Wikipedia:Teahouse

Marchjuly, a Teahouse host

Welcome to the Teahouse!
Your go-to place for friendly help with using and editing Wikipedia.

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

New to Wikipedia? See our tutorial for new editors or introduction to contributing page.
Note: Newer questions appear at the bottom of the Teahouse. Completed questions are archived within 2–3 days.

Help Wikipedia

How to add edit counter template

Dear fellow Wikipedians, How do I add the edit counter template in my user page ? Also I am using Chrome Lite in a android phone. Wikipedia says that browser is not recognised. Why is it so ? Cheers Anupam Dutta (talk) 09:40, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Anupamdutta73. I am unclear which template you are referring to, so could you post a link to it, please? I wasn't aware that there was an edit counter template, apart from Template:User Edit Count, plus the one you already have on your userpage which shows how long you've been editing here for. You are obviously managing to edit this page OK, so my recommendation would be always to do complicated tasks using WP:Source Editor, as here. Trying to add templates with Visual Editor never seems that simple, to me. Thirdly, make sure you are displaying Wikipedia in 'Desktop' mode and not in 'mobile view'. There is a very small link to switch between the two right at the very bottom of every page. I use a tiny iPhone to edit from, but find mobile view only good for reading pages, and definitely not for editing them. Let us know the 'edit counter' link you are referring to, and do tell us how you get on. Sorry you'v e had to wait so long for a response. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:28, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Dear Nick Moyes, Thanks for your reply... Firstly I agree mobile is best for reading.. Now about the "Edit Counter", the edit details that are displayed under "User Contributions" , I want to put in my user page.. Cheers... Anupam Dutta (talk) 16:09, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

@Anupamdutta73: I haven't used it, but User:UBX/LiveEditCounter might do what you want. Note that you have to install the "importScript..." line in your User:Anupamdutta73/common.js script. No idea whether it works on mobile. There's something to be said for the fact that most of the userboxes related to edit counts are actually about WP:Editcountitis. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 17:02, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

@Anupamdutta73: P.S.: I found balance by getting my counts from XTools edit counter once a month and manually updating my user page, ignoring it the rest of the time. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 17:38, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

@Anupamdutta73: I can't see any way (or indeed any reason why ) you could put all your user contributions on your userpage. As suggested above, you could check your edit counts every so often, and then maybe post a Service Award there to indicate your tall ([https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/Anupamdutta73 300 edits to date). If, when you've been around Wikipedia a lot longer, you want to get really into the merits of your contributions, see how you do with this lot:

Anupamdutta73 (talk · contribs · logs · block log · page moves · count · edit summaries · non-automated edits · articles created · BLP edits · AfD votes · XfD votes · admin score (beta) · no prior RfA)

-that should give you something to work on! Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:06, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Just as an example of presenting edit counts, I have at the top of my user page an "am I online?" section which has edit count manually written at the 10s of thousands level, with a note of the % of deleted edits; I pull this manually (very infrequently) from https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/Ceyockey , the "Basic Information" section - I won't be updating this until I hit 70,000 edits, which will be a while. That link is available at the bottom of your "Contributions page" via a link labeled "Edit count". Regards --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:02, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

What can be done to improve Draft:Horace_Edward_Dobbs ?

This article Draft:Horace Edward Dobbs was rejected on notability grounds. I am convinced that the subject is notable, but probably omitted something vital while drafting it. Please I would welcome suggestions that would help in its improvement. There are 40 resources cited in the article, apart from the notes, and some of them are from the BBC (7), New York Times, The Independent, NASA, and other reliable sources. So, definitely, there must be something that I missed, which resulted in it being declined on notability grounds.

For taking out the time to read and respond to this blab from this insignificant earthling, I say thank you, and may it be well with all that domicile in this revolving empyrean orb. HTML Serial Killer (talk) 01:36, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi @User:EmpyreanOrb! It looks like a lot of the references are to articles written by or on behalf of the subject. I suggest you look at the link the reviewer left you. Ghinga7 (talk) 01:42, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion, Ghinga7. HTML Serial Killer (talk) 02:33, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

The thing to remember, Ghinga7, is that Wikipedia is basically not interested in what the subject of an article has said, published, or done: it is only interested in what people unconnected with the subject have published about the subject. Of course, those writings will generally include accounts of what the subject has said and done; but it is with the independent accounts that we are concerned, not with the primary sources --ColinFine (talk) 07:56, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Did you mean to ping me or the OP, @User:ColinFine? Ghinga7 (talk) 17:29, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I meant to ping EmpyreanOrb. My apologies. --ColinFine (talk) 17:41, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks a lot ColinFine, your suggestion and that of Ghinga7 are quite helpful. I'll rewrite the article using your advice. HTML Serial Killer (talk) 15:12, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Malfunctioning transclution

Hi guys,

When I attempted to transclude a section of my talk page, and when I did transclude it, nothing came up in the transcluded section. I am not sure why this is happening. Could someone please assist me in figuring this out!

Thanks,

PNSMurthy (talk) 02:01, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello again, PNSMurthy I am not sure what you were trying to do, or where. Could you please indicate on what page you tried to transclude a section of your talk page. Normally, one can only trasclude an entire page, not a section, except for any parts inside <noinclude>...</noinclude> tags. Nor is it usually useful to transclude a talk page. Could you please give more details on exactly what you wanted to do, and what you did, and on what page? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:04, 2 July 2020 (UTC) @PNSMurthy: DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:11, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello again too!

Never mind anymore. I worked the section out. It may not have been a malfunction. It is not needed, but I would just like to know if there is any template fro this transclusion, so in the future, I may avoid this malfunction - if it is one. Also - may I know if there is any template for deletion, because the article in question (a guide to deletion) merely explained the use of deletion.

Thanks!

PNSMurthy (talk) 03:32, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

@PNSMurthy: It is still entirely unclear what you were trying to do. Please give more details as DESiegel said. You can for example save your attempt and post a diff to it so we can see what you did wrong. There are many templates for deletion. Please be specific about what you want. If there is a page you want deleted then link the page and say why. There are also many guides to deletion so we don't know which page you saw. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:13, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter:You see... I was trying to learn how to transclude, so I just used an already transcluded section as an example. This example had some already placed templates, which mucked my own version of 'copied' transclusion up. I have fixed that now, not to worry!PNSMurthy (talk) 10:17, 3 July 2020 (UTC) As for deletion ... learned how to do that. I just wanted to clean up an incredibly messy user space.PNSMurthy (talk) 10:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

How do I add a new Football Player profile

I would like to add a new Football Player to have a Wikipedia Profile and do not know how to do that. Kimcephas (talk) 15:37, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Kimcephas and welcome to the Teahouse.

Creating new articles from a blank start is one of the harder tasks on Wikipedia, perhaps the hardest an inexperienced user is likely to face. I urge you to use the Article Wizard to create a draft under the Articles for Creation project. There, an experienced editor will review your draft once you think it is ready. Only when a reviewer approves will the draft be moved to the main article space. This avoids the situation where a deletion is requested soon after the initial version of an article is posted.

Also, please read Wikipedia's Golden Rule and Your First Article, if you have not already done so. The advice there can be very helpful, in my view. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:54, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

What follows are some steps that often lead to success in creating Wikipedia articles:

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

Congratulations, you have now created a valid Wikipedia article. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:54, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Note, Kimcephas, that what you will be creating is not a profile as that is usually understood: the footballer in question will not own it, and will not have control over its contents, and it should be based not on what they say or want to say about themselves, but on what people who have no connection with them have chosen to publish about them. --ColinFine (talk) 16:54, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

@Kimcephas: if you have any problems with creating the page feel free to ask me about it and I will try to lend a hand. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 10:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Citing a reference to a commercial product

Hello. I am currently editing an article about a drama that has been broadcast on TV. I would like to mention that the drama has also been released as a DVD, but the only evidence I have for that is the DVD's product pages in various on-line stores such as Amazon. I am wondering if it would be OK to cite one or more of those product pages as a reference for the DVD? Or would the fact that these are commercial pages - whose goal is to promote the product - rule that out? Thanks in advance. -- Mike Marchmont (talk) 16:12, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Mike Marchmont. I haven't found an explicit policy on it, but my thought is that if the only evidence of the existence of something is somebody selling it, then I don't think it belongs in the article. --ColinFine (talk) 17:03, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

@Mike Marchmont: I think this is a borderline case. I lean toward excluding, because most users would assume that many shows/movies are also available on DVD. It probably doesn't need to be mentioned in the article. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:22, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

@Calliopejen1: and @ColinFine:, thank you both for your replies. I'll take your good advice and skip the mention of the DVD. It's not really central to the article. -- Mike Marchmont (talk) 07:52, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Is there a way to set up something so that my posts will be reviewed by a more senior editor?

Hi all,

I recently joined but I am looking to get more involved. Is there a setting where any edits I make can be referred to more senior editors of that topic before they are posted? I just want to build up confidence first before making changes that someone might have to revert back.

Thank you. DarkerDai (talk) 18:51, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

@DarkerDai: Welcome. Please see Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:23, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you @Timtempleton: — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkerDai (talk • contribs) 20:31, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

@DarkerDai: although Timtempleton mentioned Adopt-a-User, I have to tell you this is totally unsuited to you right now, as you have not, as yet, made a single edit to an article at this point. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that, but Adoption is for users who have already demonstrated a degree of commitment to contributing to Wikipedia and want to improve their editing skills via adoption. Places like this Teahouse will suit you far better, as will simply 'being bold' and doing your best, and learning or asking if anyone does revert anything you've done. By all means make an edit and ask about it here, but Adoption is a two-way commitment and I feel you would be wasting your time seeking an adopter at this point of starting on your own personal Wikipedia adventure. (Well done on getting all 15 TWA badges, by the way). Nick Moyes (talk) 20:50, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: ah, ok. Thank you for getting back to me. You're, right, I don't think it would suit me. I just wanted to make sure I wasn't creating extra work for people. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkerDai (talk • contribs) 20:53, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Thanks for the clarification - I didn't know that the Adopt-a-User program was meant for people already editing, and the program page doesn't specify that you have to be somewhat experienced - it just says for new and inexperienced users. If the presumptive implementation is as you say, that suggests there's an onboarding gap between completing the Wikipedia adventure and getting more hands-on mentoring. We've all answered queries here to the effect - "I want to help - how do I find articles that need to be fixed?" @DarkerDai: I did some more digging and it seems that this is a good next step Help:Getting started, followed by this Wikipedia:Community portal, if you scroll down to where it says "help out". Good luck! TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:03, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

@Timtempleton: I'd like to answer that, but feel my reply might be a bit long and off-topic or, worse, wrongly taken as a criticism of the OP. So I'll reply on your talk page, if I may. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:37, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

 @DarkerDai: Please sign your messages on discussion (talk) pages by adding a space and four tildes to the end of the last line of your message, like this:

This is the last line of the message. ~~~~

The four tildes will be automatically converted to a signature that contains your linked username and a timestamp, which helps readers understand who said what.

