Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
→‎July 6th 2020: Proper subject/headline please
Line 1,021: Line 1,021:


:Hello, {{U|Negarc}}. You'll see it as a paramter of the {{tl|infobox journal}}, if you pick "Edit" at the top of the page. It seems odd to me that we should accept a piece of marketing information from the publisher's website, and not require an independent source for it. --[[User:ColinFine|ColinFine]] ([[User talk:ColinFine|talk]]) 21:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
:Hello, {{U|Negarc}}. You'll see it as a paramter of the {{tl|infobox journal}}, if you pick "Edit" at the top of the page. It seems odd to me that we should accept a piece of marketing information from the publisher's website, and not require an independent source for it. --[[User:ColinFine|ColinFine]] ([[User talk:ColinFine|talk]]) 21:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

== How to create a wikipedia page for the company I work for? ==

The company I work for wants to create a Wikipedia page. I am not sure how to create a Wikipedia page for the company I work for. Can I directly create a page for the company I work for? or I need some permission first to create it? [[User:Stephanie.ecms|Stephanie.ecms]] ([[User talk:Stephanie.ecms|talk]]) 21:44, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:44, 6 July 2020

Skip to top
Skip to bottom


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Why is some idiot vandalizing my article

WP:DFTT John from Idegon (talk) 01:20, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

This user was indefinitely blocked. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Since noone has yet linked WP:RSPYT I'll throw that in here too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 23:19, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]

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, Thanoscar21talk, contribs 21:31, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Nick Moyes, thanks a lot! On a side note: You've actually climbed the Matterhorn? Wow! Thanks, Thanoscar21talk, contribs 19:35, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Who can close a Split discussion?

I posted this question:

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

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

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

Nyboda depot

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)[reply]

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

'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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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:[1]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:40, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Ok, thank you very much --Daniton9999 (talk) 11:21, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Daniton9999 Thanks, but I have no interest in that. 331dot (talk) 11:37, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
331dot That's off course ok. --Daniton9999 (talk) 11:38, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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 (talkcontribs) 12:45, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Matters Education

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Selfies with BLPs

Quick Question: I sometimes see these images [2] "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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 (talkcontribs) 23:11, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
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.[sarcasm]. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:53, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

need instructions on how to insert references as endnotes

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Dear @Maproom, Is it really necessary ? I had finally managed to finally finish the article.. With slow net connection it is very very difficult to work with such tables with so much data.... So please please tell me it is absolutely needed. Thanks & cheers .... Anupam Dutta (talk) 13:25, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Help

Draft:Rasulpur (village) — Preceding unsigned comment added by VIJAYSINH RANA 542 (talkcontribs) 07:50, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
Thank you. 🐔 Chicdat ChickenDatabase 10:17, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • @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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WaleedAhmadAddas (talkcontribs) 17:47, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brand

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
(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)[reply]

Hi

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

Note to hosts: Ganjijaikanth failed to add their question here, but later added one to their talk page addressed to the Teahouse. Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:47, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Machinexa (talk) 06:20, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What are you doing my friend— Preceding unsigned comment added by Machinexa (talkcontribs) 06:20, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Machinexa were you trying to add your own section, or attempting to reply to the editor who started this discussion? Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:47, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Ganjijaikanth, the subject of your draft needs to meet the notability guidelines at either WP:GNG, or failing that, WP:ENT, before the draft can become an article. You need to demonstrate that the requirements are met, using reliable sources to support the claims in the draft. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:47, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This page was from gajnikant topic was hi with no content as I remember. I just replied the hi to him. Machinexa (talk) 06:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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![reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
Damn you guys sure responded fast to the article which I proposed (Genetics of Gujjars) , Wiki was saying it would take approximately 6 weeks to be reviewed, but you guys reviewed it overnight. Seems like there is an another agenda behind this. BJP IT Cell hard at work, well done guys! For anyone wondering think about it, why are they trying so hard to surpress this information in India about various castes genetics, its because they are trying to push this OIT (Out Of India Theory) which is garbage and they know it. Every single caste in India is unique and they are all different from eachother, but the Indian government is trying to push this 'We are all Indians' agenda. In the end the truth will prevail!!!! Donnyexcellence (talk) 08:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would be surprised if anyone contributing to this thread or the draft review, other than you and me, even knows what you mean by BJP IT Cell and Out of India Theory. Your opinion that there is some sort of political shenanigans going on also does not align with the edit histories of those experienced contributors who commented in the WT:INB discussions mentioned above. - Sitush (talk) 08:29, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
hame ajadi miligee ! btw im Gujjar from Rajasthan where we are discrimintated by the Indian government !Donnyexcellence (talk) 08:44, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a place to right great wrongs. Bishonen | tålk 10:50, 6 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]
I apologise to Sitush. He did not claim that there was a Wikipedia policy on discussion of genetics for individual castes. (I formed that mistaken impression from reading the OP's posting with insufficient care). But there is a Wikipedia policy that discourages the use of primary sources, such as the research paper that the OP wanted to cite. Maproom (talk) 17:38, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
The how-to is at the help page that you linked in your own question. In short, just go to the address and create the page. Look at other similar categories for guidance on how to format it and what to include. The category will be populated when it's added to at least one userpage. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Zebuready: You can place {{User Instagram}} on your user page. It's listed at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Internet/Websites. Users with the userbox can be seen by clicking "What links here" under "Tools" in the left pane. A category sounds inappropriate per "Categories that are overly narrow in scope" at Wikipedia:User categories#Inappropriate types of user categories. PrimeHunter (talk) 08:32, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
You removed sourced content: [3]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hello, Joanne.nathan. Sorry, I did not check. You can post a request at Talk:Unchain My Heart (album). Given its appearance here, it is likely that somebody will notice it anyway, but in general, you can attach the template {{edit request}}, and that will put it on a list of witing requests. See WP:Edit request. --ColinFine (talk) 08:29, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've made the change, although that article on Unique Recording Studios could use some work. Turner Street (talk) 13:12, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I agree with David notMD. Pilotmichael, who has very little editing experience or knowledge of WP policies, has nevertheless realised that creating an article is not easy. So he's looking for someone to do it for him. His question seems to me entirely reasonable (though misguided), and does not warrant a rant in response. Maproom (talk) 07:21, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
@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 (talkcontribs)
@MaxGame5o: Yes, it's valid. The alternative (Harvard cites using {{Sfn}}) is substantially more difficult and error-prone. The first instance using the scheme you've mentioned looks like <ref name="RefName">...</ref>{{Rp|10–12}}. Cites to other pages in the same source can be done with just {{R|RefName|p=22}}. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 06:20, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Help with my first article

Good day to all. I was working on a new article, which is a biography, you can check my sandbox Kingintelectual, but I encountered problem during sign up and was blocked by admins. One of the reasons cited, among others, was that I was promotional. I have promised not to repeat such again. However, this article is something I researched myself, I have the full write up already. Please I will appreciate if you experienced editors and seasoned admins can take a look at the article and offer advice. Thanks Kingintelectual (talk) 05:06, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Link for convenience:User:Kingintelectual/sandbox, seems it's already moved to Kanu Ikechukwu Anthony by Kingintelectual.- Timbaaa -> ping me 05:59, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there are so many things wrong with this article that the proposed deletion should be allowed to go forward, meaning that it will be deleted in a week. New editors are advised to submit drafts to Articles for creation rather than directly moving their draft from sandbox to mainspace, which is what you did. If the article was closer to being valid in content, tone and referencing, the alternative would be to move it to draft status, to allow you to work on it. A better path for you might be to save the content off-site, work on it, and submit to AfC as a new draft. David notMD (talk) 12:06, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sentences such as "His Igwebuike philosophy is one that is ground breaking, thoroughly applicable, existentially reasonable, and pragmatically influential considering contemporary emergence of discourses in African philosophy." (unreferenced) have no place in an article about him. David notMD (talk) 12:31, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why Was My Article Declined?

