Wikipedia:Teahouse

AlanM1, a Teahouse host

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

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

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

Help Wikipedia

Please let me know how to make this company page work on Wikipedia. I'm open for suggestions/improvements.

I've created this AI company's page. I'm open for suggestions and improvements. Please review and let me know how to make it a noteworthy addition to Wikipedia.

Extended content

Webtunix is an Artificial Intelligence company that provides AI based solutions to companies and businesses. The company was started with the aim of solving real-world problems through programming. Webtunix offers real-world solutions to businesses related to multiple sectors like IT, Cyber Security, Healthcare, Telecom, E-Commerce, Sports, Agriculture, Automobile, Oil and Gas and Banking and Finance. People in India were not well aware of AI technology when the company became live in 2015. Webtunix is the first company to spread awareness of AI potential and provide real-world solutions to people using several technologies. The company develops software and programs that provide real-time analysis and solutions to the complex problems. Webtunix use the high-tech tools and frameworks to provide efficient solutions to help businesses run smoothly. Data has become more digitized with the help of Artificial Intelligence which was once unorganized, underutilized and considered somewhat insignificant. AI carries the capability of processing, optimizing and analyzing large amount of data.  Artificial Intelligence has reduced manual work, labor and efforts of businesses along with cutting the production cost and improving profits. AI has been significantly beneficial in the businesses and companies for its boundless capabilities. Webtunix uses these techniques in their projects like Data Science, Machine Learning, Deep Learning, Data Scraping, Data Analytics, Data Visualization, Data Annotation, Recommendation System, Digital Image Processing, Predictive Analytics, Python Development, Speech Processing, Speech Recognition, Text Analysis, Natural Language Processing, Reinforcement Learning and Human and Computer Vision Webtunix deals in providing services related to Video Object Tracking, Human and Computer Vision, Data Reinforcement & Categorization, Natural Language Processing, Chatbot Development , 3D Point Cloud, Bounding Box, Line Annotation, Landmark Annotation, Speech and Audio and Semantic Segmentation. References

Editingwork8 (talk) 04:31, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

The content is apparently a copy of User talk:Editingwork8/sandbox. Please just post a link in the future instead of copying text. Thanks. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 07:01, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Editingwork8. Just a couple of questions.

1. Why do you want to create an article about this company?
2. Are you connected to the company in any way?

Basically, in order for you or anyone else to create a Wikipedia article about this company that doesn't ultimately end up being deleted, it's going to have to be established that the company meets Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies); in other words, the company needs to be deemed to be Wikipedia notable (see also Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything for reference as well) to have an article written about it.

It's not enough for the company to exist and have its own website, its product line or its own whatever because Wikipedia isn't really interested in what the company might have to say about itself and a Wikipedia article isn't intended to be a means of promotion for the company. Wikipedia is really only interested in what reliable sources, independent of the company, are saying (good or bad) about it; so, the way to establish the company's Wikipedia notability is to show that the company has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources as explained here.

What you've written in your sandbox reads more like it's a PR release for the company and wouldn't be considered acceptable for an article per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view; however, the main problem is that you haven't provided any citations to any reliable sources to allow what you've written to be verified. So, if you believe this company is Wikipedia notable and want to try and create an article about it, then I would suggest that you take a look at Help:Your first article and Help:Referencing for beginners for reference. You might also want to take a look at this guide created by a Wikipedia administrator nameed Ian.thomson because it contains some helpful suggestions as well. You should create a draft first and then submit the draft to Wikipedia:Articles for creation for review when you think it's ready for article status. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:29, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

@Marchjuly Well, I believe it's notable in Punjab, India as well as in foreign lands. It's spreading awareness among the people, about AI especially in Punjab where people hardly knew what it is and its capabilities. I agree with you too. Thanks for guiding me.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Editingwork8 (talk • contribs) 03:55, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Editingwork8, this is a completely unacceptable draft that uses the vapid and meaningless "real world" buzzword three times, then throwing in "real time". Come on. That is meaningless marketing speak. Can you imagine a notable company saying "we are not real world. We live in fantasy land". Of course not. Start by reading and studying the neutral point of view which is a core content policy. If all you can do is parrot empty marketing slogans, then you cannot possibly be successful on Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:00, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

@Cullen³²⁸ Ok. I'll keep that in mind. Thank you!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Editingwork8 (talk • contribs) 03:55, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

One thing to realise, Editingwork8 is that in an article about Webtunix, Wikipedia is basically not interested in anything at all that Webtunix says or wants to say about itself, or that its associates say about it. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with Webtunix, and have no been prompted or fed information by Webtunix, have chosen to publish about it, in reliable places. If there are not enough places where independent people have done this, then there is nothing that can go into an article, and no article is possible. --ColinFine (talk) 14:05, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

@ColinFine Well, I've tried to provide information that's genuine and not at all biased. I believe Wikipedia is a platform for information and so I tried adding Webtunix into the list which is also a notable company. But if this company isn't accepted here then on what basis the other AI companies are added on Wikipedia?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Editingwork8 (talk • contribs) 03:55, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I am a student...

Wikimania 2017 Women in Red presentation. (See 6min 30sec in for a perfect example of the power of Wikipedia as a research tool)

...doing an essay on basically why Wikipedia should be a valid and valuable research tool. If anyone has any input in that it would be awesome. I am doing my own research so I'm not trying to get an essay out of anyone I just think it would be pretty dope if I could put in my essay that I actually asked the community and got feedback. :)

 2605:AD80:30:5091:4198:635B:9C89:A9A0 (talk) 18:20, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello IP editor. Welcome to the Teahouse, and what an exciting question and a brilliant essay to write! You are clearly able to Google the general topic, so I won't insult your intelligence by suggesting you go off and do that. But, boy, there are so many ways that Wikipedia is a valuable research tool, and to so many different groups of individuals. In fact, there has been a lot of serious academic research done on Wikipedia (some of it listed here, or the social aspects of why people contribute. This Teahouse itself has been the subject of a number of research papers)

But as a 'direct' tool to aid research I can do no better than embed this video which I produced a few years ago. At 6 minutes 30 seconds in you'll find a cut down version of a much longer interview I filmed, showing how Cambridge University's Sanger Institute chose to share research and knowledge on the Human Genome Project on Wikipedia, for the simple reason that it gave free, unrestricted, worldwide access to scientific knowledge which might not otherwise have been available to scientific institutions in some poorer countries. I found that one of the best reasons why Wikipedia should exist!

