 days (or even "a few days" when the last response has questions)? Timing of this bot should be corrected. BrettA343 (talk) 20:22, 16 May 2020 (UTC) BrettA343 (talk) 20:22, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Marchjuly's response from Archive added by BrettA343.

Hi BrettA343. Your question seems to be a mix of multiple questions involving various policies and guidelines, so I'm not sure what you're trying to ask or where to start. Sources cited in Wikipedia articles need to meet WP:RS and not be WP:UNDUE. If a source is deemed reliable for Wikipedia's purposes, all that it needs to be is published and accessible so that anyone who wants to verify the accuracy of the source can do so. The source doesn't need to be readily available online and it can even be behind a WP:PAYWALL or otherwise cost a fee to see as long as it can be verified by someone who wants to do so; so, there's no need to upload an entire document or link to an entire document for verification purposes as long as it's possible to verify in other ways as explained in WP:SAYWHERE. Being available online and in its entirety certainly makes a source easier to assess, but it's not something that's required. Finally, official documents, etc. often fall under WP:PRIMARY and although they can sometimes be cited, there are limitations to how they can be used. So, the first thing you might need to do is assess the reliability of the source itself and determine whether it's a PRIMARY or WP:SECONDARY source based on the the way its being used. The place to discuss such a thing would be on the relevant article's talk page or at WP:RSN. Once it's be determined whether the source is reliable, then perhaps the next thing to figure out would be to how best cite it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:47, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by BrettA343 (talk • contribs)

(edit conflict) Has the document been published by a reputable publisher, BrettA343? If not, the article probably shouldn't be citing it at all. It doesn't matter whether a resource is online or not: what matters is that it has been published, so that in principle (eg via a major library) a reader could obtain a copy.

Certain information can come from the subject's own website (see PRIMARY), but it doesn't sound as if the information in question is appropriately sourced, from your description. --ColinFine (talk) 21:42, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, @ColinFine:, I don't know (and you don't say, though I wish you would) just what in my description gives you the idea that it isn't appropriately sourced. I'm still waiting for more than the 3 pages I got on 14 May (as I intimated, even I don't think they're appropriate for a variety of reasons), but you seem to take a harder stance than I get from reading WP:RS and the like. For instance, it states:

"Source reliability falls on a spectrum: highly reliable sources, clearly unreliable sources, and many in the middle. Editors must use their judgment to draw the line between usable and unreliable sources.", and

"The term "published" is most commonly associated with text materials, either in traditional printed format or online; however, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources."

"It is convenient, but by no means necessary, for the archived copy to be accessible via the Internet."

The first quote is self-explanatory, I think, and note that the second quote says both 'online' and 'reputable party', not 'reputable publisher'. It's my understanding that the party conducting the 'Proof of Concept' tests for Promessa is indeed reliable and reputable with usable source, and definitely a third-party / independent party not affiliated with Promessa except for these tests. I'm still unclear on the exact relationship between the two, but have asked those questions. The third quote indicates to me that - as at least I would expect - online access is preferable to "a major library" (though both would be ideal), not only because many people can't readily get to a major library, but it's got to be awfully major to hold every test and report conducted in every country around the world... Sweden, in this case.

You seem to shoot them down prematurely, IMHO, while I'm just waiting to find out answers and hopefully see the whole document so I can, as WP:RS says, "use my judgement" (plus I'm writing snippets of responses timed so that my 48 hour limit doesn't run out). BrettA343 (talk) 02:36, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@BrettA343: It appears that the bot that archives this page is Lowercase sigmabot III. It looks at the User:MiszaBot/config at the top of the Teahouse code, which is set to archive after 48 hours of inactivity. You mentioned that there are discussions that haven't had activity since 10 May that haven't been archived. I think part of the issue is that the #Deletion of file section was not signed properly. I've added {{unsigned}} to that post, in the hopes that the bot will archive a lot of the old discussions. GoingBatty (talk) 22:40, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

@BrettA343: The discussions last updated on 10 May have now been archived. Thanks for bringing the problem to our attention! GoingBatty (talk) 15:37, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: You're welcome about 'bringing the problem to your attention', but can I also suggest you change the message from "a few days" to "48 hours"? Or even better, archive after a few days (please specify how many days you've chosen)? I find myself having to pace my responses so the 48 hours doesn't 'catch me' again because I'm still waiting for Promessa's reply to my email (it's another time-waster). BrettA343 (talk) 04:42, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@BrettA343: The top of this page states "Completed questions are archived within 3 days." The bot runs once a day and archives everything with no response for more than 48 hours, so I believe this statement is accurate. Could you please mention exactly where you see the verbiage "a few days"? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 01:05, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi, BrettA343. I wasn't clear, because your description leaves unstated various points. It is not clear to me whether or not the PDF in question has been published - which, as you point out, is not necessarily clearcut. It is now common for materials to circulate on the internet whose provenance is unclear, and in some cases in varying versions: when have such things been published?

If the report is available only from the subject of the article, it is at best self-published. If the subject and not the originator publishes the report, there is no way for a reader to tell whether the subject might have altered or (for example) cherry picked the document. I know nothing of Promessa, and have no reason to doubt their good faith; but in general this is a concern. But I am happy to wait and see how it looks when you have the document and have decided how to reference it. --ColinFine (talk) 09:24, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Page history after moving Sandbox into Wikipedia

What happens with the Sandbox author's editing history after moving a new article from user space into article space? Will the history be reset automatically or does a history reset need to be requested? Dranoel26 (talk) 14:19, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Dranoel26 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. When you move a page from draft to main space, the history goes with it. You could just create a new page and copy/paste the text from your sandbox, but I'm not sure why you would want to remove the edit history.

Be advised that unless you are extremely experienced with creating articles, it is a good idea to submit your draft for an independent review using Articles for Creation. 331dot (talk) 14:24, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

thx for the good advise. Could you pls also comment on the question about editing history? --Dranoel26 (talk) 14:43, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Dranoel26 I did; "When you move a page from draft to main space, the history goes with it." 331dot (talk) 14:53, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

thanks

@Dranoel26: If you want to submit it for review without a long page history then you could copy the contents to User:Dranoel26/Jewish Princedom in feudal France or Draft:Jewish Princedom in feudal France. You are allowed to make many user subpages for drafts or tests. You normally have to credit the original page in a copy per Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia, but it's not required when you are the only contributor. Don't move it to one of those pages since it brings the page history which would then also be brought to a mainspace article after a second move. It's possible to delete the page history later but only for administrators and they may see no good reason to do it. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:55, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Add {{subst:submit}} to the bottom of the page you want to submit. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:00, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

is there not any simple way for the administrator just to reset the history (specially with a single contributor)?--Dranoel26 (talk) 15:44, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@Dranoel26: It's much easier for you to just copy the page, and it's unclear whether an author request is even a valid reason for partial deletion of a page history. Wikipedia:Deletion policy, Wikipedia:Selective deletion and Wikipedia:Revision deletion doesn't mention it. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:50, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

many thanks for your assistance — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dranoel26 (talk • contribs) 18:29, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

The change watcher's unfair removal of my edits

Unfair removal of my edits by User:Hb1290

Hi,

I recently made an edit in the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devendrakula_Velalar with a disclaimer and additional section with relevant references. The user https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hb1290 has reverted my change without any justification. I would like to get a clarification regarding this. Rvptiger18 (talk) 07:38, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Rvptiger18: welcome to the Teahouse. The best place to ask a user why they made a particular edit is on their user talk page. In this case, the reason is clear, though: first of all, as you say, you added a disclaimer in the article itself stating that its information was not true. Such disclaimers do not belong in any Wikipedia article. If you have reliable sources supporting your assertion, post to the article talk page and explain why you believe that the information is incorrect. You can't simply add the claims to the article in Wikipedia's voice, when they go against the existing, sourced information. In addition, you had added a notability tag which did not apply to the article. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 07:49, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Bonadea: Thanks for your reply. I have taken this issue in the user talk page of Hb1290. My contention is that the use of the name "Devendra Kula Velalar" is objected by different velalar communities and this name is not recognised by Indian government or Tamilnadu government. There is no proof existing to substantiate that this name "Devendra Kula Velalar" represents the Pallar community which this page is describing about. Rvptiger18 (talk) 11:44, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Rvptiger18: replied on your talk page. Hb1290 (talk) 06:11, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

HOW TO CREATE AN ARTICLE ABOUT ME WITHOUT BECOMING FAMOUS.

HI WIKIPEDIA, I AM A NEW USE. HOW CAN I CREATE AN ARTICLE ABOUT MINE OR MY COMPANY. I AM NOT FAMOUS FOR ANYTHING.HOW CAN I MAKE A ARTICLE? I AM A MUSICIAN. CAN I MAKE A ARTICLE ABOUT MY SELF PLEASE . PLEASE ANSWER ME. IF YES HOW? EXPLAIN? CousinsTeam (talk) 15:48, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. Unfortunately, articles of this case are very hard to pass on, so be sure to read up on the help sections "My first article" and "notability" to get you started on rules and regulations. Someone else might link the sources for me because I don't know how to. Good luck! Le Panini (talk) 15:57, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi talk, Wikipedia is not the place to make yourself famous at all :) Have a look at Wikipedia:Autobiography and please have also a close look of the Welcome Message I left you on your talk page, there you got good starting points to read what you can do and what you should not do. CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:12, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@CousinsTeam: Please dont write in all capital letters. Itss considered yelling and will definitely not cause others to be encouraged to help you. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:15, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Victor Schmidt: I'm starting to feel like that needs to be added to the page's edit notice Hillelfrei ^talk 16:28, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Maybe. I see about 1 request per week on all the help boards I monitor regulary. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:37, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't see any benefit to telling people not to use ALL Caps in multiple places. Those are people who don't pay attention. One notice is enough. Oh well. McClenon mobile (talk) 22:18, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Short answer is you don’t, unless you can show you are notable with significant coverage in multiple reliable news sources, and you write neutrally (No all caps either). In all honesty if you are notable it’s still better off someone else creates the article. Regards SK2242 (talk) 15:45, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Re-Submitting an Article

 Courtesy link: Draft:Night Bass Records

Hello Teahouse! I submitted an article for a record label called 'Night Bass'. The submission was declined because it read too much like an ad. I would still like to re-submit the article. What I'd like to know is - Are there any penalties for editing and submitting an article too many times? My plan is to take a bulk of the article out and cut it down to the real solid facts. Do you think that's an effective course of action? Thanks so much for taking the time in reading this! ZoeShanks (talk) 17:08, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@ZoeShanks: Welcome to the Teahouse! I'll say work on it as much as you can to cut off the promotional bits (I strongly suggest you read WP:PUFFERY) before sending it back for review. The only real penalty is annoying reviewers who look at drafts with barely any improvement that they start to consider rejecting it. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:12, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Tenryuu: Thank you so much @Tenryuu this is great info! I checked out that article resubmitted it, and am crossing my fingers :). It's funny, my original submission had 5 of those words!! Just from direct quotes pulled from articles, but I took all of that out. Thank you again! (ZoeShanks (talk) 05:07, 22 May 2020 (UTC))

Edits to Digital Marketing

Hello Teahouse! I took the plunge based on your advice and recently made my first bold edit on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_marketing would love to hear your feedback before I keep going:) Thanks so much! LilMew88 (talk) 17:53, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello! The only suggestion I myself would give is to thread the smaller paragraphs into a couple of big ones. Other then that, it seems well sophisticated! Le Panini (talk) 18:00, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@LilMew88: It is important not to use in-group terminology or jargon in Wikipedia articles, and also to think about the audience. Articles about marketing have a tendency to become more and more laden with buzzwords and marketing talk, and so when you add or rewrite a section it's really easy to fall into the same kind of writing. But in fact, Wikipedia is not written for marketers and people who understand their peculiar version of English, so I have done a little bit of rephrasing of your edits for that reason, and also to give the text a more neutral tone (we don't want to give the impression that marketing is inherently a positive thing or something that improves the lives of regular people.) The entire article would need a re-write to bring it to a more encyclopedic standard, and that's quite a big task...

Another thing to keep in mind is that we can't use Wikipedia articles as references. Instead of using <ref> tags and adding a citation with the Wikipedia article, simply add a wikilink to the relevant word. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 13:21, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much bonadea and Le Panini!!! Super helpful advice!! I am working on rewriting the entire article, so I will use these tips moving forward, and hopefully we can get this thing back up to par! Thanks again, LilMew88 (talk) 15:35, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Change colour of name

See abow. I want to change it from red to blue. Mirrored7 (talk) 22:29, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Umm... I think that if you click on the red link (it’s your userpage BTW) and create it, the link will turn blue. Stay safe and well, --Total Eclipse 2017 ^{(My profile | My contribs | speak to me)} 22:47, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Mirrored7: if after that you don't like blue, you can visit this page to change it to another color. Wikipedia:Signatures#Customizing your signature. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:24, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Poof it is blue. As Tim advised, you can also get fancy about your signature. David notMD (talk) 23:44, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Now that's something I didn't know, thanks guys. Also to add another question, what's the best way to revert it to default if we ever want to? Is there another code? Or just blank the page? Rotation4020 (talk) 10:55, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Peer review

So, when I clicked on an editor’s contributions, I found that they hade made edits to a subpage of Wikipedia:Peer review. I clicked on the link, but I’m still a little confused. What exactly is peer review? (I’ve found that asking an editor sometimes gives me a better answer than reading a page...) Stay safe and well, --Total Eclipse 2017 ^{(My profile | My contribs | speak to me)} 22:44, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Total Eclipse 2017: Sometimes on Wikipedia (quite a lot of times, actually) you have to be prepared to actually read stuff for yourself, rather than relying on others to spoon feed you information. This is one of those times. You have already given us the link to Wikipedia:Peer review, so please at least read the first paragraph. That should tell you the basics. If you're still confused, Wikipedia even has an article about it (see Peer review). Nick Moyes (talk) 00:42, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: I read it again, and it does make a lot more sense now! I do apologize for wasting everyone’s time here, and will only ask the Teahouse for help if I really need it... Stay safe and well, --Total Eclipse 2017 ^{(My profile | My contribs | speak to me)} 19:16, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Remove "This article has multiple issues" from page

Hello,

I have methodically gone through my biography to try and remove template messages. I have inserted citations for verification. I have followed Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies but the messages that:

"This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages) This biography of a living person needs additional citations for verification. (June 2017) The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies. (April 2020)"

still remain at the top of the page. Please can anyone advise.