My draft article - Draft:Moaning_(band) was declined. I have left the following message on the talk page of the article (the reviewer directed me to leave a message on the talk page of the draft article and referred me to the Teahouse in the event I wanted to contest a rejection):

I do not understand why you declined my submission. As far as I can see, it definitely meets Criterion 1 of musical notability - sources include a well-known newspaper and arguably one of national record (the Los Angeles Times) and well-known sources that meet the reliability criteria as specified in the "Wikipedia: Reliable sources" page. Albeit most of the sources could be considered primary but they satisfy the criteria laid out in the aforementioned page for primary sources. Please let me know either how exactly you disagree with the assertion I've just put forth or let me know how to get to the point of this article's publication on Wikipedia at your earliest convenience. Thank you.

Please let me know how exactly I can go about rectifying whatever deficiencies exist in the draft article. I am convinced the subject of the article deserves to have an article.

Thanks! Rossmoody88 (talk) 05:35, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Rossmoody88, the reviewer said to rework the draft as necessary, make your case at the talk page if necessary, and resubmit. It is unlikely that anyone has seen your note at the draft's talk page since you have not resubmitted. It seems to me the case you are making is that the band meets WP:GNG; if you have nothing to add to the draft, having asserted which criterion you are shooting for, you could simply resubmit. Consider adding to your talk page note, a list of your WP:THREE best sources (no more), for evaluation. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:30, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinates

Just a quick question, how do I do the coordinates of locations, just confusing to me. Neararena (talk) 06:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Neararena: Generally, by using the {{Coord}} template. The specifics depend on, well, the specifics. Can you provide some details? —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 06:34, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@AlanM1: What do you mean the specifics, I'm confused? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neararena (talkcontribs) 06:40, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Neararena: Where are you trying to add co-ordinates (which article)? —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 06:58, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neararena, context matters. Are you trying to identify the location of a grave or monument, or a large building, or a park, or a city, or a county or province? Specific questions get more accurate and reliable answers. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:03, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Neararena: One trick that I often use when I'm confused how to do stuff is to find a page that does it properly. I then copy the relevant bit of source code into my sandbox and play with it there until I get it working, before adding it to a live page. Obviously, unless you tell us more, we can't help you further without writing you a full manual. Please be a little clearer (more specific) about precisely which step you have got confused at, and what you're atcually trying to achieve. Links to articles help. Maybe you don't know how to get lat and long from Google maps; maybe you do't know how to convert one format to another; maybe you don't know how to define the coordinates of a linear feature like a river; maybe you've read the documentation and looked at working pages and still don't understand how to deploy the {{Coord}}; maybe you've coordinates in OSGB and want to use those, maybe you want to insert a map into an infobox. The more specific you are, the less time we spend telling you stuff you do already understand, or simply don't need. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No move option

Hi, I was trying to edit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mullakkara_Ratnakaran page. The title of the page has got a typo. His name is Mullakkara Retnakaran. What can i do to edit the title of the page? There is no move option in my interface Penformat (talk) 07:21, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved it for you. Maproom (talk) 07:32, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

West London College is a former college getting mixed up with the current West London College on Google

Dear TeaHouse,

Currently if you search for West London College on google it places the actual Wikipaedia page beneath the website search result and confuses another West London College on the right hand side of the web page. Google has mixed up the two colleges so that the logo of the current one and its website address is mixed in with the Wikipaedia link for the old one that no longer exists.

The correct website is wlc.ac.uk and the college is called West London College (formerly known as Ealing, Hammersmith and West London College) The correct Wikipaedia page is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ealing,_Hammersmith_and_West_London_College However this has the old name of Ealing, Hammersmith and West London College, which we changed a couple of years ago to West London College.

The incorrect Wkipaedia page coming up is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_London_College This is a completely unrelated organisation, which just happens to have the same name.

If I edit the name on our wikipaedia page to West London College, will this solve the problem?

I look forward to hearing from you. 2A00:23C7:6B8A:4800:C159:EA59:9520:2598 (talk) 08:15, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There are two separate issues. The first one is to do with the names. You cannot "edit" the name of a page - it is done by moving the article, but we cannot have two articles with the same name, and in any case only registered accounts can move pages. In this case, I suspect that the best approach would be to rename the existing article to someting like West London College (1977), and yours to West London College; but that will require an administrator in any case. The thing to do is to request the move at WP:requested moves.
The second issue is Google: if the articles are moved as suggested, it is likely that Google will sort it out, but we have no control over how long that may take. If Google doesn't get it correct you'll need to contact Google, not Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 08:45, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Commons App "Nearby places needs a photo"

Hi guys

I post 2 types of photos to wikicommons photos using the app. First is photos I take of places I like and think they may be useful to others. Second nearby places that I am NOT interested in but wiki says it needs a photo.

In this latter case the blue upside down teardrop (map marker) turns to green and only shows if the "needs photo" box is unchecked. It has been very rewarding to do this. But suddenly it has stopped working. My most recent photos (since about the beginning of June) do not alter the "needs photo" status and the teardrop remains blue.

I like doing these photos, a new hobby, but not so much that I have to take time and in some cases petrol money to photograph a milepost or a bridge for no real reason other than wiki wants one.

Example : https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Milepost_on_A493.jpg#mw-jump-to-license

Can anyone explain what may have happened. Should I stop doing these types of photos. Should I just go back to posting photos that are useful but not linked to a specific wiki requirement.

Many thanks Peter Peter Glyn (talk) 08:24, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter Glyn: Someone who happens to be familiar with the topic may answer you here, but each Wikimedia project is a separate entity, with its own help facilities. You'll get a better-targeted audience for your question at c:Commons:Help desk. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 10:39, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AlanM1 Thank you. I have now done as you suggest. Peter — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Glyn (talkcontribs) 12:53, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding translating articles I don't have access to the sources for

I would like to translate ja:人見次郎 (台湾総督府総務長官)Jirō Hitomi.

He is definitely notable, he held high office under the Governor-General of Korea and even higher office under the Governor-General of Taiwan.