On a more general level, you might like to look at Wikipedia:Researching with Wikipedia and Wikipedia:Research, Academic studies about Wikipedia. I'll end of the simplest note of all by saying that Wikipedia never recommends anyone directly use/cite Wikipedia as a Reliable Source. So, you might like to consider reading Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia. Yes, Wikipedia is a great starting point and 'look-up' tool, but the oft-overlooked gem in almost every one of our 6,000,000+ articles here is the 'References' section. It's a collation of excellent sources, distilled and presented allow verification of what is in each article, and it enables anyone to go off and do their own in-depth research into almost any topic. Good luck with your essay, and maybe you'll consider joining up and contributing here yourself someday soon. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 19:00, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

This guy has some thoughts on that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:50, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi, IP. When I taught, I would not allow Wikipedia as a source, and still wouldn't. Not due to accuracy issues (in hard science and medicine, studies have shown Wikipedia is far more accurate than other encyclopedias), but due to the dynamic nature of Wikipedia. Ironically, that's the reason for our accuracy in the areas we're most accurate. In any areas where promotion is an issue, we are very weak. Promotional editing is rampant on Wikipedia and under the rules the Wikimedia Foundation forces on us, we're completely ineffective at combating it, despite ridiculous amounts of editor time expended on trying. John from Idegon (talk) 20:56, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

@John from Idegon: OK. I give up then. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 04:30, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

@John from Idegon: I've been struggling to understand the full logic behind that comment. I guess you're saying that you would have been happy to have encouraged Wikipedia to be used when starting to research into a given topic, but not to directly cite a Wikipedia article, per WP:CITEWIKI? I think even that approach is too broad-brush. Take, for example, a class of 7 to 14 year olds, asked to investigate a topic in school. As a parent (and were I a teacher, too) I would be happy to see those children citing Wikipedias as a source of where they got their information for their essay or homework project. OK, when they move up in years, I would expect them to have been taught to start at places like Google or Wikipedia, but then to follow and read the sources we use to create that article, and then to base their project work on those sources, not on our pages. If, through their research, they found differences in content, or wanted to present evidence to demonstrate an argument about how different social, ethnic or political groups interpret a topic, then, again, it would be fine to cite Wikipedia a source to show where that interpretation came from (and, preferably, to link to the individual version of that article on the date they accessed it). Yes, Wikipedia is a target for individuals, companies and political groups to promote themselves or their pet topic, but that is not the whole of Wikipedia's content base, and certain topic areas need treating more carefully than others. Just as here at the Teahouse, when we say to new editors who ask whether a given publication can be used as aReliable Source, that it all depends upon the context as to whether that source can be regarded as 'reliable' or not, so it also depends upon the context in which it may or may not be appropriate to cite Wikipedia as a source, as well as the age/educational level of the person doing the citing. And if original, reliable sources cited in Wikipedia are only available in print in limited parts of the worlds, are out of print, or are written in another language, I might feel my only recourse would be to cite the interpretations of Wikipedia editors (published within Wikipedia) who have themselves cited that original source, and to do so I would be perfectly confident to cite a given version of Wikipedia as my source of those quoted interpretations. In short: I think your dismissal had some truth to it, but was overly blunt. (And look how you've upset poor AlanM1, too!) Nick Moyes (talk) 13:23, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Nick Moyes, your concept was something that occurred to me back when I first started editing. It seemed to me that one could consult the online refs present in various WP articles, and then use them to write an "original" essay, paper, etc. For people who did not have access to libraries, but had internet access, the online sources would be an excellent source of information. No need to "cite WP", (which is an encyclopedia, in any case, as User:John from Idegon seems to note), as a source, when one can read and then cite the original sources, as provided in the Reference sections of various articles. I will read the info you have provided, thanks! Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 07:11, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Slipping in: When doing an essay/research, I use two encyclopedias: Wikipedia and Britannica. I use Britannica first to get a feel, and then Wikipedia. I then go to the sources cited and fact-checks it. If the source has more relevant sources, I go there (if I have time). I then wrote some points on a note, and then wrote about it in the paper or text editor. I see Wikipedia as a landing page, not a "source" in general. GeraldWL 13:33, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I want to create a Wokipedia Page for an aLUMNI aSSOCIATION

Ifechoice (talk) 21:33, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Ifechoice. I fear it will be highly unlikely that Draft:Egbeoba High School Ikole-Ekiti Alumni Association would ever meet our notability criteria (see WP:NCORP). A brief mention within an existing school/college article might be appropriate, but always base content on what other, reliable sources have written about it. See WP:YFA for further guidance. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:06, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I've rejected the draft. I've never seen an alumni association for a high school recieve significant coverage. Very few college alumni associations even do. Please understand notability has nothing to do with importance or accomplishment and only a corollary relationship with fame. Notability is established when you've shown that the subject (the alumni assoc.) has gotten significant coverage in multiple reliable independent sources. Coverage must be detailed, as every single fact in the article has to be paraphrased from reliable sources without exception. If it isn't written somewhere else you can source, you cannot put it in a Wikipedia article. Also, for companies and organizations, at least some of the references must be from out of town. Can't speak to your country, but in my country, the newspapers in Chicago don't usually cover even Chicago high school alumni associations, much less those from other cities. Don't feel bad. Few who aren't already Wikipedia editors have any notion of what it takes to get an article here. John from Idegon (talk) 05:53, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

James Cloyce Chadwick, I am new to Wiki.

Hello, My name is James Chadwick. I am new to wikipedia. I created an account named James Cloyce Chadwick, which is the name of my Deceased father. I want to create a page for my father with the same title. As you can see, my fathers name is also the same as mine, we have different middle names, I am not a Jr.

So My first question is... Will the host editors recognize that this is my father and not me, since we have the same name? (this will not a biography of me, which I know are not allowed on wiki).

2nd question... I also know that I need references, Books, Newspaper ect. to verify who the subject is. Is this link to a newspaper article good enough to verify who my father is?

https://www.dailybreeze.com/2016/01/06/90-year-old-former-ucla-running-back-holds-intruder-at-gunpoint-until-hawthorne-police-arrive/

I also have newspaper clipping from the Herald Examiner Newspaper in Los Angeles in 1949 to verify who my father is. I made these clippings into images to upload to wiki with captions to verify that my father played football for UCLA as a running back.

3rd Question... Why am I unable to upload these images of the newspaper articles to you of my father? When I try to upload the images, I get a message that the image is nonconstructive.