(KingoftheWoods (talk) 23:11, 20 May 2020 (UTC)) KingoftheWoods (talk) 23:11, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi KingoftheWoods - it's discouraged for people to write about themselves, since they may not follow site guidelines about verifiable and accurate content. Please review WP:EDITREQUEST to post a request for help on the David Day (Canadian writer) talk page. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:21, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

This tags are added and removed manually by users. You are free to remove it yourself if you believe an article no longer has these issues. Rotation4020 (talk) 10:59, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Rotation4020 whilst that advice is true in general, if the user has a conflict of interest i.e. in this case they are the subject of the article, then they shouldn't be removing tags from the page. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:09, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. I just wanted to add to what Tim said, for if the user comes across another article in future. Rotation4020 (talk) 11:44, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Draft: Malayeen Karim

Draft: Malayeen Karim Hello! I have a draft that has been waiting for around 6 days for a review and one draft that was reviewed in a day. Is that normal? Many thanks to you, Maha92o (talk) 06:29, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Maha92o, this is entirely normal. Reviewers select the articles they will review, so please be patient. It can take weeks to get a review.--Quisqualis (talk) 07:03, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

To reinforce that - it is not a queue. There are close to 2,000 drafts in the 'pile' and reviewers pick what they want. Sadly, can actually take months. David notMD (talk) 13:03, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Updates on page 'undone' by Coffee and even older version loaded!

This page is about to have major traffic due to a national broadcast on BBC and is now redundant. Concerned that if we spend more time making revisions these will be wiped too! Coffee considered the revisions 'promotional'..can only think this was the insertion of the term 'world's greatest' instead of 'many of the great' orchestras'but anyone who knows their music will know this is true! A statement of fact not a promotion!! Worse she reverted the copy to a version that was up 10 years ago so it is now misinformation.

Tried to update my wiki page and 'Coffee' undid them all and reverted to a version that is so old it's pointless! What do? such a waste of tim! Henri of Wells (talk) 07:29, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Charles Hazlewood.

Henri of Wells: yes, adding promotional phrases like "of the world's best", and adding entire paragraphs which cite no source, is pointless, as such edits are very likely to be reverted. I see you refer to the article as "my wiki page". If you are Hazlewood, you should not be editing the article at all (except to revert vandalism and correct obvious errors). Instead you should write on its talk page, giving details of any changes you would like to make and providing references for them. Maproom (talk) 08:03, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Much of the content just removed was added by User:Megs91 back in 2009, but it was not referenced then, and remained unreferenced. Content can be added back with supporting references, but a wholesale reverting of Coffee's cut (and Maproom's restoration of that cut) is not warranted. David notMD (talk) 13:14, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Referencing

What style of referencing is recommended for use by wikipedians? Robbiegibbons (talk) 07:44, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Robbiegibbons. Since Wikipedia is edited by all kinds of people from all over the world, it doesn't have one particular "house citation style" that everyone must use, but instead allows a variety of styles to be used. You can find out more about this in Wikipedia:Citing sources and Help:Referencing for beginners. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:36, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Why am I getting warnings?

Why am I getting lots of warning for editing and why are most of my edits are removed? Even after putting relevant points with links why am I also subjected to be warned and remove? Sarker Ahtef (talk) 08:29, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Sarker Ahtef, welcome to the Teahouse! Your edits are being removed as you are expressing your own point of view, which does not follow Wikipedia's neutral view policy. Encyclopaedias are a source of knowledge, not opinions. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 08:44, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Can I add an image to an article that is pending review?

I have just written an article (Draft:Edinburgh Festival Voluntary Guides Association) and it is now pending review. The article is about an organisation, so I thought I would add the organisation's logo to the Infobox. So I started the File Upload Wizard, and declared that the image was non-free. So far, so good.

But when I entered the title of the article into the wizard, it told me that no article exists with that name. This is presumably because the article hasn't yet been approved. I tried entering the article name pre-pended with "Draft:", but that made no difference.

So it looks like it is not possible to add images to articles before they are approved. Is that correct? Mike Marchmont (talk) 09:16, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Mike Marchmont: yes and no. Non-free images (which logos usually are), may not be added to anything except a published article: please see WP:NFCC. In fact, non-free images may also not be kept in Wikipedia unless they are used in an article. Free images (usually from Commons) may be added to a draft. --ColinFine (talk) 09:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC) Edited to correct a typo in this paragraph. --ColinFine (talk) 10:43, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@ColinFine : Thanks for your prompt reply, Colin. This is perfectly clear. I will just wait until the article has been approved before uploading the logo. Mike Marchmont (talk) 09:57, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Draft:TheRunawayGuys

• Draft:TheRunawayGuys

Hello, I'm writing an article on the collaborative YouTube channel 'TheRunawayGuys', as I think the group is notable enough for their own article and not just a redirect to the Chuggaaconroy article. I think this due to the fact they are one of, if not, the first group to do collabs on YouTube in their manner, plus they have many panels at conventions as well as their partnership with Direct Relief. However, at the moment the draft won't be accepted due to citing of unreliable sources. I was wondering if anybody could help me with this. Thank you. Captain Galaxy (talk) 09:37, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Captain Galaxy. Wikipedia notability isn’t really something we can “manufacture” or edit into an article as explained in WP:ARTN. Subjects either receive sufficient significant coverage to justify having a Wikipedia article written about them or they don’t, and in many cases it’s simply WP:TOOSOON for an article to be written. It isn’t possible, however, for a broad guideline like WP:N to cover every possible case related to assessing a subject’s Wikipedia notability, which is why there are also various subject-specific notability guidelines as well, but even these in some cases might not still be too broadly construed to clearly say “this subject is definitely Wikipedia notable”. YouTubers in particular might be a subject which doesn’t receive the kind of coverage in traditional reliable sources that more mainstream entertainers, etc. tend to get, and thus they might rely of more niche types of sources instead. Perhaps you should try asking at WP:YTP for feedback on your draft because the members of that WikiProject are likely going to know what types of sources are generally considered reliable for this type of thing and where to look for them. Even if it turns out that the consensus is that an article cannot yet be written about this group at this moment, that could change down the road and there are WP:ALTERNATIVES to Wikipedia which might actually more suitable (i.e. less restrictive policies and guidelines and more editorial control) for this kind of stuff. — Marchjuly (talk) 10:41, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Marchjuly:Thank you for the advice, I'll go check WP:YTP. Captain Galaxy (talk) 10:50, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Vorsham New artists about submissions

Hi Dear , I Just create the article for British-Iranian Rapper knows as Vorsham His on the rise now First time my submission is decided because of the reference about Spotify things and this not acceptable and I change the reference to unique news about him and I resubmit how I can make sure my articles go live 🙏🏻

Here the link plz can u review

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Vorsham 148.252.132.163 (talk) 10:42, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

If this person is "on the rise", they likely do not meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable musician. A person must have, so to speak, already arrived, not just be up and coming, in order to merit an article on Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 10:44, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

My userpage problem

Hi, everyone. Recently, I face a intimidating problem in my userpage. I can't adjust the position and location of the "my contributions" template properly. I welcome experienced users to help me solve this issue. :-)  Hypersonic man 11 (talk) 10:51, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Hypersonic man 11, I did what I guess you were trying to do. Please have a look and see if it is. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 12:19, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks a million, cool guy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypersonic man 11 (talk • contribs) 02:06, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Please delete my account

I was writing to my bank and ended up on Wikipedia somehow,I have tried for two days and cannot delete my banking information. Can anyone help? Pawladobe (talk) 11:24, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello Pawladobe. Accounts on Wikipedia cannot be deleted. I couldn't find any banking information associated with this account. If you could link to us where you posted it, we can help you further. Interstellarity (talk) 11:42, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Interstellarity, the thing to do is to point them to appropriate private channels, not ask them for more details publicly. Cheers! Usedtobecool ☎️ 11:45, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Usedtobecool: My apologies. If you don't mind, I will let you take over helping this editor. Interstellarity (talk) 11:58, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Interstellarity, I apologise for my previous edit; I wrote it in a hurry, in case the OP might be drawn to make yet another edit pointing to information that needed suppression. Note that the edit they alluded to was the only one they have made, other than this very post. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 12:08, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Pawladobe, the information has been removed from public view. Only the most trusted few can ever see it again. Please change any private details that can be changed, so the information you posted becomes unusable anyway. Unfortunately, accounts can not be deleted. You can simply abandon it if you wish to not edit any further.

For the future, please note that all edits you make within Wikipedia are still public; therefore you should pursue private channels, such as emailing, to bring such matters to attention. Your post here could as well have drawn unwanted attention to those banking details, since this one too is one of the very public pages on Wikipedia. You can use the form at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:EmailUser/Oversight to send an email requesting deletion of personal, private information as outlined at Wikipedia's Oversight Policy, if the need arises again. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 12:08, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

clarify use?

clarify use [https://books.google.com/books?id=kvpby7HtAe0C&pg=PA18 18] is incorrect or correct in |pages=[https://books.google.com/books?id=kvpby7HtAe0C&pg=PA18 18] ?

for example the issue is on Abella. the above code is copied from Wikipedia:Citing sources. i find it sometimes particularly when quoting book. i have read Template:Cite book but i could not find info. according to me :

• (1) correct : {{cite book |last=Rawls |first=John |title=A Theory of Justice |publisher=Harvard University Press |date=1971 |page=18 |url= https://books.google.com/books?id=kvpby7HtAe0C&pg=PA18}}
• (2) incorrect : {{cite book |last=Rawls |first=John |title=A Theory of Justice |publisher=Harvard University Press |date=1971 |page=[https://books.google.com/books?id=kvpby7HtAe0C&pg=PA18 18] |url= https://books.google.com/books?id=kvpby7HtAe0C&pg=PA18}}
• (3) incorrect : {{cite book |last=Rawls |first=John |title=A Theory of Justice |publisher=Harvard University Press |date=1971 |page=[https://books.google.com/books?id=kvpby7HtAe0C&pg=PA18 18]}}

if there are multiple citations with different pages, i want to avoid {{rp|9–57}} and use the following code :

• (4) Rawls, John. [https://books.google.com/books?id=kvpby7HtAe0C&pg=PA18 ''A Theory of Justice'']. Harvard University Press, 1971, p. 18.

please clarify Leela52452 (talk) 12:24, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Leela52452: I thought it might be useful to show how these render to facilitate discussion:

• (1) Rawls, John (1971). A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press. p. 18.
• (2) Rawls, John (1971). A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press. p. 18.
• (3) Rawls, John (1971). A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press. p. 18.
• (4) Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press, 1971, p. 18.

I'll note I've seen a bot make these links to page numbers. I personally don't like the link being to the page only in (3) because it's easy to miss the fact that there's a link at all, but (2) is annoyingly duplicative. I use (1). The un-templated (4) seems to mimic (1), except that it puts the year in a different place and uses different punctuation (as a result).

I'm missing how any of them solve the problem that I think you're asking about, which is the need to cite multiple pages in the same book. AFAIK, the alternative to {{Rp}} (or {{R}}) is using Harvard-style "short footnotes" with {{Sfn}} and a bibliography that contains the full cite to which those notes refer. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 19:43, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

A little spitballing: I generally don't create new articles, so I'm usually stuck with following the existing cite format of the article. {{Sfn}} is more complicated and easily gets broken when people make changes, so I wouldn't add that to an article that doesn't already use it. I generally will use the {{Rp}} approach, though you have to be careful to avoid things like this^[1][2]:34[5], which can be hard to parse, usually by doing this^[1][5][2]:34 or, if there are multiple {{Rp}} together, try to split them up into different (though relevant) places or, as a last resort, space them like this.^{[1] [2]:34 [5]:67}

I haven't seen it done, but a separator other than (or in addition to) space might be clearer, like this.^{[1], [2]:34, [5]:67} Or maybe if the template would put the page numbers inside the brackets like this.^{[1][2:34][5:67]} Thoughts welcome. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 20:00, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

• Pinging SMcCandlish for some expert context and input. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 20:26, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Linking the page number doesn't appear to be a documented feature of the templates, and given that most attempts to externally link inside other parameters [aside from those explicitly for external links] are now suppressed and throw an error, we can probably expect the same will happen with page numbers in a future code revision. So, just use the |url= parameter and include a specific enough URL to get where you want it to get (or use |chapter-url= – it depends on what you're citing with what template). So, example 1 above is correct for typical cases, while in an edited volume it might be like so: {{cite book |last=Rawls |first=John |chapter=A Theory of Justice, Revisited |chapter-url= https://books.google.com/books?id=kvpby7HtAe0C&pg=PA18 |page=18 |editor-last=Public |editor-first1=Jane Q. |title=Justice and Theories About It |publisher=Harvard University Press |date=2021}}. Examples 2 and 3 are a bad idea, and certainly no bot should be auto-doing anything like that. I don't see the point of example 4; either use a full citation in the same templated style, or use short-footnote style (typically Harvard format), or use {{Rp}}. "Sometime soon", changes to the <ref> code will obviate the need for {{Rp}} in that citation style. The new MediaWiki extension with page-specific refs exists, but as far as I know has not yet been slated for introduction to en.Wikipedia.org just yet. {{Rp}} is really intended for works that are being cited over and over and over again in the same article; it's not a big deal to just repeat an entire citation apart from page number (e.g. copy-paste the whole citation and change the page) a couple of times in an article. It's also fine, if there couldn't be any confusion, to manually do a short cite on later occurrences, e.g. <ref>Rawls (1971), [https://books.google.com/books?id=kvpby7HtAe0C&pg=PA18 p. 18].</ref>; not sure it matters exactly what is linked there. If using Harvard citation templates, there's probably some documentation specifics about this sort of thing. I just don't see a rationale for manually doing an "almost full-length" later cite with: Rawls, John. [https://books.google.com/books?id=kvpby7HtAe0C&pg=PA18 ''A Theory of Justice'']. Harvard University Press, 1971, p. 18..  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:43, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Requesting help to see if the 2nd draft of my article meets the WP:NPOV and WP:TONE criteria before I resubmit it

Dear Teahouse hosts,

The first draft of my article Draft: Nipun Malhotra (social entrepreneur) was declined on the ground of WP:NPOV and WP:TONE issues. Based on the feedback received and after reading multiple articles, I have tried and changed the writing style extensively. Please note that I have also looked at other similar pages to understand the accepted format. (I'd be happy to share the details of the pages I have referred to in case that's required.)