Additionally, on talk pages, it is customary to indent your replies by one more indent level than the posting above you. For example, in this case, I have started my post with three colons (:::) because the post above me (by Nick Moyes) started with two colons. Thanks, and again, welcome! —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 23:25, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

@AlanM1: Thank you for that. I'll do my best to make sure it's there going forward. Thanks again. DarkerDai (talk) 07:22, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Need help

Hello, can anyone please tell me , is TOI (Times Of India) consider as WP:RS ??? Myslfsbhijit (talk) 18:59, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

@Myslfsbhijit:, as already mentioned here, the TOI sources in Simran Upadhyay are not sufficient for that article. That is not exactly the same as TOI never being a reliable source; the community decided a few months ago that TOI can sometimes be used as a source, but "additional considerations apply", in other words, each TOI reference has to be considered in terms of whether it actually offers relevant and reliable information. The four sources in Simran Upadhyay don't, just as the other editor in the AfD discussion pointed out. --bonadea contributions talk 19:36, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Hey bonadea, thanks for your reply. So what to do right now to save the article ??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Myslfsbhijit (talk • contribs) 19:45, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

@Myslfsbhijit: There unfortunately isn't enough sourcing to demonstrate notability. I also voted delete. We'll have to wait until she has more media coverage, and not just an annual Times of India post wishing her a happy birthday. Save the text for future use. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:26, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Myslfsbhijit. You might find it helpful to read WP:No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. --ColinFine (talk) 21:37, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your valuable answer. It is really helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Myslfsbhijit (talk • contribs) 22:04, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

@Bonadea: I've run into ToI cites quite a bit on articles regarding India, so I'm kind of surprised that it may not be a great source some times. Can you comment on which news sources might be better for Indian topics, or where to start looking for useful discussion about it (there's a lot out there)? —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 23:33, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

@AlanM1: WP:RSPS summarizes consensus thusly: The Times of India is considered to have a reliability between no consensus and generally unreliable. It tends to have a bias in favor of the Indian government. Hope that helped, Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 03:12, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@Rotideypoc41352: I wasn't questioning the stance on ToI, just which sources are better. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 05:42, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@AlanM1: blergh, I misread your question as, "what causes it to be unreliable?". FWIW, RSPS lists The Indian Express. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 05:54, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@AlanM1:Yes, there was a recent RfC about The Indian Express which led to a "generally reliable" conclusion. (I do have a kind of negative knee-jerk reaction to newspapers with "Express" in the title, given the unreliability of The Daily Express and the Swedish Expressen, but that only makes it easier to remember that TIE is an exception!) WP:RSP is very useful for people like me who can't always keep track of sources in other countries, though of course even a "generally reliable" source can't automatically be used as a source for everything. When it comes to evaluating Indian news sources I tend to trust people like Fowler&fowler, Cyphoidbomb and Abcdare; I do a little bit of editing in articles about films, actors, and celebrities from India, and in those kinds of articles (such as the one Myslfsbhijit asks about), it can be very hard to find reliable sources but very easy to find a lot of short notices that are little more than clickbait. It doesn't help that there's a lot of paid promotional editing in the topic area of minor/wannabe celebrities (from any country, but obviously more from a populous country like India). Sorry, longer response than you asked for :-) --bonadea contributions talk 09:40, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Hey , expect TOI , The Indian Express , Ei Samay and ebela.in might be better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Myslfsbhijit (talk • contribs) 06:59, 3 July 2020 (UTC) Dear all, For any article, you read 4-5 newspapers, like The Statesman, The Telegraph, Deccan Herald, etc you may find that 2 or 3 or 4 or all (sometimes) are indebted to one source (Reuters or INA). So in such cases or otherwise also get the view from the tv news channel websites (ABP maybe) ... Cheers Anupam Dutta (talk) 08:58, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Applying for admin

 Destroyz (talk) 23:14, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

@Destroyz: Do you have a question about editing Wikipedia? —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 23:36, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Destroyz. If your post is regarding the way editors become administrators, then please take a look at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship for some general information. There is a formal process that an editor needs to go through and they are only granted adminship if they are able to obtained a certain level of support from the Wikipedia community. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:24, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@Destroyz: Out of about 1100 admins, only 25 joined Wikipedia in 2013 or later. The newest of those joined 19 months ago. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 01:27, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

AlanM1 Where did you get that idea? Actually 156 new admins have joined since 2013. The newest admin, User:Creffett (now User:GeneralNotability), joined Wikipedia on 17 May 2020. See Wikipedia:Successful requests for adminship. Bishonen | tålk 00:46, 4 July 2020 (UTC).

Bishonen, that date for Ceffett/GeneralNotability can't possibly be right. Logs say that they joined in 2018. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:54, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Joined Wikipedia as an admin on 17 May 2020, I was trying to say, Rosguill, not joined Wikipedia as a newbie. I got the date from Wikipedia:Successful requests for adminship. Perhaps AlanM1 was talking about when the new admins joined the project as newbies, as a way of implying to Destroyz that new users have to wait and put in the elbow grease before trying for adminship? I think I misunderstood you, AlanM1, sorry. Bishonen | tålk 01:04, 4 July 2020 (UTC).

And, Destroyz, people are only elected admins if they show that they are doing some work that needs the tools that admins have access to. I have been an editor since 2005, and made over 17 thousand edits, but I have never considered applying for adminship, because I can do all the things I want to do without it. --ColinFine (talk) 09:53, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@Bishonen: Yes, that's what I meant. No worries. Probably would have helped if I had cited the source, as I intended to do. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 01:42, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Help creating a page for a book series

Hello, we have a book series that is winning awards, distributed worldwide, and has already achieved top 1% of book industry sales. We would appreciate a volunteer who could create the Wikipedia page for this book series. 2600:1700:C850:4760:EB:702F:296D:10DA (talk) 23:28, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, unregistered editor. Sales are nice, but before there can be a Wikipedia article (not a page) about a topic, that topic must be notable a term used in a special sense here. See our guideline on the notability of books. The most common way to establish notability for a book is to be able to cite multiple independent professionally published reliable sources that are reviews of or comments on the books, each of which provides significant coverage of the book (or series). This means no fan reviews, no amazon reviews, no blog posts, no press releases, no one-line mentions, and nothing from the publisher or anyone trying to sell or promote the book.

Also, who is "we"? Wikipedia accounts are for individual people only, no groups or companies. If you are working for the publisher or author, whether as an employee, intern, or contractor, or in any other way expect to receive compensation for editing, you must comply with WP:PAID before; doing any further editing on the topic. So would anyone you mi8ght hire. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:59, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

And please be aware that if at some point Wikipedia has an article about your book series it will not belong to you: you will have no control over the contents of the article, and it may say things that you would not want there, as long as independent commentators had published such things elsewhere. --ColinFine (talk) 09:57, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, First of all, I am not an editor. Second, what do sales have to do with this conversation? Third, yes the books are notable. Following your link, the books are both #1 published in numerous non-trivial independent sources, and #2 has won a major literary awards. Fourth, this inquiry was to find someone who can create the article. Would you please provide a couple of names? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:C850:4760:B48F:C4C0:1644:8CCB (talk) 19:30, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

You can make a request at Requested Articles, but the backlog there is severe to the point of uselessness. As this is a volunteer project, there are not editors standing by to create articles. You can attempt to do so yourself if you heed the comments above and comply with the required policies, using Articles for creation. 331dot (talk) 19:45, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I have a reference document at odds with an account given in Wikipedia

My question concerns the article titled "Libby Prison Escape",[Prison Escape] a notorious prison escape by Union officers from a Confederate Prison in Richmond Virginia during the Civil War. The Wikipedia version gives credit for the planning and execution of the escape to a Major Hamilton and Col. Rose. The primary reference seems to be an account of the escape authored by Hamilton

In doing genealogy research I was reading "History of the Indiana Fifty-first Regiment" . The account the escape from Libby Prison given by this source attributes the leadership to Col. A. Streight of the Indiana 51st. While the essential details of the prison break, which I presume where published soon after the actual prison break are the same. There are some details following the break-out that are different from the present Wikipedia article.

My Question: Is this issue something that the editors of Wikipedia would pursue and if so in what fashion? Please advise me. I am willing to work to add details from the book that I have. However, my interest is rather focused on this issue rather than a general desire to understand the inner workings of Wikipedia.

Marie Scearce L1ndaLibby (talk) 02:02, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Libby Prison escape

Comment: left a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Teahouse discussion about Libby Prison Escape in case those familiar with the subject matter have something to add.

Wikipedia doesn't pursue such a discrepancy directly, no. We leave the assessment of primary sources, who have a stake in swaying the story one way or another, to secondary sources like peer-reviewed articles or history books. We simply summarize what those sources say. Hope that helped, Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 03:08, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, L1ndaLibby. You are to be congratulated on the approach you have taken to this. As you clearly have access to the published book, which many other editors probably won't, I might suggest you expand what information you have over at the talk page of the article itself, rather than link to this soon-to-be-archived Teahouse discussion. I'm assuming this alternative source of information is both reliable and properly published - it certainly doesn't have to be online. (I can understand you might not want to get into the intricacies of Wikipedia editing, so laying out the necessary sources and a suggested wording you might like to see changed in the article seems the best way forward for you. ut, as has just been said, both published documents appear to be primary sources, so straight reporting of the evidence, with no interpretation by you, seems the way forward:

Based upon an account in his own words, Major Hamilton has been credited with co-organising the escape from Libby Prison.(ref) An alternative source, written by Willaim Hartpence, and submitted to the Library of Congress in 1894, gives credit to a Colonel Streight as being the leader of the escape.(ref)

Keeping you wording as neutral as possible, and posting your suggestion and a verbatim quote from the references on the article talk page might be the way to let other editor here decide if, and how best, to edit the article. Nick Moyes (talk) 08:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

repinging L1ndaLibby as I initially replied to the wrong editor! Nick Moyes (talk) 08:43, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

References

Noting

Someone should help me on this article 2019–20 Ligue 1 (Ivory Coast).

I want to note both FC San Pédro at the infobox and at the league table without the notes appearing twice.

Josedimaria237 (talk) 02:04, 3 July 2020 (UTC) Josedimaria237 (talk) 02:04, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@Josedimaria237: I put the first note in the infobox. Is that what you wanted? TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 02:24, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@Timtempleton: Yep. Thanks, much better.

Josedimaria237 (talk) 09:53, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Sandbox in wrong place

Dear fellow Wikipedians, I have created Sandbox AA under user talk : Anupamdutta73/sandbox.... Now I cannot move it to user: Anupamdutta73/.... Also I had created commo.js.... How to delete it ? Cheers.... Anupam Dutta (talk) 04:28, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

The reason, or anyway one reason, why you can't move User talk:Anupamdutta73/sandbox to User:Anupamdutta73/sandbox is that the latter already exists. I can delete the latter and replace it with the former, if you like. -- Hoary (talk) 04:43, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Incidentally, I have deleted your creation "Category:Sandbox AA". Please do not experiment with categories (just use them as they were intended), and anyway do not experiment outside User (talk):Anupamdutta73. Indeed, it might be a good idea if you concentrated on adding reliably sourced material to existing articles, rather than experimenting and asking about experimenting. -- Hoary (talk) 05:33, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Dear @Hoary, What I am trying to do is open another sandbox that accessible along with the existing one... There I shall be putting texts I wish to translate... I think I am focused on adding materials to to Wikipedia.... Thanks for your existing and future supports. Anupam Dutta (talk) 06:31, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@Anupamdutta73: How about User:Anupamdutta73/To be translated? Just click on that link. For future reference, you can occasionally request deletion of a page in your own userspace (i.e., pages under User:Anupamdutta73) by editing the page and adding {{db-u1}} to it. Use it sparingly, though, since it requires an admin's time to do so. Thanks. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 07:04, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@Anupamdutta73: I guess "commo.js" means User:Anupamdutta73/common.js. Please link pages you refer to. It can only be deleted by interface administrators. I suggest you just blank it instead if you don't currently want any code in it. If you really want it deleted then you can use this link to post a request to delete both the page and the talk page you will be creating with the request. It's also unclear what you mean by "move it to user: Anupamdutta73/..." Do you want to overwrite the existing page at User:Anupamdutta73/sandbox, or create the page literally called User:Anupamdutta73/..., or get a new sandbox name like User:Anupamdutta73/sandbox2, or something else? You can create the pages at the red links by just saving something in them. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:00, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@Anupamdutta73: Some thoughts: If you use the Preview and review the rendered results before hitting Publish, you can catch some of the typos and other little issues that can confuse others. If (as PH said) you wikilink things in your post, and you then use Preview and the link appears in red, it's literally a red flag that you've made a typo (unless, of course, you intended to link to a non-existent page, as I did above). Thanks again to PH, it occurs to me that, like most serious editors around here, you will ultimately want/need to have a User:Anupamdutta73/common.js, so blanking it instead of deleting it makes a lot of sense. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 19:22, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Dear all, with passing time, I am wiser and understood the very basic Accounting principle that Anupamdutta73 and User : Anupamdutta73 are two different entitities apply here.. So at least I shall not be repeating the basic mistake.... Cheers.... Anupam Dutta (talk) 19:08, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Kattayil Rajinish Menon

Article declined

Why Kattayil Rajinish Menon been removed? I've followed all the guidleine here. Information given are from public domain such as newspaper, industry videos, organization websites? As per the feedback, I have tweaked the article. Please help me in getting this article approved. Wahengba (talk) 06:09, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Here's how that starts: "Kattayil Rajinish Menon is the co-founder and Chief Executive Officer of Sukino Healthcare Solutions Pvt. Ltd. He held leadership roles at Microsoft Corporation, Deutche Bank, Reliance Energy Limited. During his stint at Microsoft, he played instrumental role in setting up startup partner accelerator hubs." This comes with what looks like a reference. I click on the reference, and find that it doesn't mention Menon. So it isn't a reference. Just what is a leadership role? What's the difference between an instrumental role and a non-instrumental role? Instrumental or otherwise, what was his role? What's a startup partner accelerator hub? As Sukino Healthcare Solutions doesn't have an article, is its co-founder and CEO of encyclopedic concern? -- Hoary (talk) 07:15, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy: Draft:Kattayil Rajinish Menon. Declined. Resubmitted. Wahengba not shown as trying to improve the draft after the Declined, but could have been editing not signed in, as 106.206.32.36. Please remember to sign in, so that all your edits are from one User account. David notMD (talk) 11:42, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

personal attacks

hallo, there is a user who keeps pushing and pushing me in the discussions in AFD making personal statements about me. I asked him to stop more than once and to talk only about the subject to be deleted but he keeps doing it. he is definitely trying on my nerves to make me react so he can have me blocked. what can I do? --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 08:52, 3 July 2020 (UTC) AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 08:52, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