4th Question... When I create a sandbox page, Can I use that sandbox page as a draft and send it to you as a finished page to be publish as an official live page for the web?

As you can see, I am a green rookie. I truly would appreciate your help and patience. Thank you so much. Best regards, James Chadwick James Cloyce Chadwick (talk) 22:58, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

• James Cloyce Chadwick, welcome to the Teahouse and Wikipedia. I admire your willingness to learn, but if you want to learn how to properly edit Wikipedia solely so you can write a biography of your father, I'm sorry, but that's not a good idea. First, you have an undeniable conflict of interest (FYI, blue words are links you should follow to applicable policies and guidelines). Second, you cannot add anything about your father from personal knowledge. Every single thing that goes into a Wikipedia article must be paraphrased from reliable published sources. It's admirable that you want to write about your father, but a tertiary encyclopedia such as this isn't the place to host your original biography. Everything here is paraphrased from somewhere else. John from Idegon (talk) 06:03, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
• To answer some of your questions, you cannot upload newspaper clips because they are copyrighted and it isn't necessary. You can cite offline sources. Use Template:cite news, Template:cite book etc. (The source editor contains a wizzard for citations that will access the most used ones). However, before your father can have an article here, you'll need to show much more than he existed and had a dust up with a crook once. You have to show he meets one of the guidelines for notability. The main guideline is called WP:GNG, but biographies are mainly discussed at WP:ANYBIO. The clip about the robber mentioned he played football at UCLA. That may be a starting point, as there are some Special Notability Guidelines (WP:SNG) for athletes. If he played in the NFL (or any earlier "big league" leagues like Arena Football, both AFL's and Canadian professional football), he will be considered notable per WP:NGRIDIRON. If he was a consensus All-American in college, he's notable per WP:NCOLLATH. Otherwise, you'll need to produce multiple reliable independent sources that discuss him in detail. The links you've offered here are transactional (ie, about a single event), not detailed, and hence do not speak to notability at all. And as I said above, you, by definition, cannot be a source here. John from Idegon (talk) 06:36, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
• @James Cloyce Chadwick: Though I understand that you probably chose your username thinking this was like social media, where there is no distinct article name that is different from your username, that is not the case here, and we do have a policy against use of the name of a real person by someone who is not that person (see WP:REALNAME). While I might ordinarily suggest you just abandon this username and register a new one because you have no other edits, it might be better to change it instead because it represents a real person's name. Perhaps an admin (like Nick Moyes) can comment. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 06:53, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

• @James Cloyce Chadwick: I'm just dropping by as I was 'pinged' AlanM1 and asked to comment. It is, indeed, slightly unfortunate that you chose your username to be that of your father, and not simply your own. Had it been the latter, I'd have said not to worry, providing you declared your connection to him. But reading WP:REALNAME, and to avoid all confusion (and assuming you decide it is still appropriate to carry on trying to create an article about him), then I feel the best advice I could give you is simply to abandon this account completely and create a brand new one. You've only made one edit, thus far, so it's no big deal. Just forget the old account password, never log on or edit with it again, and just create a new account with a less confusing name, and use only that one from now on. Then please declare your connection, as detailed in our guidance at this page about having a conflict of interest. I am not convinced from what little you've told us that he would be regarded as notable, but then I know nothing of sports notability, which John has made comments on. I am sorry for the passing of your father in recent years - it would certainly be his sporting achievements (per WP:NSPORT which would dictate his notability here, not that single newspaper account of dealing with an intruder). It is certainly not OK to try to upload a copyrighted image from a newspaper and claim it as your own (which is what you would be doing if you scanned a newspaper article or photo). Just link to it as inline citation. Brand new editors who know nothing of our processes and protocols experience extreme disappointment and lots of wasted effort when they try to create a new article from scratch, directly moving it from their sandbox to our main article space. It can be done, but you are best advised to create any draft via our 'Article Creation Wizard' at this page. If there are problems, you will receive helpful feedback, rather than have all your efforts 'speedily deleted'. Hope this helps. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 13:43, 6 September 2020 (UTC)  

Angela Christine Mack and son Thomas Michael Rettew (2002)

https://wreg.com/news/arkansas-missing-child-mom-case-re-opened/amp/

https://bolivarmonews.com/home/woman-unborn-baby-killed-in-car-wreck/article_7f3d3ef3-20a7-57ee-803b-e85e4193c2a3.html

https://www.kait8.com/story/2801350/crime-lab-bones-found-in-fulton-county-well-arent-human/ FultonAR (talk) 23:03, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Is there a question related to these news items? David notMD (talk) 00:31, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, FultonAR - please tell us what this is about. The edit that created this section is the only contribution you've made. There isn't even any basis for us to guess from as to how to help you. John from Idegon (talk) 06:44, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

WP age matters

Hy RuStr12 again, regarding WP: AGE MATTERS policy does it implies to an old historical letters or documents written between two governments or persons and how old must material be to be considered that is not significant in historical matter RuStr12 (talk) 06:04, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

• Courtesy link: WP:AGE MATTERS, a subsection of WP:RS. First time in almost 9 years I've seen that, but I avoid science articles like the plauge (actually, bad metaphor. I'm doing pretty well at actually avoiding the plauge, PTL) John from Idegon (talk) 06:17, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks man RuStr12 (talk) 06:20, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

@RuStr12: I don't think a general rule is possible for documents written between two governments or persons. It all depends on the subject and the entities involved. If you have a specific case, I'd suggest WP:RSN. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 07:07, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks man ,this link will be useful for my research RuStr12 (talk) 07:16, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

RuStr12, my understanding is that WP:AGE MATTERS applies to secondary and tertiary sources — as more evidence is found and more examination is done, our understanding of a topic improves. It doesn't apply to primary sources such as letters contemporary with the event. Maproom (talk) 07:47, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks man somehow I understood like that too, the more sources mentioning the material the more is reliable regardless how old it is, but still is a little bit confusing i.e. if I would buy the the book from Lazaro Soranzo a 17th century historian and used it as a source, would it be better to quote newer historians which using him as a source or can I go directly to him. The same question would go for Tacitus who is even older RuStr12 (talk) 08:09, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Not everyone here is a "man". David notMD (talk) 10:12, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks ,person. RuStr12 (talk) 17:04, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

@RuStr12: What about the dogs? Think about the dogs! —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 20:15, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Hahahah, good one. RuStr12 (talk) 20:45, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Both {{gender|Maproom}} and {{gender|AlanM1}} return "he" at the time I am writing so I suppose neither of them would object on gender grounds. "Thanks man" might still be a bit informal for people you have never met before. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:09, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Editing an existing article rejected as 'not constructive'

I tried adding a paragraph to an article about a public figure I know.