He was Director-General / Civilian Administrator (台湾総督府総務長官). This was basically "Vice Governor-General".[1]

Note that I'm not asking help to find the sources, I haven't tried. I want to know in general, if I see a well sourced article to print sources on e.g. Japanese Wikipedia, or Spanish Wikipedia, the two languages I know well that are likely to have untranslated articles, do I translate it, cites and all, even without checking that the information is in the cites? Do I note this on talk page? Or should such articles not be translated? Psiĥedelisto (talkcontribs) please always ping! 08:39, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Civil Affairs Handbook: Taiwan (Formosa): June 15, 1944. Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, United States Navy. 1944. p. 72. ISBN 9781258569914.
Like the vast majority of articles in ja:WP, ja:人見次郎 (台湾総督府総務長官) is poorly sourced. There's a list of reference materials, parts of which may or may not back up the assertions in the article; but as for clearly specified references for particular assertions, almost nothing. -- Hoary (talk) 13:08, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Psihedelisto: To answer your question more generally, I don't know that there is a consensus about translating without checking sources. I personally think that it is fine (with the caveat below about taking extra care to avoid copyright violations from foreign-language sources). If I rewrite a sentence in en.wikipedia, I don't check the source unless my rewriting means that I need to check in order to confirm that what I'm writing accurately reflects the source. I often use the same approach for translations, relying on the person who originally wrote the article to have looked at the soruces. Sometimes though, a sentence in another language has a range of meanings in English, and you'd need to go back to the original source to choose among those meanings when you write in English. So that's my approach at least. I will say, like Hoary noted, that other Wikipedias generally do a much worse job of sourcing than the English Wikipedia. Finally, one important note: If sources are available to be checked, it may be a good idea to check them for the purpose of avoiding copyright violations, and also to run the article you're thinking of translating through https://copyvios.toolforge.org/ (though this can find reverse copyright violations, especially for older articles). I've found that a frightening number of Spanish Wikipedia articles are copy/pasted (or inappropriately closely paraphrased) from the sources cited, or from sources not cited. There is nothing more demoralizing than doing a translation, and then having to delete it. And it also really sucks when translated copyright violations are introduced, because it's not easy to sort them out from good content. (Not like you can just paste into Google to check.) So that can be another reason to check sources. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:07, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

colin Richardson speedway rider changing of photo

how can i change the photo in my profile ? 86.98.18.66 (talk) 09:12, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

86.98.18.66, Wikipedia doesnt have "profiles", not a single one. Wikipedia has articles about subjects that satisfy WP:GNG or a more specific notability guideline. If you want to chang the photo, please go to Wikipedia:Files for upload and request the File to be uploaded first. Then you can go to the article talkpage and discuss the replacement with the other editors. Please be advised that there is a possibility that the photo will not be changed. Nobody "owns" a Wikipedia article, so you may find it difficult. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 10:13, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, be aware that you may have a photo of you that you want in the article, but the copyright to that photo belongs to the photographer, not the person in the photo. The photographer would need to be the person submitting the photo, which would include giving up copyright ownership, so that anyone could use the photo, anywhere. David notMD (talk) 12:12, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request

can you get a request to edit any article without getting permission?? Bdetfehigj (talk) 09:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bdetfehigj: You dont need a "permission" to edit any article on Wikipedia, yust do it. The page history will record your change. Sometimes, articles may be protected. In this case, you can make an edit request to the articles talkpage. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 10:09, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Protect page

can anyone help me to tell that , how to lock an article and protect from other editor who don't know how to edit. Bijoyonline30 (talk) 09:41, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bijoyonline30 and welcome to the Teahouse! I can't see any edit disputes in your recent editing history so I don't know what page you would want to protect. That said, page protection should be used to reduce vandalism, not to stop inexperienced editors from editing the page. If you disagree with what someone is doing, assume good faith, and leave a message on their talk page to try to resolve the issue. Page protection is a last resort against vandalism and is almost certainly not going to be used to try to prevent one user from editing an article. Giraffer (munch) 09:56, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Giraffer, thanks for your reply. This is really helpful. Once again thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bijoyonline30 (talkcontribs) 10:00, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation page vs new article

Hello, we are working with a group of scientists on a new article on genetic resources. Currently, there is only a disambiguation page with this name. We'd like to propose to rename that page into 'genetic resources - list' and create an article entitled 'genetic resources' with a definition, history etc. Is this a good approach? Anything we should do before we proceed with this change? Thank you, Ewa hermanowicz (talk) 10:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ewa hermanowicz, and welcome to the Teahouse. My advice would be not to worry about the disambiguation page, but to create your new article as a draft using the articles for creation process. When you submit it for review, and a reviewer accepts it, they will handle the issues of naming, existing disambiguation pages etc. Please be aware that writing a new article is one of the most difficult activities in editing Wikipedia, and writing for Wikipedia is different from most academic writing, in several important ways. I suggest looking at your first article, and at Expert editors before you start. --ColinFine (talk) 10:57, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ewa hermanowicz: Further to what Colin has said, can I ask if you are speaking with a Royal we? You do write as if you represent a group or body which is helping some scientists. If so, be advised that we only allow one individual person to use one account; each contributing person must have their own account. If you are involved in this work, and especially if you are employed/being paid to create this page, you will all need to read and follow this page about Conflicts of Interest, and this obligatory policy on declaring paid editing. This won't stop you editing, or count against you, but transparency is always needed here. Good luck with the draft article. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:06, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Ewa hermanowicz, welcome to the Teahouse, and thanks for asking. My gut reaction is that it's probably better to find a different name for your article, is it possible there is some overlap with your intended topic and Genetics or one of the many related articles? However, this is not my area. You may have useful input if you ask this question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Molecular Biology. Also, since you say "we", see WP:NOSHARE. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:04, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ewa hermanowicz: And I'll chip in again to say that, having done a quick Google Translate of your draft at User:Ewa hermanowicz/sandbox, you do seem to be focused solely on forestry genetic resources, so the title you're thinking of doesn't sound specific enough to me. But that can wait. And, at the moment, your draft looks more like a university essay paper. So make sure you focus on a clearly notable topic that either stands alone, or acts as a page related to a larger topic, such as Genetic diversity. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 11:16, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Nick Moyes,Gråbergs Gråa Sång and ColinFine. Thank you so much for your prompt response and advice. I can definitely confirm that everyone in the group has their own account and we are not getting paid to write the new article. There is no overlap with the Genetics article which is referring to scientific discipline rather than material in the case of Genetic resources. The article is not in my sandbox but that of Theo in case you want to have a look. Any further advice is welcome.Ewa hermanowicz (talk) 11:34, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy for the curious: User:TheOhAgain/sandbox David notMD (talk) 12:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Having read the entire sandbox twice, I'm still wondering what it's meant to be about. It starts by defining the term "genetic resources". That's a task for a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. It defines it "genetic material of actual or potential value where genetic material means any material of plant, animal, microbial or other origin containing functional units of heredity". So that would be physical stuff containing DNA, or possibly RNA or even protein; and computer records of DNA etc.) sequences, and maybe of their epigenetic state, right? Later it explains that the material can be from animals, forests, plants or microbes. That seems weird - what do you find in forests that isn't in animals, plants or microbes? We also read "Genetic resources is one of the three levels of biodiversity". Is a computer database of DNA sequences a level of biodiversity? If it is, it needs explaining. Maproom (talk) 15:21, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User name found red coloured regarding