I'm writing to request one of you to kindly go through my edited draft to see if this is worth resubmitting. Following is the relevant link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Nipun_Malhotra_(social_entrepreneur)

Thank you! Nipman (talk) 12:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello Nipman. Welcome to the Teahouse. If you writing an article about yourself, stop. In the eyes of Wikipedia, this is called a conflict of interest which means you have a personal connection with the subject. Someone else will end up writing an article for you if you are notable. Please see our policy on autobiographies. Interstellarity (talk) 13:06, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

The actual wording at WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY is "Writing an autobiography on Wikipedia is an example of conflict of interest editing and is strongly discouraged." Which is not the same as prohibited. I did some formatting work on the article. I suggest you consider resubmitting it now that you have also removed POV and tone content, and see what the next reviewer has to say. David notMD (talk) 13:30, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Nipman: I did some more cleanup on style issues and also some copy-editing. I've left some maintenance tags (search for "clarif" and "which?") in areas that I thought were unclear or needed expansion. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 21:13, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Dear @Interstellarity: , Just to keep you informed, my article does not violate WP:COI in any manner. My user name might have confused you. However, I've thought of a more apt username for my account. I've read WP:CHUG and will make the changes after this article is over (in order to avoid any confusion). It was a random decision while creating my account. But thank you for the guidance! Nipman (talk) 06:08, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Dear @David notMD: and @AlanM1:, Thank you so much for all your help and support. The article looks so much better with your formatting and cleanup. And the maintenance tags are quite self explanatory to understand what's wrong with my draft. I will make all the necessary changes based on your feedback and resubmit my article. Thank you once again. Nipman (talk) 06:08, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Dear @David notMD: and @AlanM1:, I have accommodated all the suggested changes in the article to the best of my understanding. This is how my article looks now: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Nipun_Malhotra_(social_entrepreneur) If any of you could kindly skim through it once, I will feel much more confident in re-submitting this article. Sharing it with you guys because you invested your time and energy in this. Thank you! Nipman (talk) 13:13, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Needs a ref at the end of the Awards text. David notMD (talk) 02:32, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@David notMD: Sure, I'll put one. Thank you!

Submitting WP Policy Proposals

Where/how can I post a policy proposal? For example this is a failed proposal. I'm not sure how and where to post my own. Hopefully one that won't fail :P

But seriously. I want to post a proposal that prefers apolitical sources to right/left biased ones.  – Chrisvacc - ✆ 13:13, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Chrisvacc: Probably best to visit the Reliability WikiProject and post on the talk page. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Reliability. You face an uphill battle since feelings about bias vary wildly. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:35, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Timtempleton:Well there's a general consensus about the bias of different sources. Like most people would agree that Fox News has a right bias, CNN has a left bias. https://www.adfontesmedia.com/?v=402f03a963ba and even the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources list mentions which sources have bias – Chrisvacc - ✆

@Chrisvacc: No doubt that everyone agrees there's bias, but my point was more good luck getting agreement from everyone about which particular sources are biased. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:08, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:Village pump (proposals) discusses proposals; WP:Village pump (policy) discusses policies. There is also WP:Village pump (idea lab). Please read the headers on those pages to decide where you want to start. Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:46, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Chrisvacc: most people would agree that Fox News has a right bias, CNN has a left bias. If only that (most people would agree) were true . —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 22:44, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@AlanM1: Ha. Fair enough. – Chrisvacc - ✆

Draft:IXL Learning

Hello! I'm in the process of writing about IXL Learning, a parent education company (I think that's what they're called, its what I call it.) One of the companies IXL Learning owns is ABCya.com, which already has a pre-existing Wikipedia article. What should I do for this case? Should I briefly describe it on my article or some requirement like that? Thank you for your time. Le Panini (talk) 14:20, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Le panini. Generally not: just Wikilink to it, so the reader will see a link, and can follow it to the relevant article. Once your draft is accepted, the article about the parent company should be wikilinked to the one you're writing, either by editing the text to refer to it, or else in the "See also" section. --ColinFine (talk) 15:29, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Is it appropriate to simplify regular wikipedia vocabulary?

For example, one article said ~doing x increased a person's language paradigm by 45~

I want to change that too ~doing x increased a person's language vocab by 45~ Hiveir (talk) 14:25, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Hiveir: Welcome to the Teahouse. It depends on context and the article. Under normal circumstances I'd say yes, but if it's a linguistics-themed article it might be important to keep it that way, as "increasing a person's language vocab by 45" is also unclear; 45 words? 45 percent? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:58, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Addendum: Of course, "vocabulary" should be used instead, as "vocab" is not formal English. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:41, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Hiveir. "Increased a person's language paradigm by 45" makes absolutely no sense to me, so if I encountered it in an article, I would certainly want to change it - unless the article explained (or at least wikilinked to) the phrase "language paradigm". What I would change it to, I have no idea, without context: it certainly doesn't sound as if it means "vocabulary". What is the article? (Did you not see where the edit box says "Give the full title or URL of any page you're asking about.") A search for "increased a person's language paradigm" gives no hits, so I think you must have mistyped it. --ColinFine (talk) 15:42, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

ColinFine, I was talking more so in general rather than a specific article so i typed it from memory. The article i am talking avout is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esperanto_vocabulary#Correlatives. Specifically " Thus by learning these 14 elements the speaker acquires a paradigm of 45 adverbs and pronouns. "--Hiveir (talk) 21:41, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Hiveir. General questions tend to get less useful answers, because so many things in Wikipedia are determined by individual discretion and consensus. The general answer to your question is "If you think you can improve the wording in a Wikipedia article, by all means go ahead and do so. If somebody disagrees, they may change it back, and then, if you care enough, you can start a discussion with them: see WP:BRD".

In this particular case, I agree that the wording is a bit clumsy, but it certainly means more than just that the learner acquires 45 words: it is giving a "paradigm" (a pattern, if you like) into which those 45 words fit, rather than being 45 arbitrary words. --ColinFine (talk) 23:02, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Internet Archive for dead links

I'm new to Wikipedia, and all my edits have been simply copy-editing. I was editing the Stephen A. Zeff article, and I noticed this link in the references. It now leads to a 404 page, but there is an Internet Archive save for it here.

Thank you, Just gonna edit a bit (talk) 14:48, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

 Added to reference. @Just gonna edit a bit: Thanks for finding that! —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:46, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, Just gonna edit a bit. Generally what you do is to leave the link there but mark it as dead, and add an archive-url to the citation. See Link rot for more information. --ColinFine (talk) 15:47, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

There are actually two dead links. I will take care of it. Just gonna edit a bit (talk) 15:50, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Najee Dorsey Submission -- Other ways to talk about "Explore"

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

I have seen articles on Wikipedia use "explore" to describe what artists do (Radcliffe Bailey). How else should I state this? I thought about using "depicts". Do you see any other instances of this problem (wording) in my submission? I want to get it right this time. Thanks for your help. ClairCarol (talk) 14:39, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@ClairCarol: Welcome to the Teahouse. I agree with your assessment of using something like "depict" rather than "explore", as the former is more neutral than the latter. Saying something along the lines of "Dorsey is known for creating Southern African American-themed works" might also work as well. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:06, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Merge page for Felischa Marye

Hello, I was submitting what I thought was a new page but to my surprise there was another page that had the same information. I was told to merge the two pages but I am not sure if I did it correctly as the editor has not responded.

This is my page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ArborChamp/Felischa_Marye

This is the page that I merged my information into. I have made the necessary changes but I am just not sure if I did it correctly. Please advise. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Felischa_Marye ArborChamp (talk) 14:43, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Response from TeaHouse Host: Hi ArborChamp and welcome to the TeaHouse. We love to answer questions posed by other editors. You did do the merge correctly, however, before the merge takes place, there is a discussion to be had. That discussion has not yet begun. It can be located on the article page in which you want to merge. However, I recommend you read Wikipedia:Merging to obtain the details of what you need to do. It should also be noted that both of the articles have been declined for nomination into the main space. The list of issues is located at Draft:Felischa_Marye. Once all issues have been addressed, you are more than welcome to resubmit it. I hope this helps and if you have any other questions, please feel free to ask us.
Galendalia _{CVU Member} \ ^{Chat Me Up} 07:00, 23 May 2020 (UTC) _{TeaHouse Host}

I work for an research institute, tried to update the wikipedia page and some editor undid my changes falsely, help?

Blocked

 – Promotional edit reverted, OP blocked until username changes. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 09:36, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I was tasked by my institute director to update our wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterloo_Institute_for_Nanotechnology I made the updates, just about what research we do at the institute and new facilities and published them and within seconds received a notification from an editor (not one associated with the institute) saying my changes were promotional when they are not, I'm stating facts about our institute? I am new to this and very confused on how to publish my changes again or even how to speak with this editor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:I_dream_of_horses about why she thinks something is promotional or against wikipedia policies?

Any help is greatly appreciated. Thank you! WIN Waterloo (talk) 15:02, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@WIN Waterloo: Welcome to the Teahouse. I dream of horses was following policy. One thing editors should understand is that articles that relate to them do not belong to them. Furthermore, you are highly discouraged from editing pages that are related to you as you would have a conflict of interest, unless you are the subject and are removing vandalism. Facts need to be sourced in reliable, independent sources; you can go to the article's talk page and submit edit requests to suggest content changes paired with reliable sources. As an aside, if you wish to keep editing here on Wikipedia please change your username, as there is a username policy that forbids editors from using their organisation's name as you have done. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:13, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Addendum: I am more inclined to agree with I dream of horses' reversion after taking a glance at what they reverted. The language used was not appropriate for an encyclopedia. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:20, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Under unintended consequences, the question submitter is now blocked until making a name change. Once that step is completed, must comply with WP:PAID be declaring paid status on User page. And as Tenryuu pointed out, the proper path for a paid editor to pursue changes is to propose content on the article's Talk page (change ____ to ____) so that a non-involved editor can decide to accept or decline the proposed changes. Frustrating as ___? Yes, but required. David notMD (talk) 16:37, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Biography vs Page

Need help with biography I was trying to create a biography page as we got an email stating that "Good News for you, we think you're eligible for a Wikipedia page.! You have great milestones, and online publications are speaking about you. You deserve to be on Wikipedia, and we are here to deliver that for you. " Basic question is can I change the "Page" to a biography? or it does not matter?

Thank you for your assistance Tc-heart (talk) 15:40, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello Tc-heart! Well, the mail sounds like someone who is trying to get some money from you, and we strongly advice against trying to create an autobiograbhy, see WP:AUTO. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:56, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Tc-heart, and welcome to the Teahouse. I don't know who sent you that email, but they appear to know absolutely nothing about Wikipedia. If they are asking you for money, to "put you on Wikipedia" they are either ignorant or dishonest, because they cannot guarnatee that an article about you will be accepted, or that it will say what you want it to.

Nobody in the world "deserves" to be "on Wikipedia", because a Wikipedia article is for the benefit of Wikipedia and its readers, not for the benefit of the subject of the article. writing about yourself is strongly discouraged in Wikipedia. If you are notable in the special sense that Wikipedia uses the word, then there can be an article about you, but it will not belong to you, your are discouraged from writing it yourself (as I said above), and you will have no control over the contents. As your anonymous source suggests, notability is mostly about being written about in different places; but we require that these be reliable sources - published by somebody with a repuation for editorial control and fact checking. Many "online publications" are not reliable in that way, though some are.

If you think that you meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and you want us to have an article about you (which you may not: see an article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing), then I suggest you collect three or so really solid, subsantion, reliably published sources, completely unconnected with you or any organisation you are involved with, and put a request on requested articles. I will admit, though, that the take-up there is low. --ColinFine (talk) 16:02, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Tc-heart, I realised I didn't answer your direct question. This was partly because I'm not sure I understood it. Wikipedia is made up of articles, some of which are biographies. We don't use the word "page" much, except as a catch-all term for articles, talk pages, help pages, project pages (like this one) and so on. I'm guessing that what you are asking is whether your user page User:Tc-heart could hold a biography of you? The answer is, no. User pages are separate from the articles that form the encyclopaedia, and there are limitations as to what you may put on them. Your main user page is for you to share any information you choose about you as a Wikipedia editor. A limited amount of biographical information unconnected with Wikipedia is acceptable, but it must not be promotional (for yourself or anything else), and it may not be made to look like an encyclopaedia article. See User pages for what is allowed. --ColinFine (talk) 16:30, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Lastly, your draft Draft:Dr. Nitza I Alvarez which appears to be an attempt to create an article about yourself, has been nominated for Speedy deletion, meaning that likely soon an Administrator will delete it. This can happen even though you had not submitted it for review yet, is the content is so clearly not up to Wikipedia standards of notability. Attempts at autobiography are strongly discouraged WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. David notMD (talk) 16:46, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the information, the article is not about myself is about my wife and she is a published author. I did disclose there was personal interest. I will continue to learn and support this platform. Thanks again for your time and warm welcome — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tc-heart (talk • contribs) 02:30, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson page

I would like access to Thomas Jefferson page to enter my books into Bibliography

• M. Andrew Holowchak, Rethinking Thomas Jefferson’s Views on Race and Slavery: “God’s justice can not sleep forever,” Cambridge Scholars, 2020, ISBN-10: 1527544486
• M. Andrew Holowchak, American Messiah: The Surprisingly Simple Religious Views of Thomas Jefferson, Abilene Christian University Press, 2020, ISBN-10: 168426071X
• M. Andrew Holowchak, Thomas Jefferson: Psychobiography of an American Lion, Nova Publishers, 2020, ISBN-10: 153616657X
• M. Andrew Holowchak, Thirty-Six More Essays, Plus another, on the Probing Mind of Thomas Jefferson: “A sentimental traveller,” II, Cambridge Scholars Press, 2020, ISBN-10: 1527544842
• M. Andrew Holowchak, Thirty-Six Short Essays on the Probing Mind of Thomas Jefferson: “A sentimental traveler,” Cambridge Scholars, 2020, ISBN-10: 1527541851
• M. Andrew Holowchak, The Cavernous Mind of Thomas Jefferson, an American Savant, Cambridge Scholars, 2019, ISBN-10: 1527538648
• M. Andrew Holowchak, Jefferson’s Bible: Text with Introduction and Critical Commentary, Berlin: DeGruyter, 2019, ISBN-10: 3110617560
• M. Andrew Holowchak, Thomas Jefferson, Moralist, McFarland, 2017, ISBN-10: 1476669244
• M. Andrew Holowchak, Jefferson’s Political Philosophy and the Metaphysics of Utopia, Brill, 2017, ISBN-10: 9004339418
• M. Andrew Holowchak, The Elusive Thomas Jefferson: The Man behind the Myths (contributing co-editor with Brian Dotts, UGA), McFarland, 2017, ISBN-10: 9781476669250
• M. Andrew Holowchak, Thomas Jefferson’s Philosophy of Education: A Utopian Dream, Taylor & Francis, 2014, ISBN-10: 9781138702257
• M. Andrew Holowchak, Thomas Jefferson: Uncovering His Unique Philosophy and Vision, Prometheus Books, 2014, ISBN: 1616149523
• M. Andrew Holowchak, Thomas Jefferson and Philosophy: Essays on the Philosophical Cast of Jefferson’s Writings, Lexington Books, 2013, ISBN-10: 0739180916
• M. Andrew Holowchak, Framing a Legend: Exposing the Distorted History of Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings, Prometheus Books, 2013, ISBN-10: 1616147296
• M. Andrew Holowchak, Dutiful Correspondent: Philosophical Essays on Thomas Jefferson, Rowman & Littlefield, 2013, ISBN: 1442220422

 Mholowchak (talk) 17:02, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Mholowchak, you, like any other editor, already have access to the Thomas Jefferson article. But please don't. Adding links to your own work to a Wikipedia article is strongly disapproved of. Adding 15 of them at once would almost certainly result in their prompt removal.