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

This was the reply I received.

Hello, I'm Serols. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Graham McIntosh—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. Serols (talk) 08:04, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I added a paragraph about Graham Mcintosh's sons and their current work, nothing controversial.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Graham%20McIntosh&diff=976988151 Third Way Communications (talk) 08:11, 6 September 2020 (UTC) Third Way Communications (talk) 08:11, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Third Way Communications, in this edit, you must reference a reliable source that says the claim. In this edit, do not add external links to the article, instead, put it at an "external links" section at the very bottom of the article. This edit is so essay-ish and advertising. That's all I can say, maybe. GeraldWL 08:44, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Non-controversial is not the point. None of the information about his sons is relevant to this article, which is about Graham, so all is deleted. David notMD (talk) 09:43, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I see. Apologies, I just looked at how long the paragraph is and just immediately thought of . GeraldWL 09:57, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia

When you contribute to Wikipedia where does the money go to Alisha rains (talk) 10:17, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

It goes to the Wikimedia Foundation, a multi-million dollar industry based in San Francisco.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 11:59, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Then what do you contribute ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alisha rains (talk • contribs) 12:34, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:03, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

@Alisha rains: the servers and infrastructure for Wikipedia sites in different languages (including English) are run by the Wikimedia Foundation. Here is how the WMF spends donations. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:11, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Editors contribute their time. Donors contribute money to the Foundation to keep the operation going. It is altruistic - people believe in helping others by making information freely available. David notMD (talk) 14:48, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Ok thank you

“Page help “

How soon will my draft article be published for my client? Also, can anyone help me with more content? I have information I need to add as well for earlier life, ect. Please and thank you Team❗️💙

 JabrielAtOmoMusicGroup (talk) 10:44, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

@JabrielAtOmoMusicGroup: Draft:Lil Kei is not submitted for review. As long as it is not submitted for review, noone will make the draft go published. Take as much time as you need, In my experience most attempts to rush the job fail quickly. Victor Schmidt (talk) 12:00, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, JabrielAtOmoMusicGroup. You seem to have a common misapprehension that a Wikipedia article about your client is in any way for your client's benefit. If your draft gets accepted and your client gets some benefit from it, that is lucky for him; but Wikipedia has no interest in furthering anybody's career, or complying with anybody's timetable. If your client meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability (Wikipedia's, not yours) then it is possible to write an article; if he doesn't then any effort you put into the draft will be wasted effort. I see that a very experienced editor has added a comment that he probably doesn't meet these criteria: I am not sure why you think it helpful to remove that comment (twice). Rather than adding more information about earlier life, you need to find places where people who have no connection with Lil Kei, and have not been prompted or fed information by him or you, have chosen to write about him at some length and been published in reliable sources. (I am dubious whether the HHR piece is either independent or has sufficiently significant coverage, but in any case, a single source is not enough.) --ColinFine (talk) 12:39, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

If submitted, the review can occur within days, but as long as months. There is a backlog of thousands of drafts. In my opinion, your attempt at a draft is WP:TOOSOON. David notMD (talk) 14:57, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Changing page title

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/RememberKLMauthausen

Hello

I am new here. Wanted to make a page in memory of my grandfather Stanislaw Proczko. My username is remberKLMauthausen. Unfortunately my username is also the title of the page. And this is wrong. It shouldn’t be this way I do not know how to change this into Stanislaw Proczko. For sure I am overlooking something, but I do not know what. Any help is appreciated. Thanks RememberKLMauthausen (talk) 11:43, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

@RememberKLMauthausen: you would move the page. If you don't see the move option, you can use WP:Requested moves. Howewer, the article currently doesnt have any form of source. Therefore, I have moved it to Draft:RememberKLMauthausen for now. More on this on your user talk page. Victor Schmidt (talk) 11:55, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, RememberKLMauthausen. I'm sure you have pride and sadness remembering your grandfather; but Wikipedia is not a memorial site . It is an encyclopaedia, which contains neutrally-written articles about notable subjects. Has you grandfather been written about in books from reputable publishers? Have there been articles about him in major newspapers? If not, then I'm afraid that an article about him will not be accepted. Please write about him elsewhere, not here. --ColinFine (talk) 12:46, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Mix 96 - Greatest Hits Radio Update - Unfair

I see you altered the Mix 96 Wikipedia entry. Whilst I think the text deserved an edit - There is third party validation of support for the save Mix 96 campaign in local newspaper articles. Your edit looks more like an attempt at removing details of the Save campaign, local unhappiness at the change ann at ensuring the article represents what Bauer wnat t osay about the brand. Wikipedia should not be used as "Brand promotion" or editiors remove content because its not what the corporate PR team wish to have presented. Please consider you edit and reflect the facxts around the rebrand not just what Bauer say. I am concerned that during the rebranding of stations Bauer has rewritten its own history and updates. MBoltonA (talk) 14:42, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Are you asking about Greatest Hits Radio? Because it is owned by Bauer? Or more specifically, Greatest Hits Radio Bucks, Beds and Herts because that was previously Mix 96? There is no Wikipedia "you". Editors make changes. Other editors can reverse those. Discussions take place on the Talk page of the article. David notMD (talk) 15:04, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I am a little more than happy

 2409:4040:419:B289:0:0:1DA1:C8A1 (talk) 14:53, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Do you have a question ?Nihaal 14:58, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

How can I add my name to a list of American Art Dealers?

 Geoffrey D. Forrest (talk) 15:51, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Geoffrey D. Forrest, hi there. Thanks for grabbing a tea here. You will need to have a Wikipedia article about yourself to be put in a notable-people list-- but before your go, don't make a Wikipedia article about yourself just to be included there. Writing an article about you is discouraged, as we are writing a WP:BLP, not an WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. In some instances, you may have a WP:COI on how you present yourself. If you are a very important person, someone will probably write about you, and if they have the initiative, they will put it in the list. The list article is not an indiscriminate list of all American Art Dealers from Manhattan to the Golden Gate. GeraldWL 16:07, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

There is no article List of American art dealers (there is List of art dealers). However, there is a Category:American art dealers. Note that every name is blue, meaning there is an existing Wikipedia article about that person. David notMD (talk) 18:03, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Panaeolus poapilionaceus

I was adding a paper to the page as number 4 in the references and it is not allowing me to correct the refs. When I go to redo it correctly, it does not allow me to see and delete my original errors.