AlejandroLeloirRey Don't react, then nothing will happen to you. If necessary, take a break from participating in that discussion. If the issue is intractable and unable to be resolved through regular discussion, you may make a report at WP:ANI. Be advised that the totality of the circumstances(including your actions) will be examined as well, should you choose to pursue such a discussion. 331dot (talk) 09:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

331dot I genuinely believe I never did anything wrong to him. I offered my help to this person different times and I also asked for his help once, before he started stalking me. should I keep asking him to keep the debate focus on the subject or should I don't even answer to him?. I know it will not stop so I will wait it to be obvious before to report at WP:ANI.--AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 09:28, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I honestly don't see the other user as following you around in particular. Many users focus on certain areas of the project, that does not mean they are targeting you personally. 331dot (talk) 09:32, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

331dot do we want to count how many times I was accused of things by him?. first rule of the stalker game, people will not believe you when you tell them you are being stalked. Great, I will wait for the situation to grow, hopping that my nerve will not bust first and make me suspend. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 09:39, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

AlejandroLeloirRey If that's your fear, I would suggest disengaging from the discussion for a time. You have said that your English is not that good, have you considered that might be causing you to misinterpret things? That a user focused on AFD does not mean that they are targeting you or trying to get you blocked. If you do nothing wrong, you won't be blocked. Only you can control what you do. 331dot (talk) 09:53, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

331dot my english is not that good, that is true, but i can still understand one sentence where i get accused of something. so, this is the solution, if I am constantly personally attacked by one person I should quit the conversations and let him have it on his own way (contrary to the guidelines) this is the perfect metaphor of when a woman is stalked and people tells her to not wear short skirts. great, i will just shut my mouth and let it be. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 10:13, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@AlejandroLeloirRey: I am sorry you feel another editor is in some way checking up on you, or is making unreasonable or provocative criticisms. That's never nice. You haven't given us any DIFFs to understand the problem (nor is this the right venue to investigate specifics) though I did see on the only AFD that I did check that another editor was getting quite frustrated with you for not doing WP:BEFORE prior to nominating a number of notable topics for deletion. I can't comment on whether they are right or wrong, though your AFD stats do suggest you have currently nominated quite a few. Should there be a feeling by those who work at AFD that you're going about it the wrong way, then they will certainly look at your work and tell you to take more care, and you should listen to that. You are not going to get blocked for bad AFD judgements, though theoretically any editor can be restricted from contributing there if the community feels they are doing more harm than good. But there's no excuse for one or more editors acting unreasonably towards anyone, and neither have I looked for that. If any editor has genuine concerns about another's actions they could choose to address things directly on the other editor's talk page and spelling out their concerns, or they could go to WP:ANI, ensuring they cite a range of diffs to demonstrate their accusations. Neither course is an easy one, so what I would do is collate diffs of edits which concern me, and copy them to an off-wiki wordprocessed document until such time as I felt I could assess if I were being reasonable in my conclusions over harassment or not. (I would never store them on-wiki as I could then be accused of targetting another editor) Those could then be used if going forward to make a complaint. It is true that being told to 'take a break' is often very good advice here, but it in other circumstances it is extremely patronising and not something anyone with genuine concerns ever wants to hear. I cannot comment on the rights or wrongs of what you have said here, but we are not tolerant of bad editors, even when acting in 'good faith', nor are we tolerant of one editor harassing another. Let me know if you need any further advice. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:19, 3 July 2020 (UTC)  

@Nick Moyes: porn actor biographies are a mess. most of them have been created and kept under now deprecated guidelines. this is why i have so much to nominate and believe me i am only nominating that most obvious ones. from https://tools.wmflabs.org/afdstats/afdstats.py?name=AlejandroLeloirRey&max=&startdate=&altname= your AFD stats you can see that most of my nominations where reasonable. plus, some of the articles i nominated have been kept on the basis of multiple vote to keep like "more sources might be found" and this is very frustrating for a person like me. AFD should not a vote but a discussion and seeing articles with no sources like the one of Zak Spears being kept basing on the fact that we can not exclude the existence of more sources upsets me. please, also note that when i was convinced by new sources that my nomination was wrong i withdraw it, and that happen a few times. question, do you have a link where I can learn to store on off-wiki ? thank you. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 13:01, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@AlejandroLeloirRey: I'm afraid I don't have any experience of biographies of porn actors (apart, that is, from my favourite story of once being invited to participate as one when I was a young, fresh-looking student at Uni...but thankfully I declined!). The requirement for reliable sources should still be the same, I'd have said, though I would hope you weren't rushing to get articles deleted without doing due diligence, as I mentioned. Otherwise it would not be surprising if other editors were coming down on your head like a ten-pound hammer. If you are having to withdraw nominations frequently, then perhaps some extra work is still required on your part when you initially doubt their notability? Personally, whether porn star, rock star or rock formation, I prefer to err on the side of not deleting content whenever there is any doubt. Regarding your question: there is really nothing to learn. Read WP:DIFF on how to create one via the View History tab (like this last edit of yours. Copy the url, open a Word processor document on your own computer, and paste it in along with an annotation of what concerned you about it. You'll eventually either build up a pattern of edits which show unreasonable behaviour of flawed attitudes on someone's part, or you'll come to appreciate that you were simply being addressed firmly but fairly, because of the things you were doing. Standing back to look at your own motives and actions as well as those of others always seems a sensible thing to do here. Feelings or meanings often get lost in translation when simply typing emotionless text. I'm neither defending, attacking nor trying to brush anything away here - just spelling out what I would do, as going back in time to look at a pattern of behaviour is neither easy nor pleasant. I like to think of myself as a model of politeness here, but it would be quite easy to cherry pick a few examples of where I've had to be firm and totally blunt - even downright rude - with troublesome editors, yet if they tried to throw those selected moments back against I doubt it would get them very far. But if I showed a pattern of poor behaviour towards others, I would deserve what I get. Hope this helps, Nick Moyes (talk) 13:51, 3 July 2020 (UTC)  

@Nick Moyes:my first experience with porn bios was writing one and that was very hard. having it accepted was so stressful as in that moment I didn't understand well what a good source is and why some of my sources where being criticized (most of the time in an irresponsabile way) but I have learned a lot about how a good source should be. I must say that probably 75% of porn bios wouldn't be published today if they were judged by the standard used on the bio I wrote. I do not want to go that far but definitely if we want wikipedia to be considered a reliable enciclopedia we need to get rid of the garbage. I didn't withdraw my nomination often it happened about 3 times and those now count as keep on my AFD resume. I believe on being fair and if I am shown to be wrong I can take a step backward and admit my mistake. wikipedia encourage us to be bold and if we can not make a few mistake how can we be bold. once again the majority of my nominations have than been deleted. before nominating an article usually I post at least one week before on the talk page of the article a post where I explain I want to delete the article and why. I check every single source present on the article. I look for more sources and I publish on AlejandroLeloirRey the list of the pages I have nominated or that i want to nominate. often I also use templates like "more article needed" or similar. now, I think that is enough. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 14:26, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Removing a template message

I added citations and links to a document but I can't remove the template. How do I do it? Fiona Njaggi (talk) 11:54, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

None of your edits have included citations, so they were reverted at the time as unsourced. I notice also that you marked all your edits as minor, but they didn't meet the criteria at Help:Minor edits. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:02, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

There are no more citations to provide on this page. How do I remove the template? Also, I marked an edit as a minor edit, could that be the cause? Fiona Njaggi (talk) 12:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

If you mean Jim Chu (entrepreneur), were your edits without signing in, so that they show as edits by an IP address? Also, what you did was add hyperlinks to the text of the article (The Nest, Untapped). These do not count as citations, and the hyperlinks should be removed. David notMD (talk) 14:08, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

is the AFD process good enough?

I have been nominating a lot lately and I am becoming more and more aware of the process of the elimination. I can tell that it relies a lot of the personal believing of the contributors... too much. I have seen article being kept because of major "keep" vote with comments like: "He seems notable in his field." with no further explanations, "likely interviews and articles exist but many publications of his time would be off-line." and similar. this one specific article is the bio of Zak Spears where the sources are: an interview (primary source), one 5 line long bio and IMDb and AFDb both considered unreliable here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pornography#Industry/trade_sources.

I don't care about that specific article but the fact that it has resulted into a keep it makes me understand that first actually AFD is a vote process even though after the guidelines it shouldn't be and second that the process relies too much on what is are personal perception of the people involved into the discussion. I think we should make it more clear, especially for the bio, that no article can be kept if they are not properly sourced and if the sources do not prove notability. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 13:48, 3 July 2020 (UTC) AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 13:48, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Suggest you read Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia. David notMD (talk) 14:13, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@NotMD:cool, thank you :-) --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 14:35, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

I was caled out by user mattythewhite for disruptive editing when I was clearly just changing some grammar and linking it to other Wikipedia pages. Could this problem be solved? Ananimo0o0o0oo0s2 (talk) 14:21, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Mattythewhite, care to comment? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I will poach: Anan- All of your edits to date have been the addition of factual statements to articles without providing references to verify what you have added. Rightfully so, you have been warned. Please learn how to reference. David notMD (talk) 15:15, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

My reverts were in response to the addition of unsourced content. Here the edits I undid for each warning: 1, 2, 3. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:43, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Article turned down through lack of “published, reliable, secondary sources .."

Hi My Draft:Frogmorton_(folk_group) article has been turned down through lack of “published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject”. The article in question is about an important British folk rock band in the 70s.

I have included five printed reference-sources: the first, “The Great Folk Discography. Volume 1. Pioneers and Early Legends by Martin C Strong” contains a comparatively substantial entry referring to the band. However the book is in hardback only & doesn’t exist in its entirety on the web. The great folk Discography volume 1 'Pioneers and Early legends.'

The other sources are front-page Melody Maker articles in the Folk section of the newspaper between 1972 & 1976. Having contacted the ex-editor I have been informed these were never digitised and old issues remain still bound-in-string in the basement of their offices! However, I have scanned copies of those articles which could be put on line. Melody Maker

What can I do about having these important & reliable references in a clickable format to allow the article to be accepted by Wikipedia? Many thanks Flatback (talk) 14:29, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@Flatback: I can help you format these references in a way that makes their significance more clear. Is the "The Great Folk Discography" source an encyclopedia, and if so, is the entry you're referring to titled Frogmorton? Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:43, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Why is some idiot vandalizing my article

WP:DFTT John from Idegon (talk) 01:20, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Why is he doing that. Fuc them I spent my time and some idiot is supporting them. PippeliPerse (talk) 15:29, 3 July 2020 (UTC) This user was indefinitely blocked. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC) Cape Coral High School is not your article; it is an article that was created in 2007 and edited many times since then. Your additions may be true, but YouTube is not accepted by Wikipedia as a reliable source for a reference. David notMD (talk) 16:14, 3 July 2020 (UTC) There's no blanket ban on YouTube, David notMD. See WP:YOUTUBE and WP:VIDEOREF. Videos made by reputable broadcasters that are hosted on YouTube can be considered reliable sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:36, 3 July 2020 (UTC) Cordless Larry, But it is better to avoid YouTube as per WP:YTREF as a reliable source because Many YouTube videos of newscasts, shows or other content of interest to Wikipedia visitors are copyright violations and should not be linked, either in the article or in citations ~ Amkgp 💬 17:35, 3 July 2020 (UTC) Amkgp, again, there is no blanket advice to avoid using all YouTube videos as references. Editors must use good editorial judgment. A news video on the official TouTube channel of a reliable source is by definition a reliable source. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:14, 3 July 2020 (UTC) Since noone has yet linked WP:RSPYT I'll throw that in here too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 23:19, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Becoming a translator

Hi all! I was wondering how to become an 'experienced user' so I can publish translations. I recently graduated with a Spanish Major and am currently studying for the DELE C1 exam.

I have published Draft:La Concha Bay as an example of my work. It's by no means perfect but I really want to contribute to this community.