If you think one or two of them would be a good addition to the article, you should propose them on the article's talk page, and leave it to editors with no conflict of interest to make the decision. Maproom (talk) 17:15, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

You were cautioned in February for self-citing your own work (and quoting yourself) in edits to Jefferson-related articles, so I support the recommendation that you make a case for content you want to amend and your references in support of same in the Talk page of the article rather than direct changes to the article. David notMD (talk) 18:26, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

At second look, the relevant article appears to be Bibliography of Thomas Jefferson versus Thomas Jefferson. However, if appears that 15 books by you are already in the list (added by you, today). So is there still a question? David notMD (talk) 18:57, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Jargon/Best Type of Language to Use?

Hi Everyone,

I was curious about the language style, as I am trying to make updates to pages that "are written like personal essays" and need to be translated to be more "encyclopedia style". I need some guidance about how to provide useful information while not sounding "too technical". I have had a response to one of my edits with one user saying that my technical writing style was great, and another saying it was too difficult to understand. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. LilMew88 (talk) 17:05, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I cannot find that anyone has commented that your writing is "too technical" – could you please point out where that comment was made? I have looked through most of your edits and cannot see any place where your writing is overly technical (nor any place where someone has commented on your language use as being technical, but I'm probably missing something). What is a slight issue is that there is sometimes a tendency to use a lot of marketing buzzwords and empty jargon, which is a completely different thing from being "technical", of course – sorry for pointing out utterly obvious things to you :-) . --bonadea contributions talk 21:41, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Ireby, Cumbria

Hi there appears to be a new editor appearing on Ireby, Cumbria + Uldale, trying to advertise the same two businesses that another editor was banned for advertising.

These pages should be protected.

Devokewater (talk) 18:27, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

The issue appears to be not false statements, but rather lack of verification by references. At both articles, if the edit warring continues, I suggest you take up with the other editor the solution of stating that a pub is open again (Ireby), and a tea room exists (Uldale), without including the actual name of the businesses now in these locations. David notMD (talk) 18:37, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Film studies

Please see Film studies article and fix the FilmComment reference DonGuess (talk) 19:35, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@DonGuess: What error do you help fixing? RudolfRed (talk) 19:55, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@RudolfRed: check the edit history of Film Studies please, I’m not sure the Film Comment link that I added is correct

@DonGuess: I'm guessing that you want the name in italics, so I did that, but it would be better if you could state what you think the error is. RudolfRed (talk) 20:24, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@RudolfRed: Thank you! But that’s my own edit and I’m not sure whether FilmComment should be in the list so I would like someone to decide thatDonGuess (talk) 20:27, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Hebrew script in first sentence

David Brodman - I’m experienced with Wikipedia, but can someone help writing the date of birth after the name in Hebrew. It doing strange things... SportsOlympic (talk) 20:36, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Fixed @SportsOlympic: --Hillelfrei ^talk 21:40, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Hillelfrei:, thanks but now the day of birth is removed. If I place it back, the same error is there again :( SportsOlympic (talk) 21:49, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@SportsOlympic: I see you just placed it in and I don't see a problem now - is it still displaying wierdly for you? Hillelfrei ^talk 21:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Hillelfrei:, yes, I’m seeing now: “David Brodman (Hebrew:דוד ברודמן) (22 February 1936 - 19 May 2020)” SportsOlympic (talk) 21:54, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@SportsOlympic: What do you want it to say? Hillelfrei ^talk 22:02, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@SportsOlympic: Looks OK to me, too, except that the correct separator for a date range like that is a spaced endash, which is most easily done with the code 22 February 1936{{Snd}} 19 May 2020, which produces "22 February 1936 – 19 May 2020". Elsewhere, we might combine the alternative name and dates, separated by a semicolon, into the same set of parentheses, but there can be issues with editing tools and left-to-right script in the vicinity of right-to-left script, so if it works this way, I think it's OK (except for the endash issue, that is ). —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 23:36, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

On my iPhone, I’m still seeing “David Brodman (Hebrew:22) (HEBREW NAME February 1936 – 19 May 2020)“ instead of David Brodman (Hebrew:HEBREW NAME) (22 February 1936 – 19 May 2020)“. Maybe there is a difference with different browsers? SportsOlympic (talk) 07:49, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@SportsOlympic: Sorry – I was lazy and didn't look at the code. Is it better now? I wrapped the Hebrew name in {{Lang-he}} which should tell the browser how to render it correctly. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 08:14, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@AlanM1:, ahh wow!! Yes, perfect! Thanks! Will use it in other articles :) SportsOlympic (talk) 08:48, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Photograph of Professor Ivor Goodson

Hi, can you help with advice, downloading a picture of Professor Ivor Goodson - all best wishes Elizabeth

RE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivor_Goodson Elizabeth fleur briggs (talk) 20:54, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Elizabeth F. Briggs

Elizabeth fleur briggs, I'm not sure what you mean. Where do you want to download it from? Or are you asking for someone to provide a suitable photo?

In any case, the article Ivor Goodson looks more like a CV than an encyclopedia article. Most seriously, it cites no sources at all, and therefore fails to establish that Goodson is notable (please click on that blue word to see how it us used here), and is accordingly in danger of deletion. Maproom (talk) 21:23, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Elizabeth fleur briggs the bigger issue is that you've just copied his CV, which is a copyright violation. In general, Wikipedia cannot access text copied from other sources. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:35, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

And the same question was previously asked and answered here. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Elizabeth fleur briggs: All Wikipedia editors are volunteers giving up their own time. Please only ask once unless you have a specific question on what I told you last time. Thanks, Hillelfrei ^talk 22:05, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Elizabeth fleur briggs: You evidently have a Conflict of Interest in editing on Ivor Goodson, and are being WP:PAID to do so. Please stop, read both the links I have just given and cease any further editing until such time as you have declared your WP:COI on your userpage, and made the obligatory declaration of PAID EDITING. Looking back at that page's history, I note a number of other accounts over the years which have edited in exactly the same manner as you are doing now by ignoring our rules about inserting copyrighted material into Wikipedia and promoting someone without making a COI declaration. You are wasting volunteer time by making one of our administrators have to clean up after you, and permanently remove copyrighted text. If it happens again you may be blocked from editing. Please stop trying to promote your boss or colleague and, whatever you do, don't take someone else's photograph and try to upload it as your own. Only the original copyright owner may do that, and somehow I doubt that person is you. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:43, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

what protocol should I follow to edit any article

 Pasalaprasad (talk) 02:16, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Pasalaprasad, this page will tell you how it is done.--Quisqualis (talk) 04:26, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Wisconsin CVID-19 timeline

Over the past week the number of new COVID-19 cases in Wisconsin has increased rapidly, and today it broke the medical cases chart, which is no longer wide enough to contain the bars: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:COVID-19_pandemic_data/United_States/Wisconsin_medical_cases_chart. On the bright side, no members of the Wisconsin Supreme Court are believed to be sick... just their constituents. I don't know how to fix the chart... would one of the Wikipedia gods take a look? Thanks! StanfordPostDoc (talk) 02:36, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

No Wikipedia gods around, but I've resolved it with this edit. The divisor parameter was preventing auto-scaling. --David Biddulph (talk) 02:41, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! StanfordPostDoc (talk) 02:53, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Templates Infobox French constituency, French political party colours

Resolved

 Deferred to Wikipedia:Requested_templates#Template:Infobox_French_constituency

Hi - I'm trying to update French constituency pages to reflect change in party for deputies who left La République En Marche! to form Ecology Democracy Solidarity, but I am having trouble getting the party colour to show. See Template:Infobox French constituency. A test case constituency page is Alpes-de-Haute-Provence's 1st constituency. The colour for the new party is set up in Template:Ecology Democracy Solidarity/meta/color Newystats (talk) 02:44, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Newystats: and welcome to the TeaHouse. I apologize that no one has responded to you as we are all volunteers and we get a lot of questions, so this may have been overlooked. On behalf of all the hosts, I apologize for the delay. To answer your question, your template should look like this:

{{Infobox French constituency | name = | image = | map = | member-type = | member = | member-party = | party-colour = REM | department = | cantons = | voters = }}

Adding the REM to the party-colour will generate a green background with black lettering. Ensure there is a space after the = sign. You can also view a sample at Template:Infobox_French_constituency/testcases. If this does not help, please list the code you are using in its entirety by using <nowiki> above everything at the beginning and </nowiki> as the very last line in the code. Thanks and again welcome. Galendalia _{CVU Member} \ ^{Chat Me Up} 06:39, 23 May 2020 (UTC) _{TeaHouse Host}

Thanks @Galendalia: - no worries about the time for reply, I appreciate your help. I've set up a reproducible example in User:Newystats/French Constituency

For the existing party, La République En Marche!, the colours work. There is a colour defined in Template:La République En Marche!/meta/color which generates colours in code like:

{| class="wikitable" |- !colspan="2"|Election!!Member!!Party |- | style="background-color: {{En Marche!/meta/color}}" | | 2017 | Member |- | style="background-color: {{Ecology Democracy Solidarity/meta/color}}" | | 2020 | blah |}

I created the template for Template:Ecology Democracy Solidarity/meta/color, and that makes the second line of the table above work.

The issue is I don't know where the template is to set up the colour for the new party in a way that works in the Template:Infobox French constituency

REM as you describe works for La République En Marche!, but I can't work out where to set up the short form code for Ecology Democracy Solidarity, so that the template colour works.

Two infoboxes; REM does REM colour {{Infobox French constituency | name = 1st constituency of [[Alpes-de-Haute-Provence]] | image = | map = | member-type = Deputy | member = [[Delphine Bagarry]] | member-party = LREM | party-colour = REM }} This does not do EDS colour {{Infobox French constituency | name = 1st constituency of [[Alpes-de-Haute-Provence]] | image = | map = | member-type = Deputy | member = [[Delphine Bagarry]] | member-party = [[Ecology Democracy Solidarity|EDS]] | party-colour = EDS }} The EDS colour works in tables: {| class="wikitable" |- !colspan="2"|Election!!Member!!Party |- | style="background-color: {{En Marche!/meta/color}}" | | 2017 | Member |- | style="background-color: {{Ecology Democracy Solidarity/meta/color}}" | | 2020 | blah |}

Newystats (talk) 10:13, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

• Update from TeaHouse host: I have opened a request at the template page to have assistance on this as it needs to be documented and corrected to allow it. I have pointed them to this discussion and you can work with them at Wikipedia:Requested_templates#Template:Infobox_French_constituency for any issues regarding this specific template. They are usually pretty fast in resolving these types of issues. Galendalia (talk) 16:02, 23 May 2020 (UTC) _{TeaHouse Host}

• Another Update: Newystats, this has been fixed as the EDS was not being passed to the template. The template team was able to fix it and I asked them to add documentation to the template. I hope this helps you out. As always, we appreciate you using the TeaHouse and look forward to answering any other questions you may have. Galendalia (talk) 16:31, 23 May 2020 (UTC) _{TeaHouse Host}

Submitting a new article for review

Resolved

 – Draft was accepted as an article. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:49, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I have written an article on Draft:HMS Leander (1848) to fill the gap in the list of HMS Leanders.

I would like to have it reviewed for publication.

Also I have uploaded a photograph of it to Wikimedia Commons but cannot get the link to work in my article.

The 'Leander' at the entrance of Balaklava harbour, 1855 GrognardJeff (talk) 02:59, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@GrognardJeff: Welcome to the Teahouse! I see that Tenryuu kindly submitted the draft for you. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 05:03, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@GrognardJeff: I also see the file you uploaded at Commons:File:The 'Leander' at the entrance of Balaklava harbour, 1855.jpg, but I don't know where you want it in your draft. GoingBatty (talk) 05:31, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I've tried inserting it in the Crimean War section, but must be missing something about Image insertion syntax and names with ' in them. Newystats (talk) 05:50, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Update: @GrognardJeff: Your draft was accepted and is now in mainspace. Congratulations! —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:23, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Unable to find my name while searching on wikipedia

Hi All,

I have submitted my docs but unable to find my page on Wikipedia. Could you please let me know why I am not visible on Wikipedia? My User ID: KCSnooker Kcsnooker (talk) 03:08, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@Kcsnooker: Your userpage is in your signature. In case you don't know, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that hosts articles; it is not a place to put resumes up of yourself. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:58, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@Kcsnooker: Are you referring to User:Kcsnooker/sandbox? Writing an autobiography on Wikipedia is an example of conflict of interest editing and is strongly discouraged. GoingBatty (talk) 05:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

The content you had placed at User:Kcsnooker has been subjected to Speedy deletion. The function of a User page is for a relatively brief description of your intentions as a Wikipedia editor. Some background is allowed, but not a 'profile.' Your Sandbox User:Kcsnooker/sandbox contains a draft of an article about yourself, and has been nominated for Speedy deletion. I you intend to pursue creating an article about yourself, you should contest this as quickly as possible, before an Administrator deletes it. The draft is seriously flawed. It has a personal tone (he did this, he thought that) rather than encyclopaedic, paragraphs are without references, and there is a lot of repetition of content in tables and text. Nothing should be bould except the first use of the subject's name. David notMD (talk) 09:18, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

AND... deleted as I wrote. You can contact the deleting administrator to ask if you can recover your draft content. David notMD (talk) 09:25, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Article declined because of missing neutral or relevant sources

Dear All, I recently did write an article about of group of artists I think it would be interesting for the community. I wrote a short brief and did put in 4 links to reliable sources in the Design and Art world (AIGA, Design Observer, Graphic Hug, CalArts Institute). Then it was declined because sources were missing?