This is the full Reference to number 4 that shows and explains the chemistry of that species which is not a psilocybian fungi.

Allen, John W. 2013[2012]. A Chemical Referral and Reference Guide to the Known Species of Psilocine and/or Psilocybine-containing Mushrooms and Their Published Analysis and Bluing Reactions: An Updated and Revised List. Ethnomycological Journals: Sacred Mushroom Studies vol. IX:130-175. MAPS and Exotic Forays. Santa Cruz, Ca., Bangkok, Th., and Seattle, Wa. ISBN 158-214-396-X.

I made a mistake with the date and the page numbers on the Panaeolus papilionaceus page.

I do not know how to fix this. John W. Allen (talk) 16:12, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

The syntax is shown at {{cite book}}. Each of the two error messages contains a wikilink to specific further advice where the word "help" is shown in blue. The place to correct the errors is in the paragraph where you inserted the new ref. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:26, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

@John W. Allen: I think I have fixed it. Have a look.Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 20:31, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Help about protected article

Hello admin, I searched a page for creating article, but there is showing 'only admin can edit this article' as the article has deleted several time. But I saw a lot of news article of her name on google. So can anyone help me to edit the article ?? I wanna contribute more on Wikipedia. So please anyone help me to teach me how I edit so that I can learn more. Link - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika_Dutta Bijoyonline30 (talk) 16:22, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Bijoyonline30. The article Swastika Dutta was salted after it got deleted for the fourth time. It is possible to create an article that has been deleted and salted, but you need to convince an admin that the subject is notable. I suggest you study NACTOR and GNG very carefully, and find several (at least three) sources that are reliably published, completely unconnected with Dutta (and not based on an interview or press release), and have significant coverage of her. If you cannot find three, then give up. If you can, then I suggest you post the references here, and somebody will look and see if they agree that you can establish notability. If you get agreement that she might be notable, you can make a draft using articles for creation. At that point it would be worth contacting the administrator who protected the title, RHaworth. But the onus is on you to demonstrate that it is worth anybody spending time on the project. --ColinFine (talk) 17:13, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, ColinFine thanks for your reply it really helpful. Once I collect all news sorces I'll update here.

Article gets moved to draft

Hello all, I have created the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mustafa_Science_and_Technology_Foundation2 and have been developing it for some time now. Today It was moved to Drafts because it does not meet the notability guidelines. I was aware of the error regarding notability and used all the credible sources I could find to make the page meet the guidelines. I was wondering if anyone has any tips on how to make this article "notable." Thanks. Zahra Bkh (talk) 16:30, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

@Zahra Bkh, hello & welcome, you cannot per se make an article notable, an article is inherently notable or non notable but what you can do is to find reliable sources that proves your article is on a notable topic. Following what you said above “I was aware of the error regarding notability and used all the credible sources I could find to make the page meet the guidelines” I’m sorry to say but it might be too soon for subject of your article to have a stand alone article at this time. Celestina007 17:50, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Celestina007 Thank you for your comment. --Zahra Bkh (talk) 18:21, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

What does the number in red or green next to an edit in the revision history do?

I'm talking about the number that appears in next to edits in the revision history. Is it some kind of rating system for edits, and if so how do you vote on it? Headows of Meaven (talk) 16:40, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

@Headows of Meaven: It's not a rating system. It merely indicates how many bytes of data were added to (green) or subtracted from (red) the page in a particular edit. Deor (talk) 16:44, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

How long? Oscarhumpage (talk) 17:05, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

@Oscarhumpage: How long for what? RudolfRed (talk) 18:57, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

shall we delete this page?

yo i was typing gibberish into the wikipedia search bar and found a page on some dude named Eka Santika. It hasn't been updated in a decade. Shall we delete it? Nolanisntfunny (talk) 17:15, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

@Nolanisntfunny: Probably not. Article age or time since last update is not a problem. Is there anything else wrong with it? RudolfRed (talk) 17:21, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

More of what I'm pushing is that it just ends abruptly. Doesn't mention retirement, change of teams, nothing. just stops at 2009-10 Nolanisntfunny (talk) 17:25, 6 September 2020 (UTC)Nolanisntfunny

@Nolanisntfunny, in that case why don’t you try and expand/improve the page? An article being stale is not a valid reason to put it up for deletion. Furthermore what you did here is called vandalism & was quite disruptive please don’t do such again. Celestina007 17:32, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

i did not mean to do that. Nolanisntfunny (talk) 17:38, 6 September 2020 (UTC)nolanisntfunny

aight then. sorta doing what I can... he hasn't seemed to have played a game in 10 years, at least not in the Indonesian SuperLeague, so i'll add former. i'll try and find his stats because as of now his statistics table is blank. another reason why i thought it should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nolanisntfunny (talk • contribs) 17:48, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Nolanisntfunny, we don't delete an article for being out of date or being low-quality. We instead update it and improve it. —valereee (talk) 19:42, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

aight i've done what i could to it... pretty damn impossible to find anything on him. feel like i'm talking to a brick wall when I say it should be deleted... guess i'll stick to hockey. Nolanisntfunny (talk) 19:45, 6 September 2020 (UTC)nolanisntfunny

There is no reason it should be deleted. Notability is not temporary. See WP:N. RudolfRed (talk) 20:25, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, we keep articles for the history that it provides about a person.Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 20:37, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

@Nolanisntfunny: Assuming that the person hasn't played in ten years, why do you think that means it should be deleted? This isn't an "encyclopedia of currently active sports figures". —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 21:27, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

because, and i'm gonna use a word here, there ain't shit about him anywhere. Nolanisntfunny (talk) 02:50, 7 September 2020 (UTC)nolanisntfunny

Existing articles do not need recent content in order to be valid articles. AfD is the process if you are of the opinion that the article should not exist. An Administrator will then make a decision. David notMD (talk) 18:46, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

There's been no coverage of the last 3 months of Jesus's life for 2000 years. By your extremely faulty logic, we should delete Jesus too? Guess so...you'd better go do that. John from Idegon (talk) 19:31, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

@John from Idegon: Hey, could you link me your diff addition about the coverage of Jesus? I want to thank it. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael ^(marhata) 14:25, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Articles in italics