Any advice is welcome! Seangtkelley (talk) 16:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Seangtkelley Welcome to Wikipedia . Please go through Your first article to get accustomed with Wikipedia editing and article creations. Also, you can help us to translate from Spanish to English if there is a request at Pages needing translation into English and Category:Articles needing translation from Spanish Wikipedia. Happy editing ~ Amkgp 💬 17:19, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@Seangtkelley: Regarding Draft:La Concha Bay, only references are missing. Please go through reliable sources that are accepted as references and are added as per citing norms. ~ Amkgp 💬 17:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Which points up the unexpected challenges of translating Wikipedia articles, Seangtkelley: Translating the text may be only a small part of the job. Each Wikipedia is a separate project with its own rules; and even within en-wiki, there are thousands and thousands of articles which are sub-standard, and would not be accepted in their present form if somebody tried to add them today. This means that an article you find in es-wiki 1) may not meet en-wiki's criteria for WP:notability, in which case translating it would be a waste of your time; or 2) may meet those criteria, but may not have the requisite references, in which case you would need to find the reliable independent sources, and cut everything out of your translation which you could not find in a reliable source. --ColinFine (talk) 21:00, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

ColinFine's advice about notability is true, but in the particular case of Draft:La Concha Bay, officially-designated geographical areas and feature are presumed notable, so the San Sebastian external link is actually sufficient. It should survive if brought to mainspace (but do not let that keep you from improving it with references!). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 21:30, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Initialisms/acronyms as part of hyperlinks?

I'm confused about whether links should include initialisms/acronyms or not. E.g., should I write obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) or obstructive sleep apnea (OSA)?

Thanks. Pulmtom (talk) 17:28, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@Pulmtom: I think the first one looks better. Interstellarity (talk) 17:32, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@Pulmtom:Go for first as I too agree with Interstellarity ~ Amkgp 💬 17:38, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Referring a book's position on a best seller list

Hi. I added a link to the New York Times Best sellers list as evidence of an edit I made to an article to show that a book had reached no. 5 on the list. However I realise that this page is updated each week and so the link will not provide evidence once that book changes its position on the list. Is there a way of making a link go to the best sellers page of a fixed date? Alison hunter (talk) 17:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• @Alison Hunter: The NYT does seem to keep an online archive of previous best seller lists: for instance [1] gives the mid-June week. In my desktop view those pages can be reached by the arrows next to the date, top-right of the page.

A more general solution for websites subject to change or disappearance is given at Help:Archiving a source. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 20:42, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Sometimes you need to thank God

 Vic Agbiti pup (talk) 17:38, 3 July 2020 (UTC) sorry but God is more than anything so the only reason your living is because of God so maybe you can kick me out okay thanks

Vic Agbiti pup, It unclear what is you query. Please note Teahouse is a platform where you can ask questions and get help related to using and editing Wikipedia ~ Amkgp 💬 17:42, 3 July 2 020(UTC)

This is merely a trolling sock. I've blocked it. Bishonen | tålk 18:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC).

Defunct WikiProject template

While editing some flight simulation articles I noticed that the defunct WikiProject Flight Simulation still has banners on some pages. I've added a speedy deletion to the template, is this the right way to go? GameIsWikipedian (talk) 20:12, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

That's an interesting question, GameIsWikipedian. Whilst it would at first seem the right way to go, there is the issue of all the existing Talk pages which are still using it Template:WikiProject Flight Simulation. It would make sense for you to display the What links here list first, and work through to delete them from each of the talk pages listed there, replacing them with an appropriate alternative where there is currently no other project listed, such as the template for WP:WikiProject Video games which is definitely needed at Talk:RealFlight.  Because I couldn't get my head around what would happen to 'what links here' if the template has already been deleted, I've temporarily removed your CSD notice to give you some time. I suggest you work through that list and tidy up any orphans, then revert my edit to reinstate the CSD notice. (That'll notify me and I can pop by and smash it into little pieces for you, or someone else will) I'm sure someone else can also tell me whether 'what links here' would still works if the page is now blank, but it seemed better not to learn the heard way. I'll try and remember to test that out on the next page I have to delete. Hope this reply makes sense. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:35, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the response, Nick Moyes. I've gone ahead and manually removed the banner from the ~40 pages it was used and re-added the CSD notice. However, this has also led me to discover that the project's quality categories are still active, such as Category:Flight Simulation articles by quality. Since their project has been inactive since June 6th, do they meet CSD criteria as well? Thank you for your time. Game Is (assumedly) Wikipedian (tea?) 16:27, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

@GameIsWikipedian: Well done. As quality isn't related to one project (unlike 'Importance') that assessment ought to be transferable to the video game template you replace it with, so just copy it across. Don't attempt to add an importance figure for the other Project if it's outside your knowledge area, though. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:55, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Yes, I have transferred the articles' quality rating to their appropiate WikiProjects. But category pages about Wikiproject Flight Simulation, like Category:Flight Simulation articles by quality and Category:Flight Simulation articles by importance (not hyperlinking them since that seems to add the Teahouse to that category, just copy-paste them into the search bar) are still active, although empty, since I removed all the Flight Simulation banners. Do we have to wait 7 days for the categories to meet WP:C1 or can they be deleted earlier? Best regards. PS: The category header still shows the categories as 'populated', but all the subcategories are empty. I think they take a while to refresh. Game Is (assumedly) Wikipedian (tea?) 19:25, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Trouble with another editor

Hello

I was hoping to get some advice on how to deal with another editor. I've been trying to edit an article on books but everything I do gets reverted and though I try to raise issues on the talkpage this editor doesn't feel I'm academic enough and accuses me of acting in bad faith.

What should I do?

Thanks in advance for your advice.

JD 92.0.34.161 (talk) 20:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• I see there is some slow-motion edit war going on at List of best-selling books. Both of you and Starasta1 seem to have kept relatively cool heads, except for occasional accusation of bad faith such as this or that edit summary (please see WP:AGF), or that post on the talk page.

As it seems it is only two of you fighting and the discussion is not too heated (yet), I would advise looking for a third opinion, or failing that make a request for comment to attract a wider audience. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 20:38, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• It is not essential, but it might be useful to register for an account. I have known before that some editors have less inherent respect for an IP editor. The daft thing is that we can be as anonymous as we wish when creating accounts, or as open. It should make no difference Fiddle Faddle 20:40, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.34.161 (talk) 23:49, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

You probably get loads of questions about this, but I can't figure out how to archive my talk page...

Hello,

I've added this to my user talk page:
{{User:MiszaBot/config | algo = old(10d) | archive = User talk:Thanoscar21/Archive %(counter)d | counter = 1 | maxarchivesize = 75K | archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}} | minthreadstoarchive = 1 | minthreadsleft = 4 }}

It's not archiving. Can someone help me please? Please ping me.
Thanks, Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 21:31, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Thanoscar21. I never find setting up archives easy, but did you not read the instructions at User:Lowercase sigmabot III/Archive HowTo? It only archives pages once a day, and you only set this up two hours ago! You'll need to give the bot time to do its run. What I would say is that you've set both your archive period to be far too short, and the archive max size to be far too small. Personally, I like having at least the last 3 months of talk page messages visible on my page at once, and don't want to waste time looking through inordinate numbers of teeny-tiny archives, which you'll get with those settings. You'll also need something to make links to your archive pages visible. I'll drop by your talk page and give it a tweak. If I mess up, or you don't like it, you can always revert my edits. How's that? Nick Moyes (talk) 22:40, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

OK, so I've made some tweaks for you, and hope I've done it OK. (It's one of those things you do once then forget all about it once it's up and running). I've set the archive to kick in after 60 days, but you can tweak that once it's running. I've also made the max archive size 100k and leaving 10 threads at least on your talk page. Give it 24 or so to kick in, then come and give me a telling off if it hasn't worked properly! Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:04, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Nick Moyes, thanks a lot! On a side note: You've actually climbed the Matterhorn? Wow! Thanks, Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 19:35, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I have a Conflict of Interest when editing a page. Is it best to leave it and set up a talk?

Hi again. Sorry, I seem to be here a lot. I was going through some Irish television pages (RTÈ One and Virgin Media One) and I noticed the shares were out of date. I can update these using the TAM Nielsen data for 2019 ( I can also do this for other Irish channels) but I do have a Conflict of Interest. Is it best to amend them and add a note in the summary or just request someone else to amend them? Thanks. DarkerDai (talk) 22:54, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, DarkerDai. It's best to raise an edit request on the article's talk page. If you look at that link, you'll see that it tells you the template to add to make sure your request gets added to the list of requested edits waiting, even if nobody is regularly watching that talk page. --ColinFine (talk) 23:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for that @ColinFine:. I've raised one now. Do you think it's necessary to do an edit request on all pages I want to amend or just one?DarkerDai (talk) 23:39, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@DarkerDai: If you are employed by a particular company/organization/person and are editing/requesting edits to articles related to them, you should disclose your employment per Wikipedia's paid editing disclosure policy. It's a higher standard of disclosure than regular conflict of interest. And if your articles of interest relate to your employer, then yes, edit requests are the way to go for all of them. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 00:20, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

@Drm310: Ah ok. I am employed by one of the companies but I am not being paid to make the changes. The figures used were out of date and I just wanted to update with the latest. I will raise an edit Request on all the channels, including the ones I don't work for as there is a conflict of interest. I've also raised one in Wikiprojest Television as I feel I'll get a better consensus there as the Irish channels are a lot quieter. Thank you all for the advice. DarkerDai (talk) 00:40, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

 Fisnikzekaj (talk) 23:45, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Please note, DarkerDai, that if editing Wikipedia articles, or more generally publicizing the company, is any part of your job responsibility, or will be reflected in your evaluations or noted by your supervisor, even if you are not specifically or separately paid for editing, you are still considered a paid editor. If not, WP:COI applies but not WP:PAID.

Unseen political drivers of public school systems of education in the United States of America since 1960

Hello, I spent some hours tonight reading your sections on public schools in the United States with specific attention to literacy within the adult population, followed by a focus upon political dimensions arising from federal government mandates to admit African American students to all white public schools in the 1960's. It seems to me that a correlation analysis between the temporal advancement of changes both political and educational has promise pertaining to advancing our understanding of how Libertarian political agendas were won. I likely could actually do the correlation analysis but mathematics is not one of my strong suits. Someone else would do it far better than I. I am mightily impressed by the coverage of both of these areas in Wikipedia, indeed, I find the work done in parts brilliant. I would be honored to attempt to contribute something else. That is, my own area of expertise is logic and attachment. So I am willing to attempt to write something about both logic and attachment that brings them together in a novel manner, and leave it up to you to decide to use or not. I propose to examine your coverage of the theorem of undecidability, published in 1930 by Kurt Godel. I doubt it is up to speed since the Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy gets it wrong. They call it the incompleteness theorem. Folks, the natural numbers are incomplete. This is hardly an important contribution. However, the contribution Godel made was a proof that any system rich enough to generate an arithmetic is undecidable. That is a contribution of such magnitude that logicians today are in denial of it . Once the theorem is closely examined, then we have a hornets nest of stinging problems to address. There are propositions we readily formulate that cannot be determined to be true and that cannot be determined to be false WITHIN THE SYSTEM that constructs the propositions, or call them 'sentences', as English is one of countless examples of logical systems we tend to think of as too loose to be logics; but that is not the case at all. So, how is it that we, human beings, can construct meaning that is sufficiently reliable to conduct the basic business of daily life? The answer to this question is: attachment , a psychological construct formulated during WWII. My doctoral dissertation was on attachment in relation to treatment outcomes in my field of psychotherapy. The integration of logic and attachment is my life mission. I was utterly shocked upon learning no one had done it as yet. But along the way it made more sense to me. Nonetheless,this very basic and important feature of living creatures with brains of a certain minimal level of development unavoidably do integrate logic and attachment. The integration gives rise to the mind (I tend to use the term 'the human mind' because people have this tendency to think other sentient creatures are beneath human beings. A very sad state of affairs.) This work I do may certainly by applied helpfully to both attachment and logic sections of Wikipedia. In addition, doing this may well facilitate my formulation of the conceptual structures underpinning our knowledge of both logic and attachment for the work I am doing. So I am asking a question and willing to offer some editorial comments in exchanges for an answer. I hope this may seem appealing to some of you. Best Wishes, Linda Linda May Tomayhem (talk) 06:04, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello Tomayhem and welcome to the Teahouse. If you would like to edit an article related to the above ideas, feel free to do so. If you do so, please bear in mind that Wikipedia does not publish any original research. Content on Wikipedia is summarized from previously published reliable sources on a subject, so anything you write in an article needs to be based on some published source. Please also note that while editors are allowed to cite their own published material in articles, as this is sometimes seen as self-promotion and can skew the neutrality of the encyclopedia. See Wikipedia:SELFCITE. If you aren't sure if your additional would be helpful then you can always ask at the article's talk page. Happy editing. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:38, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Amit Bagaria

I want to know why my page (Amit Bagaria) was deleted. I am a public figure with more than 250 media articles published about me. AmitBagaria65 (talk) 06:40, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Amit_Bagaria.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:43, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

The page to which ThatMontrealIP points you gives you the reasons. Incidentally, much of the content of the deleted article was supplied by you. -- Hoary (talk) 08:42, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

What you may be unaware of, AmitBagaria65, is that Wikipeida is basically not interested in what anybody says, or wants to say, about themselves. As I'm not an admin, I can't see the deleted article, but it sounds as if a lot of the sources were not independent of you. --ColinFine (talk) 12:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

How do people repeal edits so fast?