My user name's colour shows red ? Did I do anything wrong ? Thanks. Helppublic (talk) 10:33, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Helppublic: welcome to the Teahouse. No, you have not done anything wrong. The "redlink" simply means that the link leads to an empty page. If you create a userpage, the link will turn blue, but that is not mandatory. If you do decide to create a userpage, please have a quick look at this information. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 10:51, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Helppublic, absolutely not. It's red because you haven't created your WP:USERPAGE. To do that, click the red link, write something and publish. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Helppublic now blue. Just delete what I wrote there and replace with your own content. David notMD (talk) 12:19, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strikethrough

How do I put a Strikethough on one of my edits (which I don't want to delete)? Thanks Devokewater (talk) 10:37, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Devokewater. You can place <s>...</s> around the text. It's one of the options under "Wiki markup" in the edit tools most users have below the edit area. Don't use it in articles. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:42, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Hello, Devokewater You do it like this: I think Devoke Water is a horrible lovely place to visit. You can manually put the on-off commands around the words you want to strike out , or you can use the toobar in the editor you're using. In WP:Source Editor, highlight the words, then click the 'A' cymbal symbol for style text, then 'More' to select the formatting you want. Hope this helps, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:46, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Nick Moyes + PrimeHunter I needed to use it for a Wikipedia:Articles for deletion edit. Devokewater (talk) 10:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Correction entry "Anna Magdalena Bach"

Please, can somebody please eliminate misleading information in the entry "Anna Magdalena Bach"? At present unreliable sources are quoted (references 4,5,6). Check the entry Anna Magdalena Bach in the German Wikipedia! I am sorry to say that I didn´t manage the editing properly myself. Yours Magnus Kihlbom Magnuskihl (talk) 11:25, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not obvious to me that these sources aren't reliable. If they are indeed unreliable, you are welcome to argue this in Talk:Anna Magdalena Bach, and to get agreement for removing them. Asking people to read de:Anna Magdalena Bach won't be persuasive, but asking them to read it in order to observe such-and-such may be persuasive. -- Hoary (talk) 12:35, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Photos

how do I add pictures that matches with the article Bdetfehigj (talk) 11:36, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bdetfehigj, if you have taken the photograph yourself, upload it to Wikimedia Commons, following the steps at Commons:Project:First steps. You can add the image following the steps at Help:Pictures. You can also look through Wikimedia Commons for images to use; everything there can be used here.
If it's not your photograph, its a bit more complicated. Generally, they aren't allowed. If you think the image use meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, then I'd recommend going through Wikipedia:Files for upload, which handles the process. ~~ Alex Noble/1-2/TRB 12:00, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Beginning of an article

how do i make my own articles

@Bdetfehigj: You can use the Article wizard. Before you start, you might want to read WP:YFA beforehand to spped things up. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 12:00, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As explained in Help:Your first article. -- Hoary (talk) 12:18, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bdetfehigj: Please take the time to read and become familiar with the links posted for you at your "user talk page" (User talk:Bdetfehigj#Welcome!). Remember that Wikipedia is supposed of service to humanity, and editors here contribute toward that end. Any contributions should be made with the aim of improving the encyclopedia for its readers and other editors. Creating an article from scratch is one of the hardest things to do, taking many hours to days of work to do well, and requiring a fair amount of experience and knowledge of finding notable topics about which to write, finding independent and reliable sources, citing those sources, carefully editing for spelling, grammar, and tone, formatting per the Manual of Style, etc. Most people need at least a few months and hundreds of edits to existing articles to learn these things well enough to be able to write an article that will be accepted. Please do consider finding existing articles to improve to help you on that journey. You may also find this interactive game-like tutorial useful. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 20:59, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Studio parameter of the album's infobox (Template:Infobox album#studio)

Is the studio parameter of the album's infobox Wikipedia definition only for recording studios where a record was recorded, and not where it was overdubbed and/or mixed? "If the album was recorded in a recording studio, enter the name and location." (Template:Infobox album#studio). It does not say to include anything other than a studio in which the album was recorded. The Wikipdia page Audio mixing (recorded music) states "Before the introduction of multitrack recording, all sounds and effects that were to be part of a record were mixed at one time during a live performance. If the recorded mix wasn't satisfactory, or if one musician made a mistake, the selection had to be performed over until the desired balance and performance was obtained. With the introduction of multi-track recording, the production of a modern recording changed into one that generally involves three stages: recording, overdubbing, and mixing." Since the 1970's, record albums have been recorded in three stages: recording, overdubbing, and mixing. It was common practice to record an album in one studio, overdub in another studio and mixed in another. I would argue for the listing of every recording studio that was used in the making of the song or album. Please weigh in here. Joanne.nathan (talk) 11:59, 6 July 2020 (UTC)Joanne.nathan (talk) 12:04, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Joanne.nathan: I'd recommend starting a discussion at Template talk:Infobox album, perhaps leaving notifications of the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional sound production. People here probably don't have an answer to these very specific questions, and this isn't the best place to hold a discussion like that. Good luck! Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:47, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Advice please for creating a Redirect

Good day. I submitted a draft article (Edinburgh Festival Voluntary Guides Association) and this has now been accepted for publication. I now want to create a Redirect to this article from EFVGA. So I created a new draft (Draft:EFVGA) containing only the following:

#REDIRECT [[Edinburgh Festival Voluntary Guides Association]]

I submitted this new page for publication. But I then saw a message saying that the page was unacceptable because it did not contain any citations.

So, my questions: (i) Did I follow the correct procedure? and if so (ii) What citations can I insert in a Redirect page?

Thanks in advance. Mike Marchmont (talk) 12:29, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Mike Marchmont:! There are a few issues here:
  • You actually did not submit Draft:EFVGA for submission.
  • The draft creation process isn't supposed to be used for redirects; instead, you should use Wikipedia:Article wizard/version1/Redirect.
  • I created EFVGA as a redirect for you, so that is taken care of.
  • The tag about needing more citations at the top of Edinburgh Festival Voluntary Guides Association (I think that's the "message" you're talking about) is on the main article and is not on the redirect. These tags can be added even after a draft article is approved. I'd encourage you to add more citations to the article to improve it. Hope this clarifies things! Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:55, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Calliopejen1:. Many thanks for your reply and help. Greatly appreciated. Could I just pick up the various points you made:

  • You actually did not submit Draft:EFVGA for submission.
  • The draft creation process isn't supposed to be used for redirects; instead, you should use Wikipedia:Article wizard/version1/Redirect.
Yes, I see that now. But when I (mistakenly) used the New Article Wizard, it explicitly gave me an option to create a Redirect page. This was obviously wrong. But not to worry; I'll know for another time.
  • I created EFVGA as a redirect for you, so that is taken care of.
Excellent. Thanks.
  • The tag about needing more citations at the top of Edinburgh Festival Voluntary Guides Association (I think that's the "message" you're talking about) is on the main article and is not on the redirect. These tags can be added even after a draft article is approved. I'd encourage you to add more citations to the article to improve it. Hope this clarifies things!
I understand what you are saying, but I am sure that the tag in question was at the top of the redirect page (after I tried to submit it). I know about the one at the top of the article itself. The one on the redirect page said that the article wouldn't be approved because it has no citations at all - not because it has insufficient citations.
Anyroad, I'm happy with the result, and will know better another time.