How do you make the name of an article be in italics? Josedimaria237 (talk) 17:53, 6 September 2020 (UTC) Josedimaria237 (talk) 17:53, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Template:Italic title if the article meets the criteria. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:57, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Often you don't need the Italics. If you make the boldface with italics like in Finding Dory, it will automatically become italics. GeraldWL 01:26, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

@Gerald Waldo Luis: Just for your information, the italic title of the article Finding Dory is caused not by any use of "boldface with italics", but by the use of Template:Infobox film, which automatically italicizes the title of the article. (Some other infoboxes, such as Template:Infobox book, also do this.) Deor (talk) 18:28, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Ah, right. GeraldWL 00:41, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Username

Can a username be named after a politician that you support or a political ticket? This is not for myself, I’m asking about another user. Thank you! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 18:45, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

It depends exactly what you mean, Lima Bean Farmer. Using the name of a real person (other than yourself) is not allowed, for example. The policy is at username policy. Side note: it is usually hard to answer general questions relating to policy. It is much more productive to ask about the specific case. I guess that you have a concern about another user's username, but you're not sure, so you don't want to name them. But either their name is OK, in which case there's no problem, or it isn't, in which case you or somebody is going to require them to change. So why not name them? --ColinFine (talk) 19:02, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you ColinFine! Someone had a “Trump Pence” username and since this was political, I didn’t want to name which party they were from at the tea house. You have answered my question and they will be reported. Thank you!Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 19:04, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Does Yapperbot notify users of an RFC long after it started?

On an RFC for Talk:List of My Hero Academia characters, Yapperbot notified several users on August 26, and has not notified any users of it since. Only one user who was notified commented, and they said that since the original header was so long, I would have trouble getting people to comment. The header has since been shortened, but now I’m worried that Yapperbot will not notify anymore users, as it has only done so on one day, when the header was nigh-unreadable. Is Yapperbot able to notify users several weeks after the RFC first started, does it stop notifying if the header is changed, or does it only notify on the same day it was initiated? I’m worried because there has been a content dispute about at least 20 kilobytes going on for a while that I believe an RFC would resolve, but the other user in the dispute hasn’t given any constructive input since January and Yapperbot hasn’t notified anybody since the day the RFC started. Unnamed anon (talk) 18:45, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

@Unnamed anon: Yapperbot appears to be a very new notification bot which I had never heard of until you posted here. It was approved for operation in June 2020. I was going to suggest that you are best getting your concerns addressed by repeating your question at the bot's talk page (i.e. at User talk:Yapperbot), as I'm sure the bot's owner would welcome having feedback if it does not appear to be running smoothly. However I notice there is a message at the top of that page, asking you to post directly to the owners talk page (i.e. User talk:Naypta.) Sorry I can't answer in any more detail than that. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:15, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you anyways. Sorry, I assumed Yapperbot was the only notification bot for RFC’s. Unnamed anon (talk) 00:30, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Trouble with two articles

Header inserted by ColinFine (talk) 19:03, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello,

I am in the process of creating two Wikipedia articles and am having a bit of trouble with them.

The first is for a company called MRI (Medical Research Institute):

Content of first article

MRI WIKIPEDIA: Medical Research Institute (MRI) was a San Francisco-based nutritional supplement company founded by Ed Byrd in 1996. After creating a new category in sports nutrition with the first commercial release of creatine monohydrate supplement with former company EAS (acquired by North Castle Partners in 1999 for $160 million), Byrd started MRI with $140,000. In four years MRI’s valuation had increased to $125 million. MRI created, popularized and sold its flagship product NO2 (nitric oxide), which quickly became GNC’s best selling product in its 70 year history. NO2 increased exercise performance and enhanced recovery. MRI also produced CE2, a creatine-based muscle building product, ProNOS, a protein powder using NO2 technology, and Black Powder, an energy booster in powder form. MRI began by selling Glucotize™, an alpha lipoic acid product used to rejuvenate cells and reduce oxidative stress in aging individuals. Glucotize™ was also used for blood sugar and liver regeneration in diabetes patients, and was recognized by the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation. Byrd developed a proprietary drug delivery system and partnered with GNC. NO2 sales rocketed to the top of the industry very quickly, with bodybuilders, athletes and the fitness community championing the product. Byrd also wrote and published NO2: The 21 Day Transformation (2002), distributed by GNC, which was distributed by GNC and Byrd to educate NO2 customers and promote the product. NO2 became a blockbuster for GNC, becoming the biggest selling sports nutritional product in the last 50 years and generated 5% of GNC gross revenue and backordered for over 2.5 years. At the time GNC was the largest dietary supplement retailer in the world and was publicly traded on Wall Street. MRI was sold to Natrol in 2007. (edited)

The second article is for Ed Byrd (founder of MRI):

Content of second article

Ed Byrd has transformed the performance sports nutrition and dietary supplement industry over the course of a 40 year career with the introduction of two of the top three supplement categories: Creatine (over 100 million kilograms sold since 1992) and nitric oxide (trademarked NO2). Byrd’s formulations have garnered the attention of major pharmaceutical companies, universities, and Nobel Prize winners, including Bristol Myers Squibb, Elan Pharmaceuticals, the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, UCSF, University of Nottingham, and Baylor University. Byrd has been awarded six patents and is associated with multiple clinical trials. Ed Byrd began his career in 1981 with Don Tyson and Associates, pioneer of crystalline, free-form amino acids and amino acid formulas. He rose to VP of Sales and Marketing at Champion Nutrition, which ultimately became Muscle Milk®. He then founded the California Body Club in 1987, developing a crystalline, free-form amino acid formula with the eight essential amino acids, featuring high levels of leucine. This was sourced from biotech corporation, Ajinomoto. During this time, Byrd enhanced this formulation by adding zinc monomethionine and magnesium aspartate, used widely today for athletic performance and known as ZMA. In 1992, Byrd co-founded Experimental & Applied Sciences (EAS), which commercialized creatine monohydrate for strength athletes, selling over 100 million kilos. 700 million bottles have been sold since 1992. The introduction of creatine generated over 110 clinical studies and is now being tested for its application to neurological diseases. EAS also introduced hydroxymethylbutyrate (HMB) in 1996, used to enhance athletic performance. EAS was acquired by Bill Phillips, author of the bestselling book, “Body for Life”, and founder of Muscle Media 2000. Byrd went on to found the Medical Research Institute (MRI) in 1996, inventing and manufacturing Glucotize™, the first controlled-release alpha-lipoic acid for the treatment of diabetic neuropathies. Byrd licensed Glucotize™ to the doctors-only supplement company Xymogen. Glucotize became their number-one selling product. Most notably, Byrd originated and developed NO2(™), the first nitric oxide agonist to improve athletic performance. NO2 generated the highest sales revenue in the history of GNC’s Sports Nutrition Division (5% of GNC’s gross annual revenue in 2004), thus creating the nitric oxide category industrywide. Byrd’s book NO2: The 21 Day Transformation (Medical Research Institute, 2002), sold over 750,000 copies. In 2003, Byrd began investigating Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors (nuclear receptor proteins that serve as transcription factors regulating gene expression) for athletic performance. He contracted a biotech company to synthesize PPAR delta (GW-501-516) at a cost of $10K for one gram for investigational purposes. In 2005, Byrd introduced a PPAR alpha agonist to enhance the NO2 formulation, known as NO2 Platinum(™). (In 2008, the Salk Institute published the first study to turn “couch potato mice into marathon runners” using GW-501-516.) In 2006 MRI introduced Pterostilbene, the methylated version of Resveratrol, to analytics and specialty food ingredient company Chromadex. In 2007 Byrd teamed up with Glanbia to introduce the first eNOS agonist to enhance blood flow, the third generation of NO2, known as the “NO2 Black Label(™).” In 2012, Byrd founded EAB Labs to study exercise signals responsible for mitochondrial biogenesis and epigenetic changes. EAB Labs also engaged in a joint venture with specialty chemical company Evonik on a novel process for the development of pyrroloquinoline quinone (PQQ) that now has GRAS (Generally Recognized as Safe) approval.