I edited the article on Stellated octahedrons to add a joke in the "construction" section which detailed very complicated ways to make a stellated octahedron. I thought it'd be funny if instead of one of those convoluted methods, I wrote "Just put two pyramids together smh." But after about 5 seconds, it got undone. I don't have any problems with this edit being repealed because admittedly, I was vandalizing the page, but it does make me wonder; why was someone browsing the article on stellated octahedrons at the exact moment I made that edit, and how did they undo it so fast? Was it just coincidence, or is it some sort of bot made to detect weird edits? 166.181.253.26 (talk) 07:28, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

hello IP and welcome to the Teahouse. The reason it was reverted is the same reason I saw your Teahouse question from here in Montreal: watchlists. When editors edit a page, they usually opt to be notified when that pages changes. That notification comes via the watchlist. If you get an account, you can have a watchlist too. Other methods for detecting vandlaism are in place, but seeing as you have admitted to being a vandal, I won't go into those. PS: Please restrain yourself from adding jokes to Wikipedia articles. It was not that funny. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 08:24, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how funny it was. It could be the most brilliant piece of humor ever written. It doesn't belong here. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 19:08, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Who can close a Split discussion?

I posted this question:

• Wikipedia_talk:Splitting#Closing_a_split_discussion

--David Tornheim (talk) 09:12, 4 July 2020 (UTC) --David Tornheim (talk) 09:12, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Responded at the appropriate venue. ~ Amkgp 💬 15:29, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

How can I add the following, to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion?

Nyboda depot

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Nyboda depot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article on a Swedish garage/depot for subway trains and buses, there are no citations, the references are in Swedish. Devokewater (talk) 09:49, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Note that per WP:NOENG the langauge is not a problem, but they are not cite-ish and they are blogs. Hopefully someone here who is used to making Afd:s can fix it for you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:12, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

The 3 steps for listing an AFD are given in the box at the top of the article, and also in more detail at Template:Afd footer. The easiest way of doing it is with Twinkle. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:18, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks David Biddulph + Gråbergs Gråa Sång I have tried following these steps, but. Hence this request. Devokewater (talk) 10:21, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

What went wrong when you tried the subsequent steps? You've done step I at Template:Afd footer (step 1 in the box at the top of the article), so you now need to move on to the subsequent steps. The "preloaded debate" link for step 2 does most of that step for you and gives you instructions what to change. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:34, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks David Biddulph, I appear to have successfully completed these steps, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 July 4. Devokewater (talk) 10:37, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I see that you've done those steps, but you may wish to reconsider the category. You set the category to B (Biographical), which doesn't seem appropriate. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:45, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks David Biddulph, just tried to change the category, however no success, how do I do it? Regards Devokewater (talk) 10:51, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Again you didn't tell us what went wrong when you tried to change the category. I've done it for you, changed it from B (Biographical) to P (Places and transportation) in this edit. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:26, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

'this article is an orphan' when it is linked?

Hi there, I made a page for a book, and it says 'this article is an orphan' despite being linked on both the wiki pages of the author? Am I doing something wrong?x MadelaineHS (talk) 10:52, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello MadelaineHS. Welcome to the Teahouse. Your question is now redundant as Balance (2013 book) is no longer an ORPHAN in that it now contains wikilinks out from it to it from other articles. It didn't when you first created it. Does that make sense? It would be nice if you now could resolve the way the references are displaying. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:27, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Nick Moyes, Did you get that the wrong way round? Orpan = "an article with no links from other pages in the main article namespace". But it's solved anyway:[2]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:40, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Yes I did, for some reason I wrote that completely the wrong way round. I've struck my words. Thank you. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:48, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I am new

I am new to the Wikipedia TEAHOUSE. What can I do here, how can I get help? Daniton9999 (talk) 10:56, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Daniton9999 Hello and welcome. This is a place to ask questions about using Wikipedia. Is there something in particular you have a question about? 331dot (talk) 11:19, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

331dot If you ask like this, yes. I created an App, and noone knows about it, and I don't know where to share it. But that is nothing for Wikipedia I think --Daniton9999 (talk) 11:20, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Daniton9999 and welcome to the Teahouse. This is a help forum where we assist anyone who encounters difficulty editing or contributing to this encyclopaedia of notable things. So, in a way, it's us older hands who are here to help you. I've left you a welcome message on your talk page with a few useful links. You might like to try The Wikipedia Adventure or read Help:Getting Started. Best wishes, Nick Moyes (talk) 11:19, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok, thank you very much --Daniton9999 (talk) 11:21, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Daniton9999 That's correct. Wikipedia is not a place to share information about something that you created, nor is it for spreading the word about something. If independent reliable sources like the news or magazine articles give your app significant coverage, it might merit an article if the app meets Wikipedia's special definition of notability- but if that were to happen, you shouldn't be the one to write about it due to a conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 11:24, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

331dot, thank you, that was well explained, thank you. Do you maybe want to see the App yourself? (Just if you want to) --Daniton9999 (talk) 11:28, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Daniton9999 Thanks, but I have no interest in that. 331dot (talk) 11:37, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

331dot That's off course ok. --Daniton9999 (talk) 11:38, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Logos on draft articles

As a business's logo is non-free, I understand that I have to upload it locally on the Wikipedia project, and not Wikimedia Commons. The issue is that I cannot put the logo on a draft before submitting it for review, because I can only put it in the main article mainspace. Can I only put the logo on after the article has been approved, or am I missing something? The draft I've submitted is Draft:Consumer Union for Ethical Banking Wurbl (User talk:Wurbl) 11:18, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

You're not missing anything. Adding a logo won't help your draft get accepted by a reviewer. If/when it is accepted, you can then add the logo. Maproom (talk) 11:44, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you--Wurbl (User talk:Wurbl) 15:25, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Bare urls corrected? xx

Hello again! I've just made a book page and it said 'bare urls' needed correcting...I've done that now very carefully on every url, but the message still shows? Any advice would be amazing, still getting my head around wikipedia!x MadelaineHS (talk) 11:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

No, some human (I didn't bother to find which) affixed a template saying this. You have indeed, uh ... clothed each URL (thank you!), but nobody noticed this and removed the template (till I did, just now). ¶ I haven't read either book, but the description makes it sound as if it has common ground with The Spirit Level; if I'm right, then perhaps each article could beneficially have a "See also:" pointing to the other. -- Hoary (talk) 12:18, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Just as an aside, MadelaineHS, please would you include a link to any page you're asking us to look at? It all takes time to determine - or guess - what you're talking about, and none of us here have yet completed the Wikipedia mind-reading course they keep telling us about. Please make our lives that little bit easier with a simple link. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:44, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Nick, yes of course, I'm so sorry I didn't realise xx Looks all solved now but thank you x — Preceding unsigned comment added by MadelaineHS (talk • contribs) 12:45, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello

Hello People Im Stefan, and i want to know what is this here? Is this a talk forum or something else or simple to contribute to Wikipedia articles. StefanR10 (talk) 13:47, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

StefanR10 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. This is a place for new or inexperienced users to ask questions about using or editing Wikipedia. If you have any questions, you may pose them here. You may be interested in using the new user tutorial. 331dot (talk) 13:49, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Im just here to improve articles when i can most when i read something on wikipedia and i see one error i correct them. StefanR10 (talk) 13:52, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Looks like you've been in extended suspended animation - one day of edits in 2013, and now reappearing on July 4, 2020. As noted, Teahouse is a place to ask questions about editing English Wikipedia. David notMD (talk) 16:21, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Adding images to Ruth Clayton

Hello Teahouse, I am very pleased with accepted article on Ruth Clayton, but I wish to improve it by adding relevant images that I have now obtained. I have read the appropriate Wikipedia pages, determined that they are non-free images and will need to be be uploaded to English Wikipedia by fulfilling criteria for fair use rather, than using the Wiki Commons route. I have the relevant information to make the case for fair use. However when I launch the File Upload Wizard I am told that I am not able to do so because I am not autoconfirmed. Is it true that I can successfully submit a new entry to Wikipedia but not improve it by adding relevant images? Or am I missing something. I would be very grateful for help and advice. I am a novice! Ulrich131 (talk) 14:29, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

This was also asked at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk#14:09:08, 4 July 2020 review of submission by Ulrich131, and now an answer has been given there. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:55, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Is there a WikiProject with illustrators willing to make sketches for articles?

I'm not new to Wikipedia so I dunno if I belong here, but I couldn't think of a better place to ask.

I'm writing a new article on Song of Dorang-seonbi and Cheongjeong-gaksi (a Korean shamanic narrative) on this sandbox, and it should be done by the day after tomorrow. Unfortunately there are no illustrations whatsoever of this very understudied myth, either historical or modern, despite it being the sort of story where illustrations would be quite helpful for a reader.

Is there a WikiProject or something with illustrators willing to make sketches or digital art for articles?

Thanks in advance.

Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 15:37, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Karaeng Matoaya, Welcome to Teahouse. Illustrations for an article are optional. There are lot of articles in Wikipedia that does not have a single image. Contributions to Wikipedia is generally voluntary in nature. You may ask for help at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab or Commons:Graphic Lab. Happy editing ~ Amkgp 💬 15:53, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Question about draft

hello; I created a wiki article months ago. it just sits there in draft mode. how can I get this updated to be searchable in public viewing wiki articles? Tmigel (talk) 16:17, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

@Tmigel: Courtesy: this is about Draft:KAT Lawrence, which was never submitted for review. David notMD (talk) 16:24, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Your user talk page contains a number of useful links, including to WP:Your first article. If you read the section WP:Your first article#Create your draft it tells you how to submit the draft for review. David Biddulph (talk) 23:28, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Writing an article about Cultural dimensions

I registered on July 3, 2020 with my Wikipedia account. I am interested in contributing to Wikipedia about quantitative cross-cultural research. I created a page called Draft: Cultural dimensions. Yesterday when I created the page and started to write in it, the page looked like a main Wikipedia page and was easily accessible from the browser. However, today I saw that the page is in the draft format and I am not allowed to publish it as a main Wikipedia page. I read that new users can not create main Wikipedia pages until their account is at least four days old. Then, will I be allowed to publish the page when my account becomes 4 days old? TheCultureDemystifier (talk) 17:15, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Draft:Cultural dimensions

Hello, TheCultureDemystifier and welcome to the Teahouse.

This draft will not be reviewed until it is submitted for review, which yoiu must do when you think it is ready for review.

Without access to the cited sources, I cannot judge the notability of this topic. You could use the |quote= parameter to provide key brief source quotes where the subject is discussed by the source -- No more than a sentence or a paragraph at most, please. I have made some additional comments on Draft talk:Cultural dimensions. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:55, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, TheCultureDemystifier. The reason you were able to create the article was because you didn't create a new page (which you're not technically able to do yet), but rather you turned an existing redirect into an article. GeneralNotability then moved the article to draft because, at that point, it had no references. Articles lacking references are liable to be nominated for deletion, so that was a good move. I'd recommend that you now work to make sure the draft is fully referenced before submitting it for review. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:15, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your answers. I started to add references to the draft and I will continue to provide more references. I have added the numbers of the pages on which the information supporting the statements in my draft appears for some of the references and I will do so for the rest too.TheCultureDemystifier (talk) 19:59, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Remove a notice about "editing living persons" because this person has died

I noticed that he had died and I made a small edit, but then I noticed the large notice of biography's of living persons warning, so I wanted to ask a more advanced editor to remove the notice. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Wing_Krafft Ty78ejui (talk) 17:18, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

@Ty78ejui:  Done I am unsure what exactly causes this, Afaik it is Category:Living People. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:48, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

@Ty78ejui and Victor Schmidt:, Wikipedia's Biography of Living persons continues to apply to recently deceased people, for a period from 1 month to about 2 years, depending on the circumstances of the case. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:59, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:BDP Says Generally, this policy does not apply to material concerning people who are confirmed dead by reliable sources. The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside. Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or a particularly gruesome crime.