Mike Marchmont (talk) 15:12, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Marchmont: Odd. No one has edited the redirect draft other than you.[4] All's well that ends well though? Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:19, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As you say, @Calliopejen1:, it's odd. Another of the WikiMysteries that I am coming across. Mike Marchmont (talk) 16:31, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User boxes

Hi,

Can anyone tell me how to make a userbox please? Thank you! 😊😊 Narges.127 (talk) 12:43, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Narges.127, You look at the <<Help : Sandbox>> page... Alternatively look at the user pages of the great Wikipedians.. Yo will get great, no super-great ideas.... Anupam Dutta (talk) 13:04, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Narges.127. You should find a fair bit of guidance by reading Wikipedia:Userboxes. There are lots already pre-made, but you can create your own, too. I notice on your userpage that you've expressed how really, really bored you are. You wait 'til you're older - you'll never be bored, but the downside is that you will be old! You must appreciate that this is a serious project to create and enhance an amazing worldwide encyclopaedia on notable topics, and not a place to mess about. So do take care, as those who clearly aren't here to contribute do have a habit of mysteriously disappearing. Regards from the UK (where my daughter also loves kpop), Nick Moyes (talk) 13:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

July 6th 2020

Hello, I just recently made an edit to the bad news bears. It it ok to not cite a reliable source? If not, then where do you cite it? Thanks! :-) ILoveCocomelon (talk) 12:50, 6 July 2020 (UTC) ILoveCocomelon (talk) 12:50, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ILoveCocomelon and welcome to the Teahouse! Wikipedia requires you to cite a reliable source when you add information. (You do not need to cite a source if you are re-wording or formatting something.) To cite a source, click the 'Cite' button at the top of the page. If your source is a website, copy and paste the URL in the box that appears. Then click generate, wait a couple seconds and then click insert. This will work if your source is a website. If your source is not a website, you will need to insert it manually. For more info on citing sources, see WP:CITE. Regards, Giraffer (munch) 13:29, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ILoveCocomelon: It's worth saying that if you are adding a small changes, but are being reverted, it's usually because another editor disagrees with your change. You then need to prove you are doing the right thing. If, say, its a minor spelling difference of a name, you would then be expected to cite a source to demonstrate you are right (or discuss the issue with the other editor). We want to avoid continual back and forth changes because two sets of people believe they are right. By way of example, I recently had to give an editing block to a good faith edit for a short period of time for constantly adding correct information that was being challenged and reverted by other editors. Instead of giving edit summaries and adding citations to show they were right, they simply carried on regardless, editing numerous articles in exactly the same unclear way. It was impossible for anyone else to get inside the editor's mind to know that they were adding correct info. Even though correct, their actions were clearly disruptive to the project. But after a polite exchange of words and an explanation of the problem, they undertook to ensure their edits were properly sourced and explained in future. They were quickly unblocked and the project has benefited from their better factual input. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 13:44, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)@ILoveCocomelon and Giraffer: Note that the automated citation generation tools, such as the one Giraffer is suggesting above (there are others) often give output that is not fully accurate. One should always check the output and correct it as needed. In particular, dates are often not picked up, and the name of the publisher o0r the publication is often incorrectly stuffed into the title of the source. Author info is often not picked up, or is incorrect. All these must be corrected manually.
There are also tools for generating citations for books from ISBNs, and journal articles from DOIs and other identifiers.
Also, it is not corect to say that Wikipedia requires you to cite a reliable source when you add information. Direct quotes must always be cited inline, as must negative or controversial information about a living person. Any content that is highly unusual, controversial, or has been or is likely to be challenged, should be cited to a reliable source. Uncontroversial facts need not be cited unless they are challenged, although adding such cites is a good idea even when not strictly required. See you don't need to cit4e that the sky is blue. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 13:51, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone help me

Is BookMyShow liable source as a reference for new article ??? Bijoyonline30 (talk) 13:37, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Bijoyonline30. No, a ticket agency (just like a bookseller) simply reuses promotional information that the show or book has given them. It only serves to Verify that the show actually exists, but it does nothing to demonstrate Notability - which is the key criterion if you're trying to create a new article. Similarly, user reviews on these sites are also not acceptable sources, whereas published reviews by news media outlets with proper editorial control are. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Nick Moyes , thanks for your reply. I have another question. Is Google knowledge pannel is a liable source as a reference for new article ???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bijoyonline30 (talkcontribs) 13:56, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bijoyonline30: No, Google's knowledge panel is not a reliable source (liable has a different meaning) since it is not verified, fact-checked, or even created by humans directly – it simply gathers data from other sources (including Wikipedia) automatically, often incorrectly. Please see those links for more information. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 21:20, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

July 6th 2020

What do you do when you see a typo and you try to fix it, but when you cite a reliable source there is none because the the same typo is on every movie website ILoveCocomelon (talk) 13:47, 6 July 2020 (UTC) ILoveCocomelon (talk) 13:47, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ILoveCocomelon: what do you mean "every movie website"? Do you mean the same error is on every Wikipedia page about those movies, or the error is on every external website you come across? If the latter, you have to live with it and cite the sources. It would help if you were to link to examples of what you're talking about. (There's no need to start a new thread each time (see two above this one) - just edit the reply and ask follow-up questions. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:54, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ILC wants to change the name of an actor at The Bad News Bears but has not yet found a reference with the spelling ILC believes is correct. David notMD (talk) 13:56, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ILoveCocomelon: Please use a concise and descriptive "Subject/headline" for posts on talk pages. It should not duplicate existing sections on the page (as you did here). Thanks. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 21:24, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Google search result wiki profile incorrect

rajeev satav is presently member of parliament but during google search wiki shows him as former member of parliament. https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=ALeKk03HhnMJO6TkKhmR4HPqQRnUBD411Q%3A1594043802231&source=hp&ei=mi0DX6H7C6Ke4-EP7eiFoAU&q=rajeev+satav&oq=rajeev+satav&gs_lcp=CgZwc3ktYWIQAzIECCMQJzIECCMQJzIECCMQJzIHCAAQFBCHAjICCAAyBwgAEBQQhwIyAggAMgIIADIGCAAQFhAeMgYIABAWEB46BAgAEEM6BwgAELEDEEM6BQgAELEDOggIABCxAxCDAToKCAAQsQMQFBCHAjoKCAAQsQMQgwEQQzoECAAQClCdAVjZE2D9FGgAcAB4AIAB9ASIAZ4TkgEMMC4xMC4wLjEuMC4xmAEAoAEBqgEHZ3dzLXdpeg&sclient=psy-ab&ved=0ahUKEwihsNj047jqAhUizzgGHW10AVQQ4dUDCAc&uact=5 103.65.28.230 (talk) 13:58, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello IP editor. Welcome. If you believe Wikipedia is wrong, you can edit the page on Rajiv Satav yourself, giving a citation to demonstrate any information that someone else might dispute. Or you can leave a note on the article talk page for another editor to pick up and change (see Talk:Rajiv Satav). If Google is out of date, there's absolutely nothing we can do about it from here. You can report major errors directly to Google via their Feedback button. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hannibal