What kind of sources should it be then?

Best, Andreas AndreasFrutiger (talk) 07:31, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy: Draft:Vier5. REALLY short, and sadly, while interviews as sources can be used to provide basic information, do not contribute to notability. In other refs, mention of Vier5 is only a sentence or two. David notMD (talk) 09:32, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Problem with citation template

In William G. Brown#Writings, the last item, which I just added, says it's a press release and I have no idea why or how to fix it. Thanks. deisenbe (talk) deisenbe (talk) 14:04, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@Deisenbe: Can you supply a diff, please? I think you've probably linked to the wrong article. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:21, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@Deisenbe: No need. I think I found your edit (you did name the wrong article! - see diff) Now, I'm no expert at all when it comes to templates, but I note on the template's talk page at Template talk:Cite letter#use template wrapper that last year a modification was made which deployed part of {{Cite press release}}. (Exactly what it was doing, is beyond me). However, when I went to the template documentation for Cite letter and compared the accepted fields with those you used, I noticed you had included "type = ", which is not in the documentation for {{Cite letter}}, YET it is shown in that template's syntax in vertical format, but not in horizontal view. (I think that was an error, and that its unwanted presence is causing the problem by invoking the default (Press Release) statement), so I am going to ping @Jonesey95 and Trappist the monk: with the suggestion that they check and resolve this. Meanwhile, just remove "type= "from your use of cite letter, and you should be sorted. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:53, 22 May 2020 (UTC) 

Sorry! It's William G. Allen#Writings, in case anyone else looks for it. i didn't insert "type=", it came when I copied and pasted the template. deisenbe (talk) 17:00, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Query about neutral tone in an article

Hello - I am writing to ask if someone could help me with my edit of this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Esuantsiwa_Jane_Goldsmith

It has been declined as apparently the tone is not neutral enough for an encyclopedia article. I think I have identified the key points which need amending or deleting but I would really like to check this with someone if advice is available, to give myself the best chance of getting it right with the next submission. If anyone is available to advise me I would be very grateful. I have noted the points I think may be problematic below (highlighting in bold the key words in longer sentences) and it would be great if anyone could confirm if these sound like they are breaching the formal / neutral tone guidelines.

Many thanks! I am new to Wikipedia so any guidance appreciated.

Esua has had a lifetime career in the aid and development movement, human rights and women’s equality.

She was founder staff member of the National Alliance of Women’s organisations 1990-95, which brought more than 300 members and women’s organisations together across the UK, and helped to spearhead the formation of the European Women’s Lobby.

In 1995 Esua founded Anona Development Consultancy and has worked with over 100 different not-for-profit organisations on five continents, developing global strategies for WaterAid, Oxfam and ActionAid among many others. She is also an experienced public speaker on issues relating to equality and human rights, including a recent Keynote speech at the Governance Institute Charity Governance Conference 2019[2].

Esua has founded, Chaired and served on the Board of a number of prominent feminist groups and women’s organisations. she introduced new feminist, participatory approaches to governance.[to the Fawcett society]

Esua has set up a fund to raise money for community development projects, such as schools and public bathrooms for the Village Katecmorrison (talk) 14:09, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Katecmorrison, haven't studied the whole draft but what gave me direct attention is that the section "feminist activist" is almost unsourced, you should definitely try to add some reliable sources to this section before resubmitting. CommanderWaterford (talk) 14:18, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I shall add in some more sources to that section. All the best, Kate.Katecmorrison (talk) 14:57, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@Katecmorrison: In addition, the "Early life" and "University of Leicester" sections are completely unsourced, and much of the "Career" section is unsourced. To negate your conflict of interest, I suggest you start over by simply summarizing what the independent reliable sources say, and provide the appropriate inline citations. GoingBatty (talk) 15:28, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

A common error is to first write what you know to be true, and then trying to patch in references after. Also, you are over-linking, as in Wikilinking common words ("aid") and repeating to link each time you name an organization. Too much blue! David notMD (talk) 02:36, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

member of parliament

I want to know if member of a parliament is notable enough to be a wikipedia article. I have seen all members of US congress are Wikipedia pages. I want to ask if all 746 members of German parliament Bundestag can be featured in 746 Wikipedia pages. Another thing is that someone who is notable in Spanish or German Wikipedia can be how much notable in the English one. I want to collect info about a French politician, what if I don't know French and google translation is a mess.... in this case, should English rather than French Wikipedia be my source? Ppt2003 (talk) 14:14, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ppt2003: Politicians who have been members of national legislative bodies are generally considered notable, per WP:POLITICIAN. Notability criteria vary between Wikipedias, so be sure the person meets the English Wikipedia criteria before spending time working on a draft. You should use independent reliable sources, and not use Wikipedia as a source, per WP:CIRCULAR. GoingBatty (talk) 15:33, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ppt2003: As GoingBatty notes, members of national legislatures are considered to be notable- but they still must be discussed in independent reliable sources. Those sources do not need to be in English, German is fine. 331dot (talk) 15:36, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

adding photo

Have a cup of tea and enjoy seeing Commons images on Wikipedia

Please clearly explain how can I add photos in Wikipedia articles. I have seen that directly copy-pasting photos are not working. How in the world are then everyone is adding photos in Wikipedia. How does the title of the picture gets changed, and it becomes jpg. format? Ppt2003 (talk) 14:20, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Ppt2003. I am assuming you have already found an image image you want to use on Wikimedia Commons? If not, go to this main page and type a keyword in the search box (it's at the top right in desktop view). If you find an image you like, but it's not quite the right one, you could click one or more of the "Categories" listed at the very bottom of the page. This helps keep related images together and helps you find others.

It could be like this one of a cup of tea that you want to use. Using an exisiting one is easier that a brand new image of your own that you would first have to upload from scratch. So, click on the link in the previous sentence, or click the photograph you see here - you're taken to the same place - and look just above the picture, and beneath the filename where you'll see a line of five small links. Look for the link with the tiny Wikipedia 'W' logo and the words "Use this file". Click that link and select the text offered to "Use this file on a Wiki as a Thumbnail". (The convention is always to add an image as a thumbnail, no matter how much you'd love to make it larger.) Copy the link to your clipboard and then go to the Wikipedia page you want to add it to (let's assume we want to add it to the page we're on now). Edit the page (ie click the tab labelled Edit Source). Scroll down to the section you'd like to add it to, and paste in the text you copied at the very top of that section. By default, this adds the thumbnail picture and its caption on the right hand side of the page, as you see here. To change the caption text, just edit the text to the right of the vertical bar - or 'pipe'. Don't change the filename.jpg text itself or the image link will be broken. There are some useful links on this help page: Wikipedia:Images with further guidance and tweaks, or detailed layout possibilities at Wikipedia:Picture tutorial.

Of course, if you are using the alternative Visual Editor (which is a bit more WYSIWYG), the process is slightly different. You once again navigate to the section where the image is needed, then, in the editing toolbar, click Insert > Media. At the search bar in the popup that then appears, type the keyword to search for certain image types, or just type in the filename of your image you've already chosen from Wikimedia Commons. Select the image and then click 'Use this image'. Before inserting it you'll be prompted to add a caption. Captions can include hyperlinks, but that's probably best left for another time. I hope this helps.

If you need advice on actually uploading your own image first, that requires a slightly different answer and a mention of copyright issues. Let us know if you need further help on that. Regards from the UK. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:58, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Changing of template name, keeping the contents intact

How to change the template, i.e., move a page to another without changing its original contents? For example, i want to make the name of the page 'Sealdah-Sitamarhi Express' instead of Sealdah-Muzaffarpur Express. How can i do it? Roy 953 (talk) 14:37, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Roy 953, to move a page, you click on the "More" tab and the top and select "Move". But why do you want to move that article? The first source cited has the "Muzaffarpur" name in its URL, though it does not actually use either name; the second gives a "Page not found" message, and the third uses the "Muzaffarpur" name. So the consensus is against the change that you want. Maproom (talk) 14:51, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

That is because the article is about Sealdah-Sitamarhi Express, an express train system in Indian Railways. But, the template name has 'Sealdah-Muzaffarpur Express'. This name was relevant when i had first created the page. But now, as the above mentioned train's destination has changed, i wanted to change the template name too Roy 953 (talk) 16:13, 22 May 2020 (UTC) Roy 953 (talk) 16:13, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Maproom courtesy ping Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:19, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

First edits

Hi everyone, I'm new to the site and would like ask if you could suggest a couple easy options for my first few edits? Thanks! Salaiken (talk) 14:49, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Salaiken. Welcome to Wikipedia and to the Teahouse. You ask a very sensible question about getting started, which all too few people ever do! Like driving a car, using Wikipedia does take time to get to grips with. Go too fast at first and you tend to crash. We have lots of ways to make improvements, and some of these can be found at the rather daunting-looking Wikipedia:Community portal. But there's a suggested work area there for fixing articles that simply need improvements to spelling or grammar. This could be a great place to start.

But not everyone is good at spelling or grammar, so you could simply look at articles on subjects you are interested in. The first one you look at might seem perfect, but at the bottom of the page in desktop view you'll see some 'Categories'. Click one of those that sounds interesting, and you'll see related articles that also fall into that category. You could browse those too until you find something that needs fixing. But please don't just add 'facts' from your own personal knowledge - everything here needs to be supported with a link to a reliably published source. So resist the temptation to add stuff about your home town that you're unable to prove by reference to a published book or website. Adding citations can be tricky for a complete newcomeer, so I've written what I hope is a simply guide (see WP:EASYREFBEGIN).

A could place to 'get a feel' of how we work is to do The Wikipedia Adventure, and you can collect 15 different badges as you learn the basics of editing. We are here whenever you get stuck or need help with editing. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 15:12, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Philosophy of Wikipedia

Wikipedia Monument in Słubice

"Take that - Fake news!"

I'm not sure if this is the best place to ask this, but if there's another place, please let me know.

Is there a name for people for the philosophy that Wikipedia's Core content policies adhere to. For example Neutrality/Verifiability/Reliable Sources. Is there a name for this philosophy? “_______ism.” There are certain rules in wikipedia, but it appears wikipedia takes it’s rules from the norms of philosophy. You have to cite your sources, you have to use reliable sources, you have to follow the norms of philosophy (not using logical fallacies,) I believe that the rules and norms of Wikipedia and Academia are one of the best ways to ascertain truth, but is there a name for this philosophy? Rationalism? there's Empiricism? But it seems the word I'm looking for is broader than that.

Thanks – Chrisvacc - ✆ 15:03, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@Chrisvacc: I wish I was clever enough to give you a serious answer. I am not. So, instead, I'll just have to proffer this neologism: Neuveriliableindepedanticism

I'm sorry that won't help you one jot, but whatever the word really is that you're looking for, most of us here will be proud to admit that they do subscribe to it. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:21, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Ha! I was looking through the philosophy pages – there's Rationalism, Empiricism which seem to come close, but don't quite hit the mark. I wish there were a word that encompasese Neutrality, Verifiability and Reliability. Maybe if there's not one, we should make one? The story of The Hedgehog and the Fox seems to encompass what we do here ("a fox knows many things, but a hedgehog one important thing".) Wikipedia generally subscribes to the Fox philosophy. There has to be a word for this. – Chrisvacc - ✆ 15:38, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Nah - we just get stuck in and don't worry about words... ... though maybe Nerdifactualism is another suitable term we could adopt. I found these pictures that might possibly help someone's thought processes. (My sincere apologies for turning a serious question into my "moment of madness") Nick Moyes (talk) 15:59, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

We call ourselves Wikipedians, so it logically follows that Wikipedianism is a perfectly cromulent name for the code by which we build the 'pedia. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:28, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Chrisvacc, we just call it The Golden Rule. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:54, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@Dodger67: Wikipedianism doesn't sound bad... maybe it should be in the dictionary! REDMAN 2019 Stay at home:Protect the NHS:Save lives (talk) 16:59, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I was hoping we could come up with a word that wasn't exclusve to Wikipedia. Something like Neutralism. Or Verifiabilitism. I dunno lol – Chrisvacc - ✆ 17:24, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Cromulent - William F. Buckley would be proud. On a related note, how about Agfism for tirelessly assuming good faith? TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:04, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I say NVRism (pronounced never-ism) - Sorry if too short, but sometimes short is easier than long. Galendalia _{CVU Member} \ ^{Chat Me Up} 06:29, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

You would think there'd be a word for this. It's not like this methodology / philosophy is exclusive to Wikipedia. It's the core ethos of Journalism, scientific papers, Academia, and Wikipedia – Chrisvacc - ✆ 14:29, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Here are some latin roots that may work: neutrum (neutral), verum (truth), veritas (truth), tantum (just), exiges (exact) – Chrisvacc - ✆ —Preceding undated comment added 14:35, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Encyclopaediaism ? REDMAN 2019 Stay at home:Protect the NHS:Save lives (talk) 16:13, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Side note, whatever this philosophy is, it should be considered sacred. This ethos / set of guidelines is the sole thing that made an encyclopedia that anyone could edit (a project that sounds like it’s destined to end in a COMPLETE disaster) and turned it into one of the most accurate sources of information known to humanity. – Chrisvacc - ✆ 01:58, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

The latin root of evidence is quod. The latin root of verify is quin. – Chrisvacc - ✆ 02:15, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

How to update Range Map?

Dear all,

I am currently curating the wikipedia page of the southern right whale dolphin. What I noticed is that the Range Map is outdated and should be updated (see the distributional map on the IUCN red list page of the southern right whale dolphin). https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/12126/50362558#conservation-actions

Could someone explain which is the best way to update this map? I work from a computer, editing source code.

Thank you in advance.

Best wishes, Mweyn (talk) 15:07, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello and welcome, Mweyn. We're seeing some really great and interesting questions here at the Teahouse today. Thank you for yours. Looking at the two maps, I do note the 2018 IUCN map shows a more northerly distribution of the species between South America and Australasia than is shown on the 2005 Wikipedia graphic, though the change of range is not huge. One easy way (without changing the graphic at all) is simply to expand the text and/or image caption to highlight the small discrepancy.

The second way is to get the graphic updated. There seems to be two versions in use, made/uploaded either by User:Pcb21 or User:Achim Raschka. Both editors seem to still be active today, so might be willing to consider updating the graphic, and replacing it. I'm not convinced either may feel the discrepancy is so huge as to warrant it, but they might.