- Eablabs (talk) 18:54, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Eablabs, please don't copy the content of the drafts here. You can link to them with Draft:Medical Research Institute and Draft:Ed Byrd. What is the problem that you want help on? --ColinFine (talk) 19:06, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

OK, having looked at your User talk page, your problem is that you have tried to create articles without any idea of how to do so. The first activity in creating an article is to find several reliable published sources, wholly independent of the subject, and with significant coverage of the subject. It's best to do this before writing a single word, because if you cannot find such sources, then the subject will generally fail to meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and there will be no point in spending any more time on the matter. Please look at CITE and YFA. I also note your user name, and wonder if you have an association with Byrd and with MRI? If you have, you need to be aware of the difficulties of editing with a conflict of interest. --ColinFine (talk) 19:12, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Can someone give me some pointers on page editing

I need some editing pointers. I messed something up on Chuck Alkazians page, trying to add a link to AllMusic.com Truth Audit (talk) 19:21, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Truth Audit. You might find Help:Editing and |this guide to adding references of some use. I have also added a welcome message and link to your user talk page. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:37, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Free Speech Search Engines?

Is there a search engine that does not censor or shape search results? Charles Juvon (talk) 20:50, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Charles Juvon Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You may want to ask this question at the Reference Desk, as this board is for asking questions about using Wikipedia. That said, I don't think there is such a thing as a search engine that does not shape results in some manner, as they have to be put in some kind of order. 331dot (talk) 20:54, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Meanwhile, I found https://pal.sri.com/ . Charles Juvon (talk) 23:18, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Making a new article about a person

Hello!

I am helping my friend run for Congress and wanted to add a wiki article for her. I looked at other inspiring people's wiki pages to get an idea on format.

I noticed that some of them were getting into trouble due to lack of notability. Based on what I read, it is important to reference as many independent new sources to increase her notability. Is there anything else I should be doing? She has such an inspiring personal story, it would be shame not be able to catalogue it in the Wikipedia.

Thanks a lot in advance for your help! Kb4congress (talk) 21:19, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Kb4congress. Oh dear, where to start? I assume your friend is Kathy Barnette. You username seems promotional to me, and so you would likely be 'softblocked', and we would require you to change it to something else less 'campaigny'. You would then need to read WP:POLITICIAN and WP:PROMOTION to appreciate that simply running for congress is unlikely to give a person Notability on its own. If however, as seems quite probable for such a candidate, there are numerous in-depth, independent and reliable news stories already about her on which one could base an article, then she might stand a chance. But you would be the worst person to create that article. Being a friend you would almost inevitably bring bias and POV into it, perhaps leaving out some of the less pleasant stories about her (should such exist). You would need to declare your Conflict of Interest before trying to use Wikipedia to push he online presence, and you would do best to spend some time learning the basics of how Wikipedia works before trying to do the hardest task here - creating an article from scratch. Having taken the trouble to learn how we operate here, I'd advise you to use our 'article creation wizard' which allows you to draft an article in your own time (based entirely on published news stories), and to submit it when ready and to receive feedback from reviewers who can tell you if anything needs to be addressed before it were to go live. Please read: this important page about article creation. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:34, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Had a long-winded answer drafted but this sums it up nicely. Giraffer (munch) 21:44, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

You folks are so nice, thank you so much to all of you for this valuable information. I love to learn from Wikipedia and the last thing I want to do is corrupt it with any bias! Ha ha I thought using the "4congress" moniker would be more honest! Anyway, I'll read your links to figure out the best way to do this. Thanks again! Hope all is well in the UK btw. @Giraffer: @Nick Moyes:

Kb4congress (talk) 00:06, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Kb4congress. I'm just going to add to what Nick Moyes posted above. A Wikipedia article is written about a subject, not for a subject or on behalf of a subject. Moreover, a Wikipedia article can bascially be edited by anyone anywhere in the world at anytime, and there's nothing the subject can do to prevent such a thing from happening. As long as article content (good or bad) is in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, it's unlikely going to be removed without establishing a consensus to do so. Neither the subject of an article nor anyone connected to them has any sort of final editorial control over article content as explained in WP:OWN; in other words, your friend will have to follow WP:BIOSELF if she has any issues with the article content. So, before you try and create an article about her, you and she might want to take a look at WP:PROUD and WP:LUC because there can be a downside to having a Wikipedia article written about you.

Articles about politicians (particularly national politicans) tend to be quite popular subjects; so, my guess is that if your friend does end up being elected to Congress, then someone unconnected to her who is familiar with how to create a proper Wikipedia article will likely create an article about her. So, you and she just might want to wait until that happens. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:40, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Did I add a reference correctly?