Hello,

I would like to know how to change the picture of hannibal in the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannibal article

the picture is not accurate as it is a statue of a man of european decent when hannibal was an african man. many articles online have pictures that are more suitable and I would like to know how i can change the picture Khrysvic (talk) 14:06, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Khrysvic: Most pictures online are copyrighted (not freely licensed) and therefore not suitable for Wikipedia. I'd recommend looking for a picture you prefer at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page (Wikipedia's media repository), then starting a discussion about the image at Talk:Hannibal. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:13, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

Hannibal was probably of Canaanite (Semitic) descent, rather than European or African. See the first paragraph of Hannibal#Background_and_early_career.   Maproom (talk) 15:31, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hannibal was born in Carthage and Carthage was in African, therefore he was African. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khrysvic (talkcontribs) 18:08, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is true in a sense Khrysvic, but that does not mean that he was of what we now call "African" or "Negro" ethnicity or appearance. I don't think any of the statutes of him now known were created during his life. In any case classical statutes often showed an idealized rather than a realistic version of the subject. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:16, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

hmm, it is like saying even though Gengis Khan was born in Asia, that it does not mean he looks like Asian people. if he was born in Africa to African parents, there is no way he was anything but Black, wouldnt you agree? the amount of paintings depicting him as white are obviously innacurate, just like the picture of Cesare Borgia that is used to depict Jesus as white, when there was no europeans in the middle east.Are we trying to depict accuracy on Wikipedia or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khrysvic (talkcontribs) 18:32, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Khrysvic: As far as I can remember, Egypt is in Africa, hence most of Egyptians are born in Africa. Are they all, or most of them, 'African' in appearance? --CiaPan (talk) 18:44, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, however, it is a known fact that the current Egyptians are decents of arab invaders that took over North Africa less than 300 years ago. The original Egyptians were African Looking and the hot weather in those times would not even allow anyone with a lighter skin tone to survive without getting melanoma. so for Hannibal who was born in Carthage (now Tunisia) in 247 BC it is impossible that he looked nothing but African — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khrysvic (talkcontribs) 19:12 6 July 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Wikipedia attempts to represent what published reliable sources say about any topic. It is certainly true that not all people who live in Africa are Black -- the residents of Egypt come to mind. At this point, further discussion could occur on Talk:Hannibal. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:51, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned above, the current Egyptians are Arab invaders, and they came way after the era of Pharoahs etc. the african population back then was all black so for Hannibal Born in Africa 247 BC, its impossible that he looked nothing but black and even more impossible that any of the statues or pictures depicting him as white, could be even close to accurate — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khrysvic (talkcontribs) 19:12 6 July 2020 (UTC)

'Current Egyptians came way after the era of Pharaohs', you say. So those Egyptians depicted on paintings from Pharaoh's era are all Black - is this correct? --CiaPan (talk) 19:25, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Carthage was a Phoenician colony, and there is a lot of interesting information in Ancient Carthage about the different peoples who lived there. In any case, please go to Talk:Hannibal to continue this discussion, but you should start by reading the archives of that talk page, where the question has been brought up several times; as you will see, it is not really possible to draw any definite conclusions about Hannibal's genetic heritage or skin colouring. --bonadea contributions talk 19:35, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Afc decline DollarBoyz

Guidance required to understand the reason given in Submission feedback of Draft:DollarBoyz

My Submission declined on 6 July 2020 by CNMall41 with following Comment:

  • Only a few mentions and no significant coverage in reliable sources. Also a very negative press article out there. CNMall41 (talk) 04:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Draft:DollarBoyz

My references are from established newspapers (list given below). I have seen many wiki articles are using inquirer.com and phillytrib.com in their references.

Can you please guide me to understand the points of improvement. I am open to add/remove/modify those contents which are not meeting the wiki standards.

Thank you so much. Vsp.manu (talk) 14:38, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vsp.manu, Accepted I saw your request. I disagree with the prior reviewer, which is absolutely fine. I chose to submit for re-review on your behalf.
Reviewers are human beings with different opinions. That is quite reasonable. Our role as reviewers is to seek to ensure that an article will not immediately be subject to one of our deletion processes when it is accepted. That is why we push it back to the author. We want to accept articles. I decided to accept yours. Fiddle Faddle 14:57, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Upload additional photos and edits to Karl Groeger article?

Hello, I am the second cousin of Karl Groeger. I live in Eugene Oregon. When Karl's mother Frieda died in Chicago in 1975, I received all of her documents including all personal correspondence with Karl Jr prior to his execution. I am having a rather hard time following all of your citation templates etc. Also cannot figure out how to upload two additional photos to this article. Thank you

Intelife13 (talk) 14:42, 6 July 2020 (UTC) Intelife13 (talk) 14:42, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link: Karl Gröger
Hello, Intelife13 and welcome to the Teahouse. You have a conflict of interest in regard to this article, but you have very properly disclosed it on your user page and on Talk:Karl Gröger, so that should not be a problem. If you are making any possibly controversial edit, you should consider using {{Request edit}} on the article talk page, to have it reviewed by an uninvolved editor.
As to photos, the problem there is copyright. The copyright in a photo is normally owned by the photographer. If these were family photos taken by a family member, you or another family member may have inherited the copyright and be able to release them under a free license and thus upload them to Wikimedia Commons using the commons upload wizard. If they were taken by someone else, such as a professional photographer, that person or thst person's heir(s) will own the copyright, unless the picture has fallen into the public domain (which is possible but not strongly likely, depending on the details). Finding the copyright owner and getting a release may be impossible or very hard. In that case Wikipedia can only use the pictures under a claim of fair use. That means that all of the criteria must be satisfied. It is in my view not unlikely that such an image would qualify, but the details will matter a lot. If you wish we can start a conversation on your talk page or on Talk:Karl Gröger, to discuss further if these photos can be uploaded and used.
As to documents such as personal correspondence, unless they have been published by a reliable source, Wikipedia cannot use them, nor can they be cited as sources in a Wikipedia article. It might be that a historian writing about your cousin would be interested, or that Yad Vashem would be interested. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:32, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again...to respond to your concerns, I did review the upload wizard guidelines. The photos I am attempting to upload fall into two acceptable categories 1. Taken by a family member. 2. " Photos of a certain age" These are from WWII and I believe are in the public domain. I hope that satisfies Wiki requirements.