A third way to get maps created or modified is to put in a request at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop, but I've no idea how they approach such matters. Hope this helps, Nick Moyes (talk) 15:45, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

wikimedia commons

When I want to add a wikimedia photo, sometimes - the reuse the photo option magically appears, and reuse the photo option magically disappears. There are five links -file, file history, usage on wikimedia commons, usage on other wikis and metadata. There is no way to add the image on Wikipedia page via the five options. How do I prevent the magical disappearance of reuse the file option?? Ppt2003 (talk) 17:12, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

You may have more success asking the question at Commons, rather than here at enwiki. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:39, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

When I look at a photo in Commons, across the top of the photo is a toolbar saying: "Download/ Use this file/ Use this file/ Email a link/ Information". The second "Use this file" link has a Wikipedia logo alongside it, and the tooltip when I hover over the link says: "Use this file on a wiki". I don't know what you mean by the "reuse the photo option", but (as I said above) you may get more help from the experts at Commons. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:49, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Chlamydia felis Draft

Hi, I am a new user. I made a draft for a current stub page on Wikipedia for a class and I am unsure how I should publish it. I apparently tried to publish it in an incorrect way. How should I make these edits public? Should I just go to the original stub page and edit it directly there? Fairy faecalis (talk) 17:42, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Draft:Chlamydia felis was declined because the article Chlamydia felis already exists, and the advice you were given was to improve it there instead. If you don't feel confident in editing the article directly you can make suggestions at Talk:Chlamydia felis. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:55, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Deleted article

Hi. Today I edited an article called “Vile vortices” that seems to have been deleted a couple hours ago. What happened?

Can someone put the article back? Dharmadha2 (talk) 17:43, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

If you look at your list of contributions you will see that the article you were editing was Vile vortex, not Vile vortices. The article has not been deleted; its history shows that it has been redirected, and a comment at Talk:Vile vortex gives the logic for the redirection. If you disagree you can discuss it at the article talk page or on the talk page of the editor who did the redirection. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:03, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I merged some of the redirected article content, and added the term to the lead, per WP:ASTONISH. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:36, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

How to add a YouTube link?

The video I need to give a link to is named "David Lynch talks Mulholland Drive"--DonGuess (talk) 17:45, 22 May 2020 (UTC) DonGuess (talk) 17:45, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello again DonGuess. That depends on exactly how you want to use the link.

Do you want to place it in an "External links" section? YouTube links are sometimes, but far from always, appropriate for such a section. One must carefully check for copyright issues, as Wikipedia articles should not link to copyright infringements. In such a case one may simply add to the external, links section a link to the YouTube url for the video, just like any other external link.

Do you want to use the link as a reference source? That is possible only if the person or organization that posted the page is a reliable publisher, so that the YouTube video is a reliable source. Most Yo9uTube videos are not considered reliable, but some are, for example broadcast segments posted on the official channel of a news publisher such as a TV network is as reliable as anything from that publisher. In that case you may use {{Cite AV media}} muich like any other citation template.

Do you want to place it in the body of an article? That is not normally appropriate. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:27, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello Desiegel, I would like to add it to external links of Mulholland Drive, the video is an interview, but it’s not clear when and by who was it taken. On the other hand Wikipedia blocks my edit with an external link to YouTube.DonGuess (talk) 18:35, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

DonGuess If you don't know when or by whom the video was taken, you don't know who holds the copyright, and so you don't know if it was uploaded to YouTube by or with the permission of the copyright holder. Therefore you should not link to it. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:51, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

But what if I want someone on Wikipedia to help me find the source of the interview?DonGuess (talk) 19:00, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not a professional Wikipedian nor am I a Teahouse host but I think I have some meaningful advice. If your hoping for other Wikipedians to find the source of the info, ask this same question on the Wikipedia talk page of the Wikipedia page you want to attach the link to. Again, I am not at all a professional Wikipedian, moderator, or any thing of that sort but I do think this should solve your problem. With the best of luck, Dantheanimator (talk) 19:40, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Ask at the Reference Desk, DonGuess - either Entertainment or Miscellaneous. --ColinFine (talk) 19:42, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Black's Reader Book Company

I'm wondering what it is. 2600:1700:DA00:3AC0:59B0:98BE:6301:BED (talk) 20:50, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello IP editor. The Teahouse is a place where newcomers can ask questions about editing and using Wikipedia. It does not seem like Wikipedia has an article on Black's Reader Book Company. If you can narrow your query, the folks over at the Reference desk may be able to help you. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:53, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

It is likely Black's Readers Service Company by publisher Walter J. Black (republished classic books). 107.15.157.44 (talk) 21:53, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

After a quick Google search, I can't find any coverage of Black's Readers Service Company or Walter J. Black that could support an article about them, but their books are very prolific in the resale market. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:57, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

how to insert an image?

Hi there,

I have edited this page in the past but now can't remember how to change the image. Please let me know.

Thank you.

Farrah (Joyab) Joyab (talk) 21:36, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@Joyab: This should help you Wikipedia:Images#Tutorials and help. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:53, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Farrah. I see that you had the tenacity to develop Bahman Tavoosi, and get it accepted on the fourth attempt, back in 2014: well done. But noticing that that is the only article you have ever edited, I can't help wondering if you have some connection with Tavoosi. If you have (and especially if you are in any way paid to edit this article, or it is part of your employment), please read our policy on editing with a conflict of interest. If you are not connected with him, then I suggest you create your User page, and explain that on it - so that other people with suspicious minds like mine won't come bothering you again. --ColinFine (talk) 23:01, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I just did something dumb and I need someone with more privilege to fix it :(

I was just on the Women in Red page and I found that Angela Beesley Starling was a red link. So trying to be helpful, I googled her name and found enough to create at least a stub. So I thought I would try to make the page.

So I clicked on the WIR link and it started creating this article: [[1]] I didn't notice the Q number at first so I assumed that the article really didn't exist and added my first couple of sentences by copying the article in Simple English WP. Then I noticed the Q number so I attempted to move the article to Angela Beesley Starling without the Q number. This is where I realized I was in trouble, because that article already exists, at least as a redirect.

I think the best thing to do is delete the article I just made at [[2]] But I don't think I have the power to delete articles, so it would be great if someone could do that.

I might start a discussion on the redirect page about whether there should be a standalone page about Angela Beesley Starling. Also, I think consideration might be given to changing the bot that makes the page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Number_of_links to use the correct link, so that the Q number confusion doesn't happen to someone else.

Anyway, sorry to mess up, I'll try to be more careful in future. MarylandGeoffrey (talk) 23:09, 22 May 2020 (UTC) MarylandGeoffrey (talk) 23:09, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@MarylandGeoffrey: No worries. Place this at the top of the article: {{Db-userreq}}. An administrator will see it and delete it. RudolfRed (talk) 23:12, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Update - It looks as if ABS is the only link on that page that contains the Q number. I'm not sure how that got messed up when the rest of the page is fine but I'm glad it's not a major bug in the bot. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarylandGeoffrey (talk • contribs) 23:18, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@RudolfRed: - Thanks for the help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarylandGeoffrey (talk • contribs) 23:25, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

The Q numbers are deliberate when there is an existing article or redirect which is not connected to the Wikidata item the entry is based on. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Archive 71#Discussion at MediaWiki talk re blacklisting titles containing Wikidata Q numbers. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:29, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

The article was deleted in 2015 following this discussion, with Angela herself requesting its deletion. Unless there's been a significant amount of new coverage since then, I don't think it should be recreated. the wub "?!" 14:39, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Michael Nylan

I am surprised we don't have an article for this scholar and historian from UC Berkeley. Would her career make her notable for inclusion? She has published over a dozen books and 30+ refereed articles. See her CV here. Tooironic (talk) 00:19, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello! If you believe there is someone or something that should be created, then you can start a draft. Click the blue hyperlink for further details. To answer your question about notability, there is also an article about notability, which you can look at. It will explain everything you need to know. Writing an article is one of the hardest things to do on the site according to top users (though I seemed to have not many troubles so far), so I'd study up before taking a shot. Happy editing! Le Panini (talk) 00:56, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your prompt and helpful response. Tooironic (talk) 03:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

It seems someone else has already created a draft, which has been flagged as 'covert advertising'. Where do we go from here? Tooironic (talk) 03:38, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Tooironic: Welcome to the TeaHouse! The reason you are seeing this banner is it appears someone who made a majority of the edits may be being paid to create the page. Wikipedia policy requires a conflict of interest for paid editors disclosure to be placed on the talk page of the article and on the users' page (this is the first page, not the talk page). Here is the link to the policy on paid editing. Wikipedia:Paid-contribution_disclosure. This page goes into detail on exactly the requirements and what needs to be done and listed. I hope this helps provide some clarity to you and feel free to come back and ask more questions if needed. Galendalia _{CVU Member} \ ^{Chat Me Up} 06:10, 23 May 2020 (UTC) _{TeaHouse Host}

I need help, I am getting confused about what is happening :-(

Can someone please explain to me what is happening and what are the steps I should do in order to not be confused anymore?
I was accused of rambling here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Boing!_said_Zebedee#General_Sanctions_Request_at_Wuhan_Institute_of_Virology
Because of a comment I made here, in the talk section:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:COVID-19_pandemic&diff=prev&oldid=958290332
And I was told that I would get a WP:BOOMERANG here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Doug_Weller#Help_needed

Can someone just tell me what is going on? I really don't understand and I just want to help participate in the discussion. I felt that I've been disrespected because of the rambling accusation, but the on the last page I linked here someone says that I was in the wrong. Can someone just make things clear for me please... this is getting ridiculous. PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 00:37, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello! I'm an amateur, so somebody with more experience will come in and either further clarify my reasons or give an official claim. From what I can see, it seems that they are turning down your edit due to a lack of proper third party evidence. While you might have some, it isn't proper or it isn't enough for the claim to be in the article.

When people repeatedly add an addition to an article but is turned down 3 times without permission in one day, it is considered vandalizing. I specifically would read the articles talking about said vandalizing to see how you can improve, or you can speak to a professional about it directly. Wikipedia has some very specific (and rediculous) rules when it comes to a newcomer; even I still don't get a lot of stuff, but things will make sense if you study up on what's the norm, and it will be less aggravating. I hope this helps, and if not, seek a professional or leave another response for me or someone to further clarify.Le Panini (talk) 00:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Le Panini, do you mean the WP:3RR? Ed6767 (talk) 00:54, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I mean Edit Warring. I hope my overly extended paragraph helped. Le Panini (talk) 00:57, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@Le Panini: I understand now what I did wrong in WIV it was a very swift decision considering I did not know about edit warring, In the talk page of WIV I said that if an admin was telling me to remove it I would have done it! I got insta blocked and did not understand why! I am taking about the rambling accusation because of something I left in a talk page. I thought talk pages where to talk. Did I do something wrong in that talk page? It seems to me that the person leaving a comment in my past block report was doing it intentionally to get me blocked again. I asked the administrator that blocked me if I could continue to contribute in the talk pages because I don't want to make mistakes again while I learn about all this! I don't understand what happened and why I would be wrong to write what I wrote in the talk page, that's pretty much it! I also found the rambling accusation very unresectful. Thanks PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 01:01, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

It may be a misunderstood case, or maybe everybody is confused, who knows? Maybe bring this up to a Teahouse host, they're the big bois around here. For now, it's very unclear. Just stay put and an admin or host will get right with you. Le Panini (talk) 01:14, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

How do I bring this up to a teahouse host? Should I just wait? I feel like people think I am doing stuff out of bad faith... Which is not the case at all! I might not have the right kind of language acceptable yet on Wikipedia and I'm working on it, but it shouldn't bring all this bad rep... I really want to help with the discussion... This is just making me uncomfortable about helping. Are talk pages supposed to be "safe spaces" if you don't start insulting everyone? I think I kept a good language, well maybe not when I first started at WIV... But now I understand. I know now that I'm not familiar with every rules in the book, but I still get so much flak without people even looking at what I try to say! PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 01:21, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@Le Panini: I'm asking for help, I try to talk to everyone to get feedback for everything I do! And it's like: oh no, you are having this agenda and want to destroy the entire wikipedia world... I know it's a heated debate (the pandemic) but people don't need to be that mean about it... Every time I did something it was in good faith, or a mistake that I later realized. And now I have a block report and I wasn't contacted by the admin that blocked me, like I asked for in the WIV page. I want to add to the discussion and I stopped making edits after a few mistakes and an accidental/later assumed BRD. What is all this nonsense? I will stop editing directly Covid pages now, I know that I'm too unfamiliar to do it, but I want my opinion to be heard, at least in the talk pages! PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 01:31, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

After a bit more research, it seems it is a temporary ban. Just wait it out, and after you have been freed you can simply just organize your contributions in the COVID-19 talk page. I know it seems unfair, and there probably is a better way to resolve this, it just seems this is the simplest route for now. 04:31, 23 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Le Panini (talk • contribs)

@PhysiqueUL09: you may want to think about getting a mentor to help with some of the complexities of this. I am simply suggesting that as one option; it is entirely up to you. you can look at the page WP:Adoption, if you think that doing so might be helpful. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 02:54, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

do rats dance

 67.85.219.228 (talk) 04:37, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

This is a space for assisting new editors in using and editing Wikipedia. You may want to consult the Wikipedia:Reference desk for your query. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:14, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Don't know about rats dancing, but this species of mouse sings: Adiposity signals predict vocal effort in Alston's singing mice. Burkhard TT, et al. Proc Biol Sci. 2018. PMID: 30819963. David notMD (talk) 09:40, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Lawrence H. Robinson Citation and References

 Courtesy link: Draft:Lawrence H. Robinson

Hello,

I hope this message finds you well and safe. Not sure if you are able to see the the draft I submitted but wanted to know why the Citations/ References come up twice and also, are the properly cited? Thank you for your help and I'm looking forward to hearing back from you!