So please continue to edit with care on this article. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:11, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure he is actually dead due to lack of good sources, but he probably is dead. I just wanted to remove the outdated template. The only source is his own website which could not have been posted by him if he had died. I found one other source, but it was a re report of the original website post. If he had brain cancer for years, this could have affected his opinions re Holocaust Denial. I am looking for more answers. So in one month I can post back and someone will remove the template? I would have preferred an article an newspaper such as a local Seattle Paper or an Magazine that covers Art News to make the article look more polished. Ty78ejui (talk) 18:16, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I just read the notice in green and I agree its better to leave it up until it can be determined if he really died. I hate hoaxes and con men. Ty78ejui (talk) 18:18, 4 July 2020 (UTC) So now its been taken off, if he is proved alive it can always be changed back. It will make it better to edit without that huge banner popping up. Ty78ejui (talk) 00:44, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion

Hi dear,please tell me why my published would be deleted.also tell me how i solve speedy deletion . Writer alamin 321 (talk) 17:48, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Writer alamin 321, what is it that might be speedy deleted? Your only contributions to Wikipedia, apart from asking this question, have been to the Wikipedia Sandbox in mid-May, and those have long since vanished. Maproom (talk) 17:59, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Maproom They're probably asking about Tantra Teacher Training, which they created. Praxidicae (talk) 18:01, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Writer alamin 321, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Tantra Teacher Training was deleted under G11 as excessively promotional. Such phrases as The practice of Tantra thus shows the path of freedom and enlightenment. and The teacher training program offers comprehensive Tantric training to both beginners and professional practitioners. The professional training courses offer both exceptional Tantra practices and techniques as well as workshops to become a successful certified trainer. are clearly unacceptable on Wikipedia, they read like an advertising flyer for this training. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:07, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

(Maproom remember to check deleted contribs or speedy notices on the user talk page in such cases. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:07, 4 July 2020 (UTC))

Matters Education

How can i access articles on education, particularly the use of instructional media? Mkigaro (talk) 18:02, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Mkigaro, I'm not quite sure your question? If you're looking for articles to read, you can simply use the search bar in the top right of the screen. See also the readers FAQ and Help:Searching. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:06, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

So-called review of my article Lorenz Kienzle

Hey there, I've written quite a few articles for the english wikipedia so far. Usually I'm more familiar with the german WP. What happened to my article Lorenz Kienzle (translation of german article I also wrote, but quite a few years ago) now in a so-called "review" is something I honestly would consider as vandalism. Anybody here who'd help me out? The vandalist in question added like 100 "citation needed" blocks, marked a source I actually possess as a real book (containing the pics in question) with a "failed verification" note and furthermore added those "citation needed" blocks in a way that the html shows in the reading mode. I have not seen any article on a living (or dead) artist that verifies every single exhibition the person has made and had with an extra source. Of course I included the person's website where these solo shows easily can be traced (apart from the books and catalogues that were published and are listed as well in the "publications" section). I'm quite pissed, but don't want to start an edit war by just reverting the edits. Anybody here who would take a look? Thanks a lot in advance ... Grizma (talk) 20:58, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Grizma. The edits to the article are most definitely not vandalism, which has a very specific meaning on English Wikipedia. False accusations of vandalism are disruptive so please stop. My suggestion to you is to provide a reference in each place where the "citation needed" tag has been added, and remove each tag as you add the reference. I have written several biographies of artists and photographers, and I provide a reference for each exhibition. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:08, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Grizma. I get that you're annoyed; please don't be. This is a collaborative project, and articles that you create are not your articles. You have not opened a discussion on either Talk:Lorenz Kienzle or User talk:Vexations. I agree that Vexations has added a lot of {{citation needed}} tags; but they have also improved some translation, attended to the formatting, and added at least one reference. That doesn't look like vandalism to me. The "failed verification" is on a citation that points only to a website (it doesn't mention a book). --ColinFine (talk) 21:14, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

OK, I see. The publication is mentioned in the text. In that case the citation should contain useful bibliographic information (author, title, date, page) not a useless link to the publisher's site. If the text is not available online, don't provide a link in the citation. --ColinFine (talk) 21:17, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

The "citation needed" has been inserted many times inside the brackets of the wikilinks, the excessive use of the "citation needed" makes the article unreadable. I think this is very bad style and it creates a lot of work for both of us, fixing the wikilinks etc. I have no problem with including more sources, I have a problem with the style here. Usually a note is left on the discussion page that you can deal with instead of this disruptive use of the citation stamp. I will get in touch with the user, but I wanted to hear more opinions before. Are you really telling me I should list every single catalogue and book which is already in the "publications" list again in the references? That's just blowing up the references without any meaningful content. Check out these article: Peter Keetman, Herlinde Koelbl, Toni Schneiders, Peter Thomann, Gottfried Jäger. Grizma (talk) 07:38, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

The article is VERY poorly sourced, notability has not been established. The argument that other poor quality articles exist is not a good one. Theroadislong (talk) 08:13, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Selfies with BLPs

Quick Question: I sometimes see these images [3] "Morgan Fairchild at an event in Dallas in 2006" on BLP WP pages and wonder just how / why they are allowed. Clearly they are uploaded by non-notable contributors who have taken selfies with celebrities at an event and want their photos on WP. This does not really represent the BLP or meet WP guidelines for image representation. Shouldn't they be at least cropped or something? What real use do they have to the article? Maineartists (talk) 22:03, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Maineartists, did you in fact mean to refer to this photo? Anyone may request cropping at the WP:Image lab. I agree that cropping is called for, if the image has sufficient resolution to give a decent crop result. A parallel situation to what you describe arises when WP users generously share a photo of their own genitalia, rather than trying to obtain a public domain medical photo.--Quisqualis (talk) 23:03, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Quisqualis Thank you. That covers both questions. Cropping and reason for inclusion. For this particular image of Fairchild, if the image warranted inclusion, it would definitely call for WP:Image lab. As it stands, simply stating: BLP in "given year" does not merit notable inclusion. The images accompanying her AIDS works is justified. The event that accompanies the image is not mentioned in the article. It should be removed. Thanks again. Maineartists (talk) 23:18, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

creating a page for my nonprofit

I run a 501(c)(3) and I'd like to start a Wikipedia page on it. My org has third party references, a legit website, legit relationships with stakeholders. But I'm just not sure if *I* as the President can make the page without a conflict of interest... at the same time, I'm not sure who would want to create a Wikipedia page about a nonprofit OTHER THAN those involved with it. I also certainly don't want to do anything improper, especially now that I'm familiar with the concept of "advocacy" on Wikipedia. Please forgive my n00bery Bowleskimberlyb (talk) 22:44, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Bowleskimberlyb, and welcome to the Teahouse. I've no idea what those letters and numbers mean, but I'm assuming you run a charity The bottom line is that if you aren't sure why anyone would want to write about your organisation (NPOAS?) then it probably isn't Notable enough yet to have an article about it on Wikipedia. We only include subjects which have been written about in detail and in depth by independent sources. The link I've just given you shows how we judge notability for organisations. That doesn't mean that non-notable organisations don't do amazing work, just that if news media and books/magazines haven't written about it then there's little chance. But maybe they have? If you found and linked to the three or four best sources that talk about your organisation, then maybe we could judge for you.

If you then decided to write (or get an employee/volunteer) to write about the company, you would not only have a clear Conflict of Interest, but would probably also need to declare paid editing, per this mandatory policy: WP:PAID. That's not to say you can't do it - just that we'll be pretty tough if you don't do it right! Because Wikipedia is not here to help companies or charities in their WP:PROMOTION, you may feel that other social media outlets are better places to raise awareness, and also far more control than you would ever get here. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:21, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Bowleskimberlyb (edit conflict) Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You seem to have a common misconception about what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a place to merely tell about something. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia has articles, not mere pages, about subjects shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources to meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability, in this case, the definition of a notable organization.(please review) Typically, an article is written by a Wikipedia editor that takes note of a subject in reliable sources and chooses to write about it. Articles are not typically written by editors with a conflict of interest with the subject. It is not forbidden to do so, but it is very difficult. In order for you to succeed in writing about your organization, you in essence need to forget everything you know about it, everything on its website or in press releases, and only write based on the content of independent sources that have chosen on their own to write about it. Most people in your position have great difficulty doing that. Press releases, brief mentions, routine announcements, staff interviews, or other primary sources do not establish notability. If you truly feel that you can write such an article, you may use Articles for Creation to create and submit a draft article for review by an independent editor before it is formally placed in the encyclopedia.

As the president of the organization, you will need to comply with the paid editing policy and formally declare that status. You don't have to be paid in cash money; unpaid volunteer positions count. 331dot (talk) 23:24, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Nick Moyes Those letters and numbers(501c3) refer to a provision in the United States tax code that allows for nonprofit organizations to pay reduced taxes. 331dot (talk) 23:25, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Ah, OK. Thanks. I guessed something like that, though it's a reflection that everyone in America thinks Wikipedia is written by Americans for Americans, and that everyone will naturally know what they're on about. (You know, I do think this Covid lockdown lark is turning me into a real grumpy old man!) Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:34, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Nick, keep in mind us folks on this side of the pond likely wouldn't know what an NGO is either. Viva la difference¡ John from Idegon (talk) 08:45, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh, you can keep the French out of it, John! Sacrebleu! Good point - although I had always thought NGO was a worldwide term - is it not? I guess that demonstrates the inherent parochialism we all bring to this platform. I'd better collect my P45 and go fill in my UB40 now. 73s! Nick Moyes (talk) 13:52, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Gustav Klimt

1- Who were Klimt's friends?

2- What did the painting "Death and Life" look like in his inner-circle?

3- What commonalities/ differences are there between the kinds of symbols/ techniques they worked with (Klimt and his friends?

4- When did that painting (Death and Life) see its first large audience?

5- How did Klimt's work (in general) finally gain an audience?

6- How now has he been linked to the "Golden Age" of Austrian art and design? 213.89.13.216 (talk) 23:03, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. Are you setting us your homework to do? This is a forum to help people edit Wikipedia, not to do their work for them. I find Wikipedia a great source of information, so suggest you not only read the article on Gustav Klimt, but follow the many references at the bottom of the page, as these often reveal a lot more than is the article. Good luck. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:08, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

It is not homework, I am doing a comparative study since I am a visual arts students, I've already read the Wikipedia page about Klimt and of course many other sources, I've tried to reach curators to ask them directly but they simply don't answer, these are the questions that I haven't found an answer to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emilysequeira (talk • contribs) 23:11, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

OK, Emilysequeira, I'm sorry you haven't found the answers you need. You certainly won't find them here at this forum for the simple reason I explained above. Are there not specialised arts fora you could enquire at? I suspect that many art curators around the world (certainly here in the UK) have been furloughed and are not responding to emails, or are busy trying to get their institution covid-19 secure. You could try the arts subsection of our own WP:REFDESK, where someone might have a stab at giving you an answer. I am, however, surprised you say you couldn't find the answer to Question 4. It took me all of 45 seconds to follow links from Wikipedia to find out. Good luck. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:29, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Alright, thank you and really there is no need for passive aggressiveness, bye! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emilysequeira (talk • contribs) 00:35, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

An editor telling you they were easily able to find an answer to your question is not passive aggressiveness, it's active aggressiveness. David notMD (talk) 02:52, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

It's also helpfulness! I was simply pointing out that the answer is there for you to find, and all you needed to do is go look for it. I'm certainly not going to provide an answer to a University student as I believe they should have already got the skillset to investigate and research for themselves, or learn to develop it. I gave up telling my kids where the Easter eggs were hidden when they reached 12.. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:53, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

need instructions on how to insert references as endnotes

 Shelulah1954 (talk) 23:33, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Shelulah1954. You could suggest you read Help:Footnotes, but I think WP:REFBEGIN, or even my own guide, WP:ERB would be a lot more help to you. This certainly isn't the way to do it. (If someone reverts you, all your links will still be avaialble in an old version via the View History tab at the top of the page). Let us know if this helps you. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Draft ready for publication

Dear fellow Wikipedians, My draft for "Alphabetical List of Districts of India", placed under User: Anupamdutta73/Gen A is ready for publication.
Please note this is a simple list and a subset of "List of districts in India." Adding links will only rob the table of its simplicity... Thank you dear reviewers in advance..... Cheers Anupam Dutta (talk) 06:29, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Convenience link: User:Anupamdutta73/List Dist India 2020.   Maproom (talk) 08:38, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Help

Draft:Rasulpur (village) — Preceding unsigned comment added by VIJAYSINH RANA 542 (talk • contribs) 07:50, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

VIJAYSINH RANA 542 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. What help is it that you want? 331dot (talk) 07:54, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

The article I created has been moved to Draft. So help me. VIJAYSINH RANA 542 (talk)

Hello, VIJAYSINH RANA 542. Mccapra moved it to draft because it lacks sources: Wikipedia articles should always be sourced, so that a reader has a way of checking the information. Add some reliable sources (for all the information), and you can submit it for review. --ColinFine (talk) 09:55, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

My RfA (Request for Advice)

What is the purpose of the "External links" section at the bottom of articles. In other words, what do I put in User:Chicdat/sandbox#External links? Thanks sooooooooo much, 🐔 Chicdat ^ChickenDatabase 10:10, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

@Chicdat: See WP:EL. In the case of the article you're working on, if you weren't already citing the Bureau of Meteorology page on Cyclone Owen, I'd recommend that (but you are, so don't put it in the external links).