I just added a reference for the first time here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/977106588?diffmode=source

Is this a good reference for the claim? Also, is there a better way to link to a specific edit? Cheesycow5 (talk) 00:14, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

@Cheesycow5: this appears to be a good reference, and you added it correctly. I do not understand your question about linking to a specific edit, sorry. But what you have done here, at Near Infrared Camera and Multi-Object Spectrometer is just fine, and welcomed! Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 01:57, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

@Tribe of Tiger: Thanks for the feedback! My other question was about the link I placed in the original post to a specific edit I made. Just wondering if there's some wiki markup for those types of links or if I should just use the full url like I did. Cheesycow5 (talk) 02:16, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

@Cheesycow5: Since you asked: the link you provided is to the mobile version diff view, and is fine (we're happy you posted a link at all, let alone a diff ). Each revision of a page has a sequential number, known as a revid or revisionid. In other links, you might see it as the oldid parameter. It's currently 9 digits, as you can see in the URL you pasted. I like to use [[Special:Diff/977106588]], which produces Special:Diff/977106588. You can also use it as a pipelink, adding "|this diff" after the revid, to produce: this diff. If you just want to link to that version of the page (i.e., after that edit, without displaying the diff), you can use [[Special:Permalink|977106588]], which produces 977106588. There are more of these interesting "special pages" at Special:SpecialPages. Cheers. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 02:51, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

@AlanM1: Nice, thanks for the info! Cheesycow5 (talk) 02:55, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) See Help:Diff#Internal links for how to format a diff without using an URL, Cheesycow5, here it would be Special:Diff/977106588 or {{Diff}} could be used. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 02:57, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

(I edit conflicted with User:AlanM1, which means we were trying to post at the same time. Here's my belated answer:)... "@Cheesycow5:, Ah ha, now I understand, sorry! See WP:DIFF, which I believe will answer your perceptive question. Yes, the use of "diffs" is more customary, and the accepted way to point to a specific edit, here on WP. Hope this is helpful. If not, I will signal some editors who can help you"... Now, the funny thing is that if WP:DIFF did not help, AlanM1 was first on my list of helpful editors. Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 03:11, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) On the substantive issue, Cheesycow5 your citation was good but could be improved. The source carried a publication date, which I have added to the citeation. In addition, the title included "In depth" whoch was in no way part of the title of teh source articel, jsut a part of its web-site structure. I have removed that. Hint, any time you see {{!}} in the source of a title generated by a citation tool, or a vertical bar in the output, 99 times out of a hundred something has been shoved into the title that either does not belong at all, or belongs in a different parameter. These tools tend to put things they cannot parse properly into the title marked off with a pipe symbol. Always double check the output of any citation tool against the source, they are good but often imperfect. See Special:Diff/977129334 for my changes. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:21, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

@DESiegel: Interesting, thank you. Cheesycow5 (talk) 03:47, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Question

Hello ! MrPusheen (talk) 02:29, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, MrPusheen. Do you have a question about how to edit Wikipedia ? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 02:49, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

How many pages is made in wikipedia in a minute? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrPusheen (talk • contribs) 02:51, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

@MrPusheen: In the 8 hours starting at 2020-09-06T18:00Z, there were 205 articles created by humans (i.e., non-automated "bots") in the main article namespace. The rate probably varies significantly. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 03:01, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Usernames question

I have come across some users who have the term “Nazi” in their user name but they have not edited within the past two weeks. Is this offensive enough to be reported at the username noticeboard or should these users just be ignored if they haven’t edited recently. Thank you! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 03:14, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Lima Bean Farmer I would ignore them. You will see that the instructions at WP:UAA that accounts with no recent edits (and no ort few overall edits) will generally not be acted on and should not be reported. Also depending on how "Nazi" is used, I am not sure that would always constitute a name offensive enough to be blocked. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:28, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you DES! They will be ignored. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 03:37, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I would like to be an administrator on the English Wikipedia

Hi, I am RealPoliceOfficer and I need help becoming an administrator on the English Wikipedia. If you look on my contributions page, you will find my edits. I have not been vandalizing Wikipedia and I have not been sockpuppeting at all. The reason I would like to become an administrator is because I want to stop vandalism on the site.

Many thanks,

RealPoliceOfficer

(PS: I am a real police officer and not an old school kid like other users claim except me). RealPoliceOfficer (talk) 03:20, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, RealPoliceOfficer and welcome to the Teahosue. The minimum standard for even applying for admin status is to be extended-confirmed, that is, at least 500 edits and AN Account at least 30 days old. You have a ways to go. But as a practical matter, no one who has less than two years editing experience in quite a few different areas of Wikipedia, or less than several thousand edits, is likely to be approved. See WP:RFA and Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship for more information on this. The best way to try to be an admin is to first be a good editor, and work in several areas of the project, and consider what you would so with the tools you are not already able to do with them. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:40, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Oh and, RealPoliceOfficer, we don't much care if you are a real police officer or not, as there is no easy way to verify that unless you choose to edit under your real name, and even then it isn't all that easy to verify. We depend on sources, not the knowledge of the editors, so it doesn't matter that much. Please see WP:EXPERT. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:42, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

RealPoliceOfficer, If you would like to stop vandalism, there are many, many ways to do it without being an admin :) See Wikipedia:Cleaning_up_vandalism for a good guide, plus some helpful tools you can use. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:27, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

As a police officer, I'm sure you'll soon realize that stopping vandalism is as much a pipe dream as stopping crime. We welcome all the help we can get to combat it, and there is absolutely nothing in the administrators toolset that makes that any easier. I'm quite effective at it and am not an administrator. John from Idegon (talk) 04:32, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

RealPoliceOfficer, seconded. Take a few years to learn about Wiki, then you can get adminship. You only have 15 edits here, and no offense, but that's not enough. Check out Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia to learn how to start, and once you become autoconfirmed (which you will be in two days), you can start using tools like Twinkle and RedWarn. Cheers and best regards, ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 04:49, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

• As I explain at User:Ian.thomson/Guide: If you have to ask, you're not ready to be an admin. If you're absolutely positive that you're ready to nominate yourself to be an admin, oh God no, you're not. You're probably only ready for WP:Requests for adminship when you know damn well why you shouldn't be an admin but other people insist you'd do a good job for some reason. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:49, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
• Uh, just a note, I done block'd OP and I seem to have forgotten how to unblock users who are most definitely not sockpuppets (as we can tell from them repeatedly saying over and over that they're not a sockpuppet). Anyway, y'all ever seen the Hypothetical Criminal skits on Reno 911!...? Ian.thomson (talk)

Article rejected

My below article was rejected 3 times for copy paste reason. let