Kind Regards,

Chrissy Williams Chrissy Will (talk) 05:03, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@Chrissy Will: Welcome to the Teahouse. It's because you have put down the URL twice; one in ref tags, once outside. To answer your second question, no, they are not cited properly; citations go after the sentences that they source and the list can be generated by inserting {{reflist}} below the References heading. See WP:EASYREFBEGIN for more details. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:13, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank You Teahouse!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrissy Will (talk • contribs) 06:23, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@Chrissy Will: You added {{Db-g7}} (although incorrectly), as if you wanted to delete the draft, but then kept editing it. Would you like this draft deleted? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 06:00, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Betty, No, i'm sorry for the confusion. I do not want the draft deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrissy Will (talk • contribs) 06:22, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Sleeper account activated to influence an AfD

Blatantly violating WP:SLEEPER, a sleeper account which has not made a single edit in 11 years suddenly pops up in an obscure AfD, Sonia Jabbar, to take a jibe at my WP:GOODFAITH. The account is being operated as an IP address: 117.18.228.1 and commented this:

"Comment Note to admin! the nominator Yourmasterishere is a newly created account & suspicious focusing on this person and other Nari Shakti Puraskar winners! Clearly WP:IDONTLIKE. He/She is a new user but has full knowledge on Wikipedia (mostly AFD) and like an experience editor who have total edit count: 32, so may be a sock account. Moreover, he joined Wikipedia on 3 May 2020 See log here. So I would like to request Check User (CU). Btw, imo, she meets WP:ANYBIO#1 however just comment not vote!"

It arouses colossal suspicion that the IP account which made just 25 edits when it was active during 2008 - 2009, transcends in 2020 and elucidates about WP essays, User logs, Check User, discussion abbreviations etc. the way only seasoned editors operate. It appears to be a classic case of WP:SOCKPUPPETRY

Moreover, this allegation is absolutely baseless and pointless since I never focused on this award winners. I just nominated for deletion 2 articles, Sonia Jabbar & Smriti Morarka and both of my nominations are on robust merits and not arbitrary, conjectured refs and cites the way, these articles have been articulated. Both the articles have been created by the same user and both were gravely infringing WP guidelines. If anyone would have genuinely gone through my contributions, they would have seen that I take interest in multidisciplinary domains. Yes, AfD is my topic of interest and I study WP essays & guidelines. I have always added value to any discussion, I have participated in. Is that wrong on my part?

Furthermore, this AfD which was not getting a single "keep" support apart from the user who created this, suddenly starts getting loads of "keep" when it was re-listed. There may be a possibility of WP:CANVASSING.

I request your opinion on the same and I request for running a Check User on this IP to unmask this masqueraded user. Yourmasterishere (talk) 08:10, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

No, it does not arouse colossal suspicion that edits from an IP come in 2008—09, and then, after more than ten years, come again in 2020. IPs are not accounts, so calling them "sleepers" makes no sense. I don't know what you mean by saying the IP "transcends". It's most likely used by someone else by now. Moreover, there were two keeps before the article was re-listed, and two more after it was relisted. (I.e., not one keep before and "loads" of keep after.) That is hardly a suspicious pattern, especially considering that the last two keeps came from an experienced user plus a highly respected admin (User:Abecedare). (For that matter, the first two keeps are also from experienced and respected users, including an admin.) Also, you are a newly created account, Yourmasterishere, which is something generally considered worth pointing out at AfD. Finally, please avoid bludgeoning "Keep" !votes, as you did here ("Kindly reconsider your opinion", etc) and complaining that "the article has been edited post when it was listed for deletion". (So what? "Feel free to improve the article", per the AFD template at the article). This is a very aggressively handled AfD on your part. I can't see anybody else doing anything wrong in it. Bishonen | tålk 08:51, 23 May 2020 (UTC).

@Yourmasterishere: Not only do you seem to be forum-shopping, your post here itself seems hypocritical in the extreme. You are rather foolishly accusing an old, unused IP address of being a 'sleeper account', yet your account contributions (created on 3 May 2020) exhibits perfect evidence of someone with a lot of prior experience and understanding of our policies, and you seem, yourself, to be the perfect candidate for a Check User investigation if you continue to behave in this most unusual manner. Please declare any other account names under which you have previously operated, and ensure you read WP:MULTIPLE lest others accuse YOU of WP:SOCKPUPPETRY. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:41, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Marc Chandler ShippmMarino Here To Help .. An Army of 1 and Tells The Truth.

why are we waiting?

Change is over rate and being truthful to yourself and others is all that matters. 38.80.251.206 (talk) 08:41, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Do you have a question about using or editing Wikipedia? --David Biddulph (talk) 08:43, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Advertisements on Wikipedia of all places

Hello, my name is Rebestalic

I'm currently getting ads on while browsing Wikipedia pages. Is that the result of a decision on part of higher-ups like Jimbo, or have I fallen victim to malware?

Thank you, Rebestalic^{[dubious—discuss]} 09:03, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

It's not from Wikipedia. -- Hoary (talk) 09:16, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Sounds like malware. Try a different browser. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:21, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@Rebestalic: See more at Wikipedia:FAQ/Readers#Why do I see commercial ads at Wikipedia? PrimeHunter (talk) 09:32, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

If you do suspect malware, then rather than a different browser, try a different OS. There are plenty that boot off a USB thumb drive and nevertheless give you Firefox and the rest. If you like what you experience -- aside from the sluggishness (unavoidable if running from a thumb drive) -- you can consider installing it properly and using it instead of your current OS. -- Hoary (talk) 09:36, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello Hoary and PrimeHunter, thank you for your replies! I've resolved the issue now, looks like it was an infected Google Chrome extension

Thank you again, Rebestalic^{[dubious—discuss]} 10:35, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Help!!!

I corrected info on the Wikipedia page titled, “Nelle Benson” and now the code around the title and the image is messed up. But. Didn’t even change any of that. I keep trying to fix it but it’s not working. help!!! 67.6.183.133 (talk) 09:52, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Hey there 67.6.183.133, the page looks fine?

Rebestalic^{[dubious—discuss]} 10:36, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Rebestalic again

Somebody's reverted your edits now, so the page is fine

I've had a peek at your edits, and it seems that as you edited the infobox for Nelle Benson, you forgot to keep two braces at the end

You see, the two braces in either direction tell Wikipedia where the infobox starts and ends; since you accidentally removed the '}}' at the end of the infobox code, Wikipedia then assumes everything before it is normal text, and not coding for the infobox

If you're wanting to make more edits (which would be awesome), consider creating an account on Wikipedia!

Rebestalic^{[dubious—discuss]} 10:42, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

How can I create a wikipedia entry for the CSC?

Dear Community,

I want to create an Wikipedia article about the CSC Concrete Sustainability Council (https://www.concretesustainabilitycouncil.com). The CSC is an independent association which is engaged in sustainable concrete and managing the CSC material stewardship system.

On potential conflict of interest: The CSC has a lot of cement and concrete producing companies among its members, I'm working for a major cement & concrete producer and I'm a board member of the CSC.

Nevertheless, the CSC is getting more and more established in certifying sustainable concrete manufacturing practices with more than 300 certificates in 14 countries now. The CSC System is accepted by major green building labels, such as BREEAM (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BREEAM) or DGNB (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Gesellschaft_für_Nachhaltiges_Bauen).

Can I write an article? If yes how and how would be the process to get it validated and published?

Thanks a lot Michael Claus Michael Scharpf (talk) 10:30, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Hey Claus Michael Scharpf, looks like you've been reading up on Wikipedia guidelines, which is great! I personally decided not to do so when I joined Wikipedia...and learned the hard way

When thinking about creating an article, consider the Notability guideline. Although the Concrete Sustainability Council doesn't have to be the next Michael Jackson, it'll need to be known by a considerable amount of people. But don't let Notability put you off--there's another (self-explanatory) principle that exists here, called Articles must be written.

I personally don't specialise in article creation but I believe the Article wizard should guide you through quite nicely.

And if there's anything I didn't answer, please don't hesitate to visit my talk page (which you can find in the green text in my signature)

Rebestalic^{[dubious—discuss]} 10:51, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Claus Michael Scharpf (edit conflict) Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Please review the conflict of interest policy; if you are compensated in any way(not just money) for your presence on the Board of the CSC, you must also make the mandatory paid editing declaration.

The CSC would merit a Wikipedia article if it receives significant coverage in independent reliable sources(not just brief mentions or routine announcements) showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. Wikipedia prefers that articles be written by independent editors who take note of a subject in independent reliable sources and choose on their own to write about it. Many people associated with a potential article subject have difficulty writing in the manner required by Wikipedia. In essence, you need to forget everything you know about the CSC, forget everything on its website or in other primary sources, and only write based on the content of independent sources. If you truly feel that your organization meets this definition and you can write in the manner that I describe, you should review Your First Article and use Articles for Creation to create and submit a draft for review by an independent editor. 331dot (talk) 10:54, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

331dot's reply in short: Don't forget to have a neutral point of view! (No offence, 331dot haha) Rebestalic^{[leave a message....]} 10:59, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

A common problem for people close to their topic is they start by writing what they know, then try to append references. Do searches on CSC to discover whether there are independent write-ups of the organization. CDC's own website can be used for very basic information (when started, where located...) but information about history and functions need to be cited. Write-ups that stem from CDC press releases or interviews of staff do not help confirm notability. Given short history of the organization, this may be too soon. David notMD (talk) 12:17, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

How to 'talk' about conflicting statements in an article

I was reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Hall. First sentence 2nd paragraph, "The original building served as New York's first City Hall." Later in the same article under subheading, "First Structure", is this: "The original structure on the site was built as New York's second City Hall in 1699 - 1703..." which seems to contradict the first sentence cited. How do I go about discussing this and getting a bonafide editor to either explain the seeming contradiction or make a change in the entry. Db3593 (talk) 12:50, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Db3593. Without having read the article, my overall approach would probably be as follows:

• Follow the first statement to its source (assuming there is one). Is it a good source that supports the statement?
• Follow the second, contradictory statement to its source (assuming there is one). Is it a good source that supports the statement?
• If 'yes' to only one; remove the other statement (leaving a clear edit summary)
• If 'yes' to both questions, you have conflicting information from two good, reliable sources. You now need to present both views neutrally, indicating that historians disagree, and maybe look for further sources that support one story or another.
• If you're not confident about resolving conflicting historical statements in a neutral manner, go to article's talk page and present your concerns.

This would be my approach in theory; please let us know how it works out for you in practice. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 13:18, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@Db3593: I fully support what Nick Moyes said above, but I'd like to add one more, optional step:

• see the article's talk page for notes about Wikiprojects, in scope of which the article belongs, and make a note about your concerns at (some of) their talk pages

because you may hope participants of related Wikiprojects know more good and reliable sources for their area of interest (or at least know better where to search them). --CiaPan (talk) 13:50, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

A good point - I'd not thought of that. Some pages get very few views, so WikiProjects can be a good place to go if you are unsure how to proceed yourself. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:11, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the factual matter, this website states that the first city hall was established by the Dutch in 1653 in a stone tavern located at 73 Pearl Street and verifies that the building later known as Federal Hall was actually the second city hall. Of course, the "city" was called New Amsterdam then, and only had around 8,000 residents. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:50, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

(ec) @Db3593: I'd say that, if you find two opposing sources to be generally reliable, it would be worth searching for additional sources to see if they all favor one side or the other. Sometimes, an otherwise reliable source can be wrong on a particular point, sometimes accidentally. If the consensus of several other sources is against such a source, that source may possibly be removed and the opposing viewpoint not worthy of mention. I would imagine that there will always be some differences in historical accounts. In this particular case, it could be about the exact meaning of "New York's first City Hall" (i.e., corporation status, temporary space vs. officially named, etc.) —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 18:58, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Aleksey Vagov

I wrote an article named "Aleksey Vagov" which has been deleted by a user named Fastily, although the article was re-submitted and currently awaiting a re-review. Has fastily done the right thing?? Ppt2003 (talk) 13:11, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Ppt2003, Fastily just moved it to draft space and your draft can be found and improved at Draft:Aleksey Vagov. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 13:16, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

It wasn't Fastily that moved the draft. All he did was delete the cross-namespace redirect from mainspace, per R2. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:04, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

(merged with above question)

Do wikipedia drafts remain un-reviewed forever? I have a draft named Draft:Aleksey Vagov and after reading some intimidating tea-house conversations, I have begun to fear whether it will take months to get my draft reviewed. Does it really? And if it does, should I nominate my article for speedy deletion and re-write it? Is it considered vandalism? Ppt2003 (talk) 14:02, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

How much of a hurry are you in???? Your 'article' was saved by being converted to a draft on 23 May. Submitted on 23 May. Declined on 23 May. Slightly revised on 23 May. Resubmitted on 23 May. Articles for Creation has close to 2,000 drafts waiting for review. Often days to weeks, but sometimes months. If you believe the draft can be improved, do so while waiting for the next review. If it gets declined a second time, you will still be able to work on it and resubmit. It was already considered good enough that it was not tagged for Speedy deletion. Definitely not vandalism - it is a good faith effort to create an article (which needs more refs!). David notMD (talk) 14:53, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

How to edit a "semi protected" article

Hello Teahouse! I want to edit the page Eid al-Fitr.But it said that it is semi protected and only auto confirmed users can edit it. So now how can I edit this page? Nasif05 (talk) 14:22, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Autoconfirmed means a user has made at least ten edits and has been here for at least four days, Nasif05. You're autoconfirmed. You can just edit the page, no problem. Bishonen | tålk 14:27, 23 May 2020 (UTC).

@Nasif05: To build off of Bishonen's answer, everyone, regardless of their user groups, gets the same warning. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:59, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Disney+ relase date

Hello, I want add the third relase date (May 29, 2020) of short The Longest Daycare into this list. (Source.) Is it possible? Patriccck (talk) 15:03, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@Patriccck: I see the Disney+ release date was added in the The Longest Daycare article. If you have a question about adding it to the List of The Simpsons episodes article, the best place to ask would be that article's talk page: Talk:List of The Simpsons episodes. It's good that you have a source to provide. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 15:25, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: Yes, I have a question about adding it to the List of The Simpsons episodes. I wonder if (and how) it is technically possible to add a third relase date. I cannot add a third date. Patriccck (talk) 15:45, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@Patriccck: I understand the question. I suggest you ask it at Talk:List of The Simpsons episodes, to discuss with knowledgeable editors not only how to technically add it, but if there is consensus to add it. Good luck! GoingBatty (talk) 15:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

OK, thank you. Patriccck (talk) 16:24, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Publishing Works

Hi Teahouse Crew, Thank you for the invite & for being here for us lowly newbies. Why are external links discouraged for articles on wikipedia? Thank you Roccie (talk) 15:05, 23 May 2020 (UTC)Roccie Roccie (talk) 15:05, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Roccie Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia policy on external links can be found at WP:EXTLINK if that helps you. Wikipedia is not meant to be an indiscriminate collection of links or linkfarm. Any search engine can fulfill that function. Wikipedia is primarily an encyclopedia. 331dot (talk) 15:13, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Someone to help edit for me please

Hello, Is there anyone who is an experienced editor who can possibly help to edit an existing article that I am connected with that is factually inaccurate. I really would appreciate the help of someone who understands the workings of Wikipedia. Thank you very much.