You do not have to have external links in an article. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:16, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. 🐔 Chicdat ^ChickenDatabase 10:17, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Two user names/accounts?

Dear WIKIPEDIA

I am not sure if I have two user ID's or accounts. WaleedAhmadAddas and wajaddas -- are they the same one account? Also is this subject visible in the public domain or is it a personal support question seen by Wikipedia only? thanks WaleedAhmadAddas (talk) 11:16, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

• @WaleedAhmadAddas: It appears that is an account called wajaddas registered, as well as the account you are currently using (WaleedAhmadAddas). These are two separate accounts. Usually editors will use only one account, as using more than one account can be against Wikipedia's policies. You can read more about this here: WP:SOCK. This noticeboard is publicly visible. --Jack Frost (talk) 12:56, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello WaleedAhmadAddas and welcome to the Teahouse! User:WaleedAhmadAddas and User:Wajaddas are two different user accounts. If both are yours, please stop using one of them, in general editors should only use one account, more at WP:SOCKLEGIT.

Anyone on the internet who knows where this page is can see it. The same goes for any WP talkpages etc you find, including WP:Userspace drafts. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:00, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for this tip. Can I delete one of them as both are mine? I thought they were one and the same (merged)!WaleedAhmadAddas (talk) 13:04, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

WaleedAhmadAddas, no, can't be done, but you can of course delete the text from the user/usertalk page. Try to forget the password of the other one and don't use it anymore. If you want, you can write something like "I have previously used the User:Wajaddas username" on your userpage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:14, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Done, pls confirm.WaleedAhmadAddas (talk) 13:24, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

WaleedAhmadAddas Well, you mean to keep this account, right? So I meant put it at User:WaleedAhmadAddas. Just click that redlink, write and publish. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:30, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I have kept the WaleedAhmadAddas and as suggested will forget the wajaddas (also I deleted the text under wajaddas and wrote the sentence suggested by you)WaleedAhmadAddas (talk) 13:36, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

@WaleedAhmadAddas: Actually, you put that declaration of your other username at User:Wajaddas. It should, instead, be at User:WaleedAhmadAddas. Please also see WP:INDENT regarding talk page indenting. Thanks. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 17:16, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WaleedAhmadAddas (talk • contribs) 17:47, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Brand

what is the most popular brand of bread in south africa Bdetfehigj (talk) 11:35, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

This page is for questions about editing Wikipedia. Please consider asking this question at the Reference desk. They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that is what this Help Desk is for). Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. You could always try searching Wikipedia for an article related to the topic you want to know more about. I hope this helps. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:00, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Requesting an article

Hello, What are the steps to requesting an article on a topic where I have a conflict of interest? I followed Wikipedia's advice on its Requested Articles page and have found a general topic and sub-topic Wikipedia:Requested articles/Arts and entertainment/Visual arts but I'm not sure what steps to take from here. If the proposed topic is about a notable art gallery, do I add the name and sources via Edit Source in alphabetical order and then {{request edit}}? Thank you! GALAMAC (talk) 12:24, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
To create an article, follow these steps:

1. Read Your first article carefully.
2. If you don't have an account, consider creating one (it's not essential, but it makes some things easier, especially communicating with other editors) and logging in.
3. Learn the basics of editing with the Wikipedia:Tutorial
4. Make sure the subject is notable enough to warrant a stand-alone article
5. Gather reliable sources to cite in the article
6. Make sure no article on the subject exists under a different title by typing the subject into the search box and clicking 'Search'
7. Use the Article Wizard to create a draft.
8. Create the article, including all your references, making sure you adhere to the Manual of Style and our article layout guidelines. Base the article on what the references say, rather than on what you know.
9. Once you believe that your draft meets Wikipedia's requirements, submit it for review by picking the "Submit your draft for review" button in the draft.
10. Be aware that many drafts are not accepted the first time, or even the second time they are submitted for review, for failing to adhere to our policies and guidelines. New articles by new users are particularly likely not to be accepted, due to new users' unfamiliarity with our rules. Consider gaining experience by editing existing articles before attempting to create new ones.

This process includes when you have a conflict of interest to the article subject. You will need to make sure to disclose your conflict of interest to the article subject as well. You can see more how to do that here: WP:DISCLOSE. Good luck, --Jack Frost (talk) 12:48, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

A request to edit or creat an artcle in wikipedia

Firstly thank you for leaving a msg in my Talkspace Manith Dulnim I would like to request from you to make an article, a biography about which I was creating and was rejected. It's about me cuz I'm a famous and a public figure in Sri Lanka and a musician. Always many people are texting and calling me asking about my details, life and many more matters all the time and they also asked why my details are not in Wikipedia. so for the wellbeing and for the sake of the community, people and all the fans and other interested people, I would like to request you for making the Wikipedia article about myself. If you are eligible and need the price referring for making the article...pls contact me via wiki or any other social media network (Redacted)  Manith Dulnim (talk) 13:47, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Your draft Draft:H.N.Manith Dulnim was declined, with reasons given. Your Youtube, Twitter and Instagram are not acceptable references. Teahouse is NOT a place to try to find an editor to pay to attempt to create an article about you. David notMD (talk) 14:44, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

@Manith Dulnim: The people that ask you why you are not on Wikipedia have a common misunderstanding of its purpose. Wikipedia is not a social media platform where people can post profiles and information about themselves. It is an encyclopedia, like Encyclopædia Britannica, which discusses what reliable sources have written about various subjects. Please see WP:NOTSOCIAL and the other sections of that page. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 17:22, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @David notMD and Manith Dulnim: It is emphatically not the case that Youtube and Twitter in general are not acceptable references although many specific items from those sites are not.

WP:YT says: While there is no blanket ban on linking to YouTube or other user-submitted video sites, the links must abide by the guidelines on this page. ... Many videos hosted on YouTube or similar sites do not meet the standards for inclusion in External links sections, and copyright is of particular concern. Many YouTube videos of newscasts, shows or other content of interest to Wikipedia visitors are copyright violations and should not be linked, either in the article or in citations. Links should be evaluated for inclusion with due care on a case-by-case basis.

News videos uploaded via official channels, for example, are normally acceptable sources. WP:ABOUTSELF is often relevant.

However, the sizable majority of any article should be based on professionally published, independent, reliable sources, and that at least several of these should include significant coverage of the topic. Self-published content will not help establish notability. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:27, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi

 Ganjijaikanth (talk) 15:48, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Search Engine Results

Hello All,

I have a question regarding Search Engine indexing / results of some of the articles. Specifically, my question is about Ravi Venkatesan, who is a leading Indian Business Executive (Co-chairman Infosys, former chairman of Microsoft India, amongst other positions).I have a strange situation, where Google links the Wikipage on the knowledge panel on the RHS. But, the article doesn't come up in the search results. I am wondering if this is something at my end. Please can someone help me with this one.

Thanks. Kaisertalk (talk) 16:16, 5 July 2020 (UTC) Kaisertalk (talk) 16:16, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Kaisertalk. I'm quite surprised the Knowledge Panel actually contains a functional link to the page on Ravi Venkatesan that you created on 9 April 2020. The page hasn't passed through New Page Patrol yet, which normally means articles aren't allowed to get indexed by Google. But once they remain unreviewed for (I think) 90 days, Google then indexes them anyway. So, doing nothing, I suspect Google will be allowed to index and present the page in search results pretty soon. Does that make sense? Nick Moyes (talk) 16:33, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Thanks Nick Moyes for this note. I am now in a conflicted state. Someone has now moved the article to a draft page. I absolutely agree that if this is the right thing to do - we should do that, and leave it in this state until it is moved by an Admin to the main space. However, someone has now declined saying that it doesn't meet the guidelines for Notability with not 'enough' independent sources. I would like some assistance in identifying 'enough' independent sources. The only reason I say this is that as a Business Executive, I have no doubt that someone who is the Chairman of the board of some of the leading companies in India (Infosys, Bank of Baroda, and formerly Cummins, and Microsoft India) should qualify as notable. If I am doing something wrong in identifying these independent sources, please let me know. For now, I have some leading newspaper articles, citations from foundations such as the Rockefeller foundation etc. But, will definitely work on your guidance.

@Nick Moyes: Pardon an addition in my note. I added a request for additional details / guidance on how best to remedy this note, and I received a one line reply "Not Interested". Link here. Appreciate any guidance that you can help with.

[Edit Conflict] Hi, Kaisertalk. You appear to have created the article directly in Article Space on 9th April, 6 days less than 90 days ago, and it has not yet been reviewed by the New Page Patrol.

As I understand it, when an article is first created as a Draft, a Reviewer carries out a review (naturally) on request, and if it meets Wikipedia's standards, moves it to Article space, which means it's marked as accessible to the webcrawlers of Google and other search engines. However, if it's created directly in Article space, it is not made visible to Google, etc., until either it's reviewed and passed by the NPP or after it's been in Article space for 90 days, whichever comes sooner. This is to ensure that articles which do not (yet) meet Wikipedia's standards are not searchable.

Since neither condition yet applies to this article, Google shouldn't be able to include it in search results. However, it may be that Google's knowledge panel was somehow able to find and use data from the article anyway.

Shortly, the article will reach the 90-day threshold, after which Google's webcrawlers will be able to see it on their next pass (Wikipedia has no control over when that will be). It may be that this exchange prompts a New Page Patrol review even before that happens, in which case they will either mark it as reviewed, or possibly move it to Draft status if they don't think it meets the required standards. (Not being a reviewer myself, I can't make a judgement on whether it does, but I think it may be borderline.) {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.56.20 (talk) 16:55, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

@2.122.56.20: if anyone outside of the company knew how Google's search indexing worked, they would be a millionaire or even billionaire very quickly. It's largely opaque, for obvious reasons. I do know that the other day I created an article, and then I went searching for further sourcing. The new article then appeared in the google results, in less than a minute! However, I am autopatrolled, meaning my new articles aren't manually reviewed. I have the sense, and this is of course speculation, that Google is indexing Wikipedia very, very often. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

@2.122.56.20:@ThatMontrealIP: Thanks much. Agree with your comments.

Subjects of Google knowledge panels can claim ownership of them, so it might be that the subject here has done so and manually added a link to the Wikipedia article. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:31, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry: - Thanks for your note. I think I figured out the reasoning. It came in from a backlink to an existing page. The article has quite a few backlinks. Kaisertalk (talk) 21:35, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Draft not reflecting changes made in sandbox

Hello! I am working on AFC on the subject K C Pandey which is in my sandbox & waiting for review but it was moved to Draft as subject name. All the changes I have made in sandbox is not reflecting in Draft. Please advice what am I supposed to do Thanks, Shekhar in (talk) 16:16, 5 July 2020 (UTC) Shekhar in (talk) 16:16, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Shekhar in and welcome to the Teahouse. You apparently started the draft at User:Shekhar in/sandbox/K C Pandey and moved it to Draft:K. C. Pandey which is a perfectly suitable place for it. You seem to have created a different version of this same draft at User:Shekhar in, which is not an acceptable location. It is a bad idea to have two versions o0f the same article at once in Wikipedia (with a few very limited excepotsuions which do not apply here). I strongly advise you to copy any information from User:Shekhar in to Draft:K. C. Pandey that you want in the draft, and then to blank the user page, and consider rewriting it.