Intelife13 (talk) 16:13, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Intelife13: You're entering one of the hardest areas of Wikipedia editing.... Image copyright for old family photos is dreadfully complicated. Re: "photos of a certain age", have these photos ever been published and if so when/where? Most photos taken in World War II actually are copyrighted, believe it or not. There are some limited exceptions though I doubt they would apply for your photos. Re: "taken by a family member", which family member? Are they living or dead? If dead, what year did they die? Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:54, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Intelife13 I am not an admin on commons. You can ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright if these photos would be conSIDERD public domain under us law. But unpublished works are generally protected until 70 years after the death of the author (photographer) or 120 years after creation when the author or the author's death date is unknown. There are some exceptions. See this well known chart for key details. If the photographer died in 1949 or before, the photo would be PD. There are more complexities if the work was ever published. The chart covers them. I would be surprised if there was a general acceptance of "Family photos" on commons, regardless of dates. But feel free to upload to commons and see if anyone challenges the images, or (better, IMO) to ask at the link above first. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:02, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My first Wikipedia article is non compliant. How do I get published?

Hey folks, happy to have this community to rely on for things like these.

I have recently published my first Wikipedia article, and it's about a company I work for. We are launching cutting-edge AI-powered mental health services. I just wanted to create a page for anyone who might google us, as a general reference.

I don't think my content was that salesy. I also added hyperlinks to Crunchbase and Linkedin, but apparently it wasn't enough.

What should I do to make sure it's published? 98.128.253.114 (talk) 15:40, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IP Editor, and welcome to the Teahouse. The above is the only edit from your IP address, so I have no way to know what draft you refer to, or give any specific advice. Please indicate what draft page you refer to, and consider registering for a free account.
As you work for the company, you have a clear conflict of interest, and must edit with particular care, and support your edits with citations to independent and reliable sources. Normally you should use {{request edit}} on the article's talk page, rather than making direct edits. If you are expected to edit the article as part of your job responsibility, or expect to receive any form of compensation for doing so, you are considered to be a paid editor and must declare this before editing further on this topic. If the article is still in a draft under articles for creation you may edit directly, as the text will be reviewed before it becomes an article. Not that no opinions of any sort, positive or negative should be expressed in the text, unless they are quotes, marked as such, and attributed to a named person or source, and supported by a citation. A list of the services or products offered by a company can seem like sales promotion, depending on how it is worded. Details matter here, and there is some judgement needed, so I cannot be more specific without seeing the text. Rewmember that any Wikipedia article should be based primarily on what independent and reliable sources say, not on what a company says about itself. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:58, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Afc decline Draft:Wanny Boy

Submission declined on 5 July 2020 by Calliopejen1 (talk) Draft:Wanny Boy

My submission declined on 5 July 2020 by Calliopejen1 (talk) without any highlighed comment Draft:Wanny Boy. I am not able to see some specific comment.

My references are from established newspapers (list given below). I have seen many wiki articles are using eonline.com and metro.co.uk in their references.

Can you please guide me to understand the mistakes. I am open to fix/add/remove/modify those contents which are not meeting the wiki standards.

Thank you so much. Vsp.manu (talk) 15:44, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The reviewer's comment: "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia." One of your references is his website, and in the others, there is only a brief mention - for example, that he attended the gala and had his picture taken with B. I agree that he does not yet meet Wikipedia's definition of notability for people in the music field. David notMD (talk) 16:32, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Hello, Vsp.manu, and welcome to the Teahouse
  • The E! news article has a one sentence mention of Brown, saying only that he appeared in a picture with a better-known performer.
  • https://www.wannyboy.com/ is not an independent source, it is Brown's own site.
  • The 15min.lt sarticel also has only a single brief mention of Brown, as far as I can see.
  • The metro.co.uk says only Once inside the party, Beyonce and Jay Z kindly took a minute for a photo with child star Dawan “Wanny Boy” Brown who looked pretty chuffed to get individual photos with the power couple. (whioch seems to be about the same picvtue mentioned by E!) nothing more.
  • The kbcchannel.tv article again has only a single sentence, apparently about the same picture.
To qualify a topic as notable, there generally need to be multiple independent published reliable sources each of which discusses the topic in some detail. Passing mentions or trivial coverage do not help at all, no matter how many of them are found. Nor do directory entries or fan pages. Detailed independent coverege is needed. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:37, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whistle-bower Article Deleted

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_whistleblowers&action=edit&section=6#2010s I tried to post an article on the whistleblower page. Can I ask why this may have been deleted? Karenwhistleblower (talk) 16:06, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Karenwhistleblower: The article history shows why your edit was undone, namely "Burgess' does not appear to be a "major" whistleblower case. Also, many details are not corroborated by the cited sources." If you disagree, you can start a discussion at Talk:List of whistleblowers. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:27, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Editing

Adding to semi protected pages


How do I edit tell me a protected pages if I am a new user? Warden385 (talk) 16:10, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Warden385: Wikipedia:Edit requests explains the procedure to follow. You can't edit the page directly, but you can request that someone else edit it. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:25, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What Is Sock Puppet?

 Sauidward (talk) 16:13, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sauidward: See Wikipedia:Sock puppetry for an explanation. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alphabetical List of Districts of India now ready for publication

Dear fellow Wikipedians, The article is placed under " User : Anupamdutta73/List Dist India 2020" and is ready for publication... Please do the needful..... Cheers...... Anupam Dutta (talk) 16:14, 6 July 2020 (UTC) Anupam Dutta (talk) 16:14, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Anupamdutta73/List Dist India 2020 does not appear to have been submitted to AfC or bypassing AfC, made an article. If submitted to AfC, then decision rests with a reviewer, not with the volunteers who help out here at Teahouse. David notMD (talk) 16:36, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article decline - support with next steps

All,

Need a support with a decline on this article. draft:Ravi Venkatesan.

Firstly, I understand that there are an inordinate number of requests similar to mine that this team would be getting on a daily basis. But, that said - please allow me to state some facts.

Notability

1. Industry: The person under question is a seasoned senior industry veteran in the Indian market. He has been the Co-Chairman of the Board of Infosys ltd (one of the largest Indian technology services firm), CEO / Chairman of Microsoft India, Chairman of the Board of Bank of Baroda (one of the largest Public Sector Banks in India - top 5 in the country by market capitilization), and Chairman of Cummins ltd. All of these by themselves make him an Industry leader of repute.

2. Government: In addition, he is currently driving the efforts of the Government task force for revival of MSME (micro, small, and medium enterprises), particularly in response to the COVID19 pandemic impact on these enterprises.

3. Venture Capital: He is also a venture capitalist with two leading early stage investment funds, contributing in part to the VC led funding boom that is currently being seen in India.