NULIUS IN VERBA 13 NULIUS IN VERBA 13 (talk) 17:36, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi NULIUS IN VERBA 13, welcome to the Teahouse - it would be helpful to know which article you mean. CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, NULIUS IN VERBA. If you know what changes you would like to see in the article, one approach is to post a series of Edit requests on the article's talk page. If you say very precisely what change you suggest, and preferably back it up by a published source, then an uninvolved editor will look at your suggestion, and decide what to do according to Wikipedia's principles. --ColinFine (talk) 18:22, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

What to do after tutorial?

Hey guys, I've just finished the Wikipedia Adventure and I don't know where to start. Do you guys have any suggestions about where I can start making my first real edits? Wikipedia seems really complex and large, and I'm afraid I'll ruin something if I just jump in and start editing randomly. PeanutHat (talk) 18:10, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, PeanutHat: welcome to the Teahouse, and to Wikipedia. Don't worry, you can't ruin anything unless you really work at it: every edit that is made can be easily undone if it causes problems. You might find some useful suggestions at the Community portal. Otherwise, just look for articles that interest you, or perhaps Wikiprojects that interest you. Happy editing! --ColinFine (talk) 18:36, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism

Header added by ColinFine (talk) 18:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello I should like to report vandalism on Voulez-Vous (song) - the user Songwaters has removed the Cover Versions Section. I have read the information required for Cover Versions of note - Big Bang's version of Voulez Vous reached no. 1 in the Dance Charts, and Erasure's version of Voulez Vous reached no 1 in the BBC charts. So I'm not sure how either of these cover versions are important enough to be mention, considering Abba did not get the track to no 1 in the UK.???????? It seems Songwaters is not informed enough on musical matters to willy-nilly delete historical reference from Wikipedia pages, at a whim. Please report this action as vandalism.

thank you. Ukance (talk) 18:20, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Ukance, and welcome to the Teahouse. please be cautious about referring to vandalism: Vandalism is editing intended to damage Wikipedia. It looks to me very much as if Songwaters's edits to Voulez-Vous (song) (see how I have wikilinked that, so it's easy for a reader to go and look at the article?) , were in good faith, not vandalism. I get that you disagree - you undid their edit, but then the next step is to open a discussion on the article's talk page, to try and reach consensus. (Songwaters should not have reverted your edit: the sequence is Bold, Revert, Discuss: Songwaters boldly removed something, you reverted, and Songwates should have opened a discussion before reapplying their edit. Please discuss on the article's talk page whether or not that material is appropriate. --ColinFine (talk) 18:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply Teahouse. I totally agree with you, and felt the same, that Songwaters had no right to revert my action without discussing the matter. By his reasoning - deleting cover versions on the page of a song page on Wikipedia - would mean practically every original song that has a page on Wikipedia that has a cover versions section should have it deleted. Some songs, say written by Cole Porter or George Gershwin, are only ever recorded as cover versions, and even bands, The Beatles say, have countless cover versions, many of which reach the charts. I'm not sure under Songwaters reasoning what makes a cover version of merit?

Hi, Ukance. Please visit the talk page for that article to see my actual reasoning so we can discuss it. Songwaters (talk) 18:49, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

in relation to this COVID-19 pandemic in the Republic of Ireland note

COVID-19 pandemic in the Republic of Ireland#cite_note-recovery-2

i see there is a listing for active cases this is calculated in the traditional way by taking total number cases and taking away total number of recoveries and also taking way total deaths, however on the 24th of april Ireland starting publishing probable deaths in its official numbers the total number of probable deaths now stands at 242 and this number is also included in the total deaths figure. it is incorrect to take this part of the figure away from the total confirmed cases to find the number of active cases as they would not been included in the original confirmed cases — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:BB6:1702:BE00:1860:40B2:A351:DC47 (talk) 18:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

 2001:BB6:1702:BE00:1860:40B2:A351:DC47 (talk) 18:27, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

What is your question about that article or the note you are linking to?— Preceding unsigned comment added by RudolfRed (talk • contribs) 18:29, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, IP user. Please don't change your question after somebody has already replied to it - it makes their reply look out of place. What would have been better was to reply to the reply - as I have here - explaining.

To your question: the place to bring this up is at the article's talk page, in this case Talk:COVID-19_pandemic_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland. --ColinFine (talk) 18:39, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Why Draft "Bella Cosmetics" is rejected

May I know the reason why the draft is rejected. I have cited all statements in the articles by reliable sources. Ko San Lwin (talk) 19:36, 23 May 2020 (UTC) Ko San Lwin (talk) 19:36, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ko San Lwin: Welcome to the Teahouse! I won't speak for Theroadislong, but phrases such as "the beauty products become essential for every ladies" and the product list makes it look more like an advertisement than an encyclopedia article. GoingBatty (talk) 19:53, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! How can I edit the product list line by line? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ko San Lwin (talk • contribs) 19:56, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

You have asked the same question elsewhere. The content included promotional puffery such as "Bella product becomes popular among local customers within the very short term, 6 months because the products are high quality and the prices are very reasonable. Some of Bella product starts from 1.3 USD (2000MMK) and the extent to more than 66USD (100,000MMK). Even the housewife working housework is using the Bella products because the beauty products become essential for every ladies, nowadays" which is totally inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. Theroadislong (talk) 20:03, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ko San Lwin: ... and pretty poor grammar, at that. I say that not to be mean, but to point out that this is an encyclopedia, not Facebook or other social media. Our articles are expected to be written in a formal tone, like books and newspapers, which includes using the right words in the right order, proper tense, punctuation, etc. Thank you in advance for understanding. Anything you can do to improve this encyclopedia (the reason we all volunteer our time here) would be welcome. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 22:18, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

bob turner, Robert l turner

how do I correct and add an item on my wiki bio?

I enjoy a nice write up on wikipedia but one item is incorrect. I graduated from St John's U in 1962 and then entered military service (1962 1964 active) Also, while you are at it, I received an honorary Degree in 2012 from SJU. Thank you. Bob Turner 96.232.190.188 (talk) 20:29, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to The Teahouse Bob, you will need to be a bit more specific, there are 30 different Robert Turners on Wikipedia, you can always suggest changes on the article talk page, but you will need to provide a reliable published source for any content. Theroadislong (talk) 20:44, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Bob. Also have a look at AUTOPROB, which is specifically for people in your position. --ColinFine (talk) 22:19, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

It seems the only Robert L. Turner for whom we have an article is not you (they were born in 1947, and would have been 15 years old in 1962 – a bit young for military service ). You can see links to the articles about other Robert Turners at Robert Turner (a "disambiguation page"). —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 22:27, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm guessing this is Bob Turner (American politician), who did graduate from St. John's. Deor (talk) 23:09, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Who

 2409:4052:2315:2562:0:0:E3F:A8AD (talk) 20:37, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello unregistered editor. Do you have a question about how to edit Wikipedia? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

how to delete a draft I've made

I started a draft page for Maggie Lunn in 2017, and it was declined later that year. Fortunately, someone else started a page for Maggie Lunn towards the end of 2018 which is now in Wikipedia, so that is good. However, how do I get rid of the draft I started and which still appears to exist at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft%3AMaggie_Lunn ? It is not needed. I thought it would just vanish if I did not edit it for 6 months, but bots make edits and maybe reset the time? MerielGJones (talk) 20:52, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@MerielGJones: You could add {{Db-g7}} to the top of your draft, and explain in your edit summary. GoingBatty (talk) 22:04, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Snoqualmie Valley Record

Hello, just wondering if anyone could take a look at Draft:Snoqualmie Valley Record. I have submitted but would love a second look on it to make sure my fixes are up to standard.

Thanks, NoahRiffe (talk) 21:22, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@NoahRiffe: I don't understand some of the references. For example "George Astel, a printer and publisher, created the Snoqualmie Valley Record In 1923, to serve as another paper for the Snoqualmie Valley as well as a start for his printing business" is referenced with "Newly Released Microfilm".. Are you trying to say that the microfilm contains a newspaper article to support the statement? If so, please provide all the details of the newspaper article (e.g. newspaper title, article title, date, page, author). You can use {{cite news}} for this if you like, which does not require a URL. GoingBatty (talk) 22:19, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Utterly borked talkpage

I'd like to point out that Talk:Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson is utterly borked. It seems like sometime back around 2015-2019, somebody tried to add an archive template to that talkpage, but somehow managed to only terribly botch the code, resulting in the fact that everything on that talkpage ended up in the archive box's infobox instead.

I've tried to fix it myself (without saving any of my changes), but neither could I make the original code work, nor did any of my attempts to replace the archive box code by directly copy-pasting any of the templates found at Help:Archiving a talk page seem to work (either the entire talkpage stayed inside the new box, or the box mysteriously ended up at the bottom of the page, or I couldn't shrink the giant archive folder image).

Another thing to consider is that I'm not sure when this botched archive was actually added and where improperly archived stuff from that talkpage (from before 2015?) may have ended up, and whether putting a new archive template on that that talkpage, even if it would work, may actually overwrite and thus destroy archives of that talkpage set up by the improper archive code. --46.93.152.142 (talk) 23:10, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi, 46.93, and welcome to the Teahouse! Thanks for pointing this out; I think this edit should have fixed the problem. The page isn't set up for any automatic archiving, it looks like, so there shouldn't be any worries about overwriting the old archives; it would only happen manually anyway. It looks like the old archives are all at Talk:Jeffrey_Moussaieff_Masson/Archive_1 (which I manually added to the archive infobox); I see a bunch of messed up code in that archive, so I assume that the code was correct at one point, but someone accidentally moved part of the infobox itself while trying to archive a thread, leaving the talk page in the state you found it. Thanks again! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:24, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the issue! --46.93.152.142 (talk) 23:26, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Citations

How much citations does an article need? Ganeshboodoo (talk) 23:41, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ganeshboodoo: Enough so that it satisfies this rule: "Wikipedia's verifiability policy requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations, anywhere in article space." See Wikipedia:Citing_sources for more info. Since every article is different, the number of citations in each article will be different. RudolfRed (talk) 23:55, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Spurious Heading in Table of Contents Box

I am beginning to create an article in my Sandbox at User:Rmhadsell/sandbox. I have added a Table of Contents, which incorrectly begins with the title of my article. How can I prevent this spurious first line? The Table of Contents should begin with 1 Biography. Rmhadsell (talk) 00:03, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

@Rmhadsell: I removed the section heading that was showing first in the TOC. RudolfRed (talk) 00:08, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Failure of Contents to Float at Left of Infobox

I am beginning to create an article in my Sandbox at User:Rmhadsell/sandbox. The first content section, headed "Biography", fails to float at the left of the Infobox. Instead, this section appears on the first line below the Infobox, leaving an undesirable number of blank lines above the first section. Rmhadsell (talk) 00:07, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy link: User:Rmhadsell/sandbox. @Rmhadsell: I am not seeing that issue. I see the initial text and the TOC at the same level as the infobox. RudolfRed (talk) 00:11, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

How can I make edits without being unconstructive?

 Ryanhooper1985 (talk) 00:23, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Ryanhooper1985. You can find some general information in Wikipedia:Editing policy, but generally "unconstructive edits" are those deemed to not be in accordance with some Wikipedia policy or guideline. New editors are often unfamiliar with Wikipedia's various policies and guidelines so it's understandable that they sometimes make mistakes. Even though they mean well and don't intend to make a bad edit, their lack of familiarity with Wikipedia can sometimes mean the edits they make aren't very good. Perhaps you should try taking the Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Adventure because it's one way for a new editor to become more familiar with how Wikipedia works. You might also want to read Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia since that page also contains information that you might find helpful. Everyone makes mistakes when they start editing, so try not to get discouraged. Even experienced editors sometimes get their edits reverted by another editor. So, it's OK to make mistakes as long as you do your best to try not repeating the same mistake over and over again. The more you edit, the more you'll learn about Wikipedia and the less likely you'll be to make the same mistakes again. Good luck to you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:38, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Hey Ryanhooper1985, making a constructive edit can be anything from correcting a typo to renaming an article (with good reason, of course). I've had a look at your edits on Ahmed Elmohamady; on one of them, I see that you added the following paragraph:

Became a bit of cult hero. Captained Villa when Jack Grealish was out. And cemented his reputation for pinging a superb ball in for Anwar El Ghazi to score the opener as Villa beat Derby in the 2018/19 play-off final. Elmo, as he is know in the Holte End, immediately turned to the Villa fans to celebrate such was the peach of his delivery. Known to be a popular member of the squad, with a superb work ethic and fantastic engine.

I can tell that you meant well, however your statement there wasn't really from a neutral point of view, if you think about it--there's a bit of bias towards Elmohady. Neutrality is a big thing on Wikipedia, because it allows for a fair and informative article.

Here's a possible rephrasing of your edit:

Elmohady captained Aston Villa during Jack Grealish's incapacitation, and soon became a popular and hard-working member of the squad.

I hope that helped! Rebestalic^{[leave a message....]} 00:42, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Font size

Why is the font size on the following progressively reducing? How is it resolved? What is the correct way for creating the graph headers?

Route 1

Template:Nb10Patronage bar graphs

Annual automobile equivalentsTemplate:Nb10Template:Nb10Template:Nb10Template:Nb10Template:Nb10Template:Nb10Template:Nb10Template:Nb10Template:Nb1000Annual passengers

Route 2

Template:Nb10Patronage bar graphs

Annual automobile equivalentsTemplate:Nb10Template:Nb10Template:Nb10Template:Nb10Template:Nb10Template:Nb10Template:Nb10Template:Nb10Template:Nb10000Annual passengers

Route 3

Template:Nb10Patronage bar graphs

Annual automobile equivalentsTemplate:Nb10Template:Nb10Template:Nb10Template:Nb10Template:Nb10Template:Nb10Template:Nb10Template:Nb10Template:Nb10Template:Nb1000Annual passengers

DMBanks1 (talk) 01:00, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

@DMBanks1: It appears to be because you're using {{s-end}}. I replaced them with {{col-end}} and it looks fine. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:50, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

draft:Chit2am

Hello, I was wondering to know what what the problem of the article I tried to published. thank you 173.176.137.104 (talk) 03:37, 24 May 2020 (UTC)