There is no automated mechanism to copy edits from one page to another.

Your main user page, User:Shekhar in, should be a description of you, not of anyone else, but it should be a description of you as a Wikipedia editor, not in general. It may include such things as: articles or other pages worked on, to-do lists for Wikipedia, helpful links for Wikipedia editing, brief biographical content, lists of your skills and interests which may be relevant to Wikipedia editing, views on Wikipedia policies and philosophy, freely licensed images, brief quotes, and other content relates to Wikipedia. See our policy on user pages for more detail. It should not look like a Wikipedia article, not be used as a place to draft an article, see WP:FAKEARTICLE. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:00, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh I must add, Shekhar in, that as it currently stands, Draft:K. C. Pandey would not be accepted if submited for reveiw. It needs more cited reliable and independent sources, in my view, and does not (yet) demonstrate the WP:notability of Pandey. See WP:NPROF for details on the notability of academics. Also the version at User:Shekhar in has far too many external links -- I suspect some of these should be used as cited sources. See our policy on external links, but in general an external link should be to a site that offers useful information relevsnt to the topic, but which would not be appropriate for inclusion in the article, perhaps because of size. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:14, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

---

Thanks a lot. Kind guidance is much appretiated. I will do all possible as adviced. Regards, Shekhar in (talk) 18:16, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Is it possible to use pictures that have been uploaded to another language section of Wikipedia in English Wikipedia?

Is it possible to use pictures that have been uploaded to another language section of Wikipedia in English Wikipedia? Sextus Caedicius (talk) 16:52, 5 July 2020 (UTC) Edit: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%B0%D0%BC%D1%8F%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA_%D0%90._%D0%9F._%D0%95%D1%80%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%83_(%D0%93%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B7%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9) the picture in this article is the one I want to use, thanks in advance!

Hello, Caedicius and welcome to the Teahouse.

Not without downloading them from the other Wikipedia, and then uploading back to en.,Wikipedia. That is the good thing about uploading to commons: images (and other files) on commons may be used on any edition o0f Wikipedia, and any other Wikimedia project. Also note that the rules and standards for images, like other things, may be different on different editions of Wikipedia. Just because an image was accepted elsewhere does not mean i9t is acceptable on en.Wikipedia -- the same checks must be run as it it was a new upload. That is another good thing about commons, an image acceptable there should be acceptable on all projects. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:05, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

@Sextus Caedicius: Are you sure the image that you want to use is actually on the local language Wikipedia, and not on Commons? If you could link to the article and tell us which image it is, we can better comment on the status. Is it maybe az:Çeçenlərin və inquşların deportasiyası or ka:ჩეჩნებისა და ინგუშების დეპორტაცია? Both have many images that reside on Commons, and so may be easily used on this wiki if they are suitable additions to the article. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 17:39, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

It appears the image in question is on Commons here. John from Idegon (talk) 19:04, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Genetics Discussion For Castes In South Asia

Hi Guys,

I am a new user to Wikipedia and recently added some information about a South Asian caste/ethnic group (Gujjars) with valid sources and references, however, another user has stated to me that WT:INB does not allow the discussion of genetics for individual castes which does not make sense to me, furthermore on WT:INB I did not find any discussion saying it is not allowed to add genetic information for individual castes. This article is within the scope of WT:INB as well as WikiProject Pakistan where the discussion of genetic information is allowed on articles. If there is a rule in Wikipedia that says such discussions are not allowed then I will remove the post otherwise if there is not then Wikipedia has to take some responsibility and acknowledge that they are suppressing the freedom of information which is the right of every human being.

My question is why are we not allowed to talk about genetics for individual castes as long as it is well referenced and without bias?

Talk Gujjar Page: Talk:Gurjar#Genetics

India WikiBoard: Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics

The user who stated genetics discussion is not allowed: User:Sitush

Quote:

We do not do genetics in articles about individual castes. This has been discussed at WT:INB. Donnyexcellence (talk) 18:04, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I was a bit gruff with you, sorry. Was trying to do too much on too many articles. There are past discussions listed using this search for the noticeboard I mentioned (WT:INB), which is the central noticeboard for the Wikipedia India Project. - Sitush (talk) 18:10, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Sitush: if there is a Wikipedia policy that articles should not mention genetic information on individual castes, please provide an actual link to it. If you can't provide a link, you should withdraw your claim that there is such a policy. Maproom (talk) 19:08, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

you should withdraw your claim that there is such a policy Maybe I'm blind but I see no claim that there is a policy. That there is such a consensus is made pretty clear in this discussion from last year, for instance. --bonadea contributions talk 19:19, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, Bonadea. What's more, it is a consensus derived from discussions that include some contributors who have a pretty extensive knowledge of the caste topic area. I've no idea what you have been looking at, Maproom, but it doesn't appear to be anything I've said. - Sitush (talk) 19:57, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

What I would like to add is that this article is also part of the Pakistan Board and they have made no such objection to the discussion of genetics. If this article was solely an Indian Board article then I would understand however it is not. I think it is not fair for one board to have so much of an influence on certain articles. Again, please provide some evidence where board discussion decisions have to be fully implemented on all articles relating to India? Donnyexcellence (talk) 20:49, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

The Pakistan noticeboard/project is barely active, certainly by comparison with the India noticeboard/project. Since all of these genetics studies tend to be delving into deep history, when it was all India/before Pakistan even existed, I think the chances of a rational counter-argument from the Pakistan project are fairly slim. Have you actually read the discussions? Can you see what the issues are in relation to using such sources? All of the tribes of Pakistan will experience the same problems. - Sitush (talk) 21:01, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Think we are getting side tracked now. I read the discussion one of the main points was that the genetic studies are always changing but this is not really an issue more like an excuse. Again please give evidence where every single article relating to India on Wikipedia has to abdide by the 'rules' set by the India Wiki Board members. If you don't know then please don't say, we don't need to know what you think about what the Pakistan board will say. When they reply, they will reply and if you look at other articles e.g. Burusho People they have a genetics section on the page. Donnyexcellence (talk) 21:32, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS. Given how familiar you are with formatting, projects etc, I should imagine you already know of it . - Sitush (talk) 21:38, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

@Donnyexcellence: No such thing as "rules being set by members of the India Board" exists. Discussions are open to all interested parties, many of whom are editors with a great deal of experience. As a user who just showed up yesterday, creating Draft:Genetics Of Gujjars after being advised of that consensus by Sitush at Talk:Gurjar#Genetics, bringing it here, and having it clarified by others, to me seems somewhere between a waste of time and disruptive. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 00:29, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

How to create new Categories

How to create new Categories like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Female_Wikipedians , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Canadian_Wikipedians etc. I want to create categories wikipedian with Instagram profile Zebuready (talk) 18:14, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Zebuready. That seems like an incredibly specific and not hugely sensible category. If anything, I'd have though Category: Wikipedians with social media accounts would be more logical. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:12, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Someone undid my correction

For the "Roy Buchanan" article it mistakenly said that Jeff Beck's album Blow by Blow (1975) came after Buchanon's A Street called Straight (1976) I made a small correction and have now been informed that someone undid my correction. My question is why? 74.197.144.180 (talk) 18:27, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

The only two edits this IP has made are the OP here and this one, which seems to be an incomplete and unexplained removal of content. Please provide a link to the edit in question so we can answer your question. John from Idegon (talk) 18:34, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

You removed sourced content: [4]. Another editor thought that was vandalism. Next step is to discuss your proposed change on the artcile's talk page. RudolfRed (talk) 18:35, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Editing pages created by others

Hello I want to request an edit to Unchain My Heart (album) page.

I noticed on that page that under == Production == it states

Mixed by Chris Lord-Alge at Unique Recording (New York, NY).

I would like to edit it to read

Mixed by Chris Lord-Alge at Unique Recording Studios(New York, NY).

Please adviseJoanne.nathan (talk) 19:23, 5 July 2020 (UTC) Joanne.nathan (talk) 19:23, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Joanne.nathan, and welcome to the Teahouse. No article in Wikipedia is owned or controlled by anybody in particular, and in general anybody may edit any article. If the change you want to make might be controversial, it is a good idea to discuss it on the article's talk page first; but for an obvious improvement like your suggestion (assuming that it links to the correct "Unique Recording Studios"!) you might as well go ahead and make the edit. Make sure you leave an edit summary explaining what you did. See BRD for the general principle. --ColinFine (talk) 22:11, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, -ColinFine Thank for the quick reply. The example I gave above has been deemed as a COI by others. Please see my talk page. I would like to request that another user make the edit. Also It was mentioned that could make a request on the talk page for the article, but since I am a novice wanted to get the correct procedure. When I go to the Unchain My Heart (album) page, I can't seen to find how to do the request?Joanne.nathan (talk) 22:57, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Looking to check notability of a potential article subject

I aim to write an article about a Canadian politician, but I need to know if he is considered "notable" enough to be in an article. Weirdedit99 (talk) 20:32, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Weirdedit99. Please start by reading the notability guideline for politicians. Unelected political candidates are seldom notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:38, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Names of people for hire who create wikipedia articles

Please provide a few reputable names of people who are for hire to create Wikipedia pages who meet the Wikipedia requirement of paid contributors? Pilotmichael (talk) 22:18, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Pilotmichael I'm afraid that you will have find such people on your own; Wikipedia does not maintain a list of paid editors, reputable or otherwise. This is primarily a volunteer project. I would strongly advise you that, if you find one out on the internet somewhere, that you not hand over any money until you see the result. Also be advised that despite what a paid editor might tell you, no result can be guaranteed(such as writing an article that will not be deleted). 331dot (talk) 23:10, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

@Pilotmichael: Please also consider that an article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing (see that link for details). —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 23:53, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

@Pilotmichael:, where did you ever get the idea Wikipedia approves of WP:PAID editing? We don't. It's a total bastardization of what Wikipedia is. So let me ask you, if no one would pay for sex, would we still have prostitution? Vain, egomaniacal fools is why PAID editing exists. If you are notable, someone will write about you in due time. If you choose to bastardize Wikipedia by paying someone to write about you, frankly I hope the charlatan rips you off to the tune of 5 figures. John from Idegon (talk) 00:12, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

John - Much as I am against paid editing, I feel you reply veered into biting the newbie. David notMD (talk) 01:44, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Question about a citation I saw and if it's correct

I'm relatively new to wikipedia editing and I noticed something strange when reading the Great Chicago Fire article. Throughout the article citation #1 is used multiple times and often has a colon then a number after the citation (e.g. ^[1]:148). Since the citation is a book I'm assuming the number is the page the citation is referencing. Is this the right way to do it? I know the citation template (Template:Cite book) for books has a thing for page numbers but is this method valid? I doubt it since i've never seen it done like this but I just wanted to double check since I'm a rookie. Thanks! MaxGame5o (talk) 00:47, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@MaxGame5o: hello and wlecome to the Teahouse. The template I use for page numbers, which is also the one used in the Great Chicago Fire article, is template:rp. It's useful when you already have ref tags but want to add the page number. In wikicode this would give you page 144 of the source:

<ref> source content</ref>{{rp|144}}

As the template says, this is a "relatively uncommon method", so others may have advice. Hope that helps. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:10, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@ThatMontrealIP: Thanks, that was very helpful. I just wanted to make sure it was a legit citation method and not put there by mistake since I never saw it before. Good thing I asked before changing it!— Preceding unsigned comment added by MaxGame5o (talk • contribs)

Editing with COI

Hello!

I need some help with a draft to make sure that I'm doing it the right way, Please check GSS message here and my reply to understand the case, and my declaration on my user page and the draft talk page. Just want to make sure that I'm using the right templates, Also is that correct to remove UPE tag now from the draft page. Finally, I need to submit if through articles for creation, how can i do so in case there's no submission button yet. Thanks in advance for your help. JoyGenea (talk) 01:50, 6 July 2020 (UTC) JoyGenea (talk) 01:50, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi JoyGenea. I added Template:AFC draft to the top of the draft. Just click on the blue "Submit your draft for review!" button when think its ready for an AFC reviewer to look at. As for the UPE template, I've gone ahead and removed it; however, if you're being compensated to create the article, then I would suggest you use the template Template:Connected contributor (paid) (instead of Template:Connected contributor) on the draft's talk page and Template:Paid (instead of Template:UserboxCOI) on your user page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:00, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Marchjuly, Appreciate your help, it will be more accurate to replace the templates according to your suggestion. Thanks once again! -- JoyGenea (talk) 03:24, 6 July 2020 (UTC)