All of the points above satisfy the notability elements of the question.

Significant Coverage / Reliable Sources

Sources / coverage have spanned the following types of mediums.

1. Newspapers - Prominent Indian newspapers - e.g. Indian Express, Livemint, Economic Times

2. Citations from NGOs - e.g. Rockefeller Foundation

3. Links to Opinion articles / books - e.g. Economic Times, Amazon.

Regarding a statement in the templatized note that has been provided, the coverage in #1, #2, and #3 above are more than passing mentions.


Next Steps

Require assistance from this group on the specific edits that are required before this article can be approved. While appreciation of geographic context is not necessarily required for realizing that this person qualifies as a subject of interest, I am happy to add any additional context required. Kaisertalk (talk) 16:22, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kaisertalk, Accepted I saw your request. I disagree with the prior reviewer, which is absolutely fine. I chose to submit for re-review on your behalf.
Reviewers are human beings with different opinions. That is quite reasonable. Our role as reviewers is to seek to ensure that an article will not immediately be subject to one of our deletion processes when it is accepted. That is why we push it back to the author. We want to accept articles. I decided to accept yours. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:31, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Calliopejen1: Many thanks. Much appreciated. Kaisertalk (talk) 16:39, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Published Edits not Saving

Hello, we are making edits on the Zanker Recycling Wikipedia page but not of the edits are saving, yet it says "changes saved" after we click "published edits". What can we do to make sure our edits are being published? We work on the marketing team for Zanker Recycling and we need to update our information. Zankerrecycling wiki (talk) 17:06, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Zankerrecycling. Your edits have indeed been saved to Zanker Recycling. Thus thy are as "published" as any Wikipedia article.
However some of them have been reverted.
Moreover, as a marketign employee, yuou are considered a paid editor. You must make the appropraite declaration before editing the article further. Moreover, your user name is improper. Wikipedia accoutns must be for indivciduals, not companies or5 groups, and must not imply othreewise, and promotional editing is not acceptable under any name. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:18, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This user= has been blocked indefinitely for username violation and promotional editing. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:29, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is this correct?

"Tilden was, and remains, the only candidate in American history who lost a presidential election despite receiving a majority (not just a plurality) of the popular vote. After a first count of votes, Tilden won 184 electoral votes to Hayes' 165, with 20 votes unresolved." What about Hillary Clinton 2016? ==

 97.127.158.194 (talk) 17:06, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IP editor. The Teahouse is for answering questions about how to edit Wikipedia, not for general factual questions. The Wikipedia reference Desk addresses those. However, I believe that Clinton, like soem other US presidential candidates, got a plurality but not a majority of the popular vote. (There were some third-party candidates.) DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:42, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Clinton got 48% of the vote in 2016, not a majority. RudolfRed (talk) 17:45, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Juliet Nalukenge

Juliet Nalukenge is a Female Ugandan Football Player at Kawempe Muslim School Women's Football Club and the Crested Cranes.

@Kimcephas: Welcome to the teahouse. Do you have a question about editing Wikipedia? Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:32, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone help me?

My page was started long ago, by who I don't know. I could use some help now in editing my page to bring it up to date. I tried to do it myself, but I was immediately blocked. I tried writing an admin for help but got no reply.

Here's my name (also the name of my page): Jeffrey Skinner (poet)

Can anyone help update for me? I'd rather not learn a complex bunch of stuff to do this myself; if I have to I'll probably leave it as is. But it would be nice if someone could help. Thanks. Jtskin01 (talk) 19:38, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jtskin01: There's a lot to unpack in your question. I'll start with the first issue I see. Maybe we can deal with that, and then address your question a bit later. I don't see any evidence of you being blocked, or trying to write an admin for help. Do you have another account other than User:Jtskin01? Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:45, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I presume that Jtskin01 means his edit was reverted, which it was, because the information added was unsourced. Jeffrey, if you'd like to set out changes or additions (with accompanying references) to the article, the best thing to do is to follow the instructions at WP:COIREQ to do so on its talk page. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jtskin01 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I would correct you in that it is not your Wikipedia page, but a Wikipedia article about you. You don't have any special rights to it as the subject, but your input is welcome. You can visit Talk:Jeffrey Skinner(there is no "poet" in the article title) and offer your suggestions for improvements on the article talk page. To increase the chances that other editors will see your comments(aside from the editors that might follow that article), you can make your suggestions as a formal edit request, but it's not mandatory.
Your edit history indicates no edits to any user talk pages such as that of an administrator; perhaps you sent an email, but most users prefer to conduct Wikipedia business on Wikipedia. I don't see any indication that your have ever been blocked, either. 331dot (talk) 19:51, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Hello, Jeffrey. I'm afraid that, like many people, you have got the wrong idea about Wikipedia: the article Jeffrey Skinner is Wikipedia's article about you, not "your page", and it is not up to you to update it. Having said that, Wikipedia likes its articles to be factual according to the sources, and you are welcome to suggest edits on the article's talk page; but an editor is unlikely to carry out those suggestions unless they are supported by reliable published sources. In fact, the article is lacking citations to sources independent of you - Wikipedia is basically not interested in what the subject of an article says, or wants to say, about themselves, only in what people unconnected with them have chosen to publihs about them, so the most valuable thing you could do would be to provide citations of a couple of places where that has happened. At present the article does not establish that you meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and unless suitable sources are added, it is likely to get deleted. See WP:AUTOPROB for more information. --ColinFine (talk) 19:55, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is there's a way to submit this draft for review, I'm not the creator but it happens to meet drafts with the same situation and don't know how to submit it through AFC. Thanks 103.255.6.3 (talk) 20:37, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This was created as an article by a user who has been blocked for undisclosed paid editing; it was then moved to a draft, so that it would go through AFC. Anybody may submit it by inserting {{subst:submit}} (with the double curly brackets) at the top. There are a lot of references that are clearly not both substantial and independent, but I haven't bothered to toil through them to see if there are actually some which will establish notability. --ColinFine (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ida Silverman

 2601:199:C300:9CF0:CC80:3F7D:873E:365C (talk) 20:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can I help you with anything? Do you have trouble making an account? -TheFibonacciEffect (talk) 21:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sidebar's Journal Impact Factor needs updating -- cannot see how to access that area

The "Publication Details" in the box to the right of this page needs the Impact Factor updated (I have updated it in the text of the main body of the article today): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuromodulation_(journal)

Many thanks. Negarc (talk) 20:54, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Negarc. You'll see it as a paramter of the {{infobox journal}}, if you pick "Edit" at the top of the page. It seems odd to me that we should accept a piece of marketing information from the publisher's website, and not require an independent source for it. --ColinFine (talk) 21:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How to create a wikipedia page for the company I work for?

The company I work for wants to create a Wikipedia page. I am not sure how to create a Wikipedia page for the company I work for. Can I directly create a page for the company I work for? or I need some permission first to create it? Stephanie.ecms (talk) 21:44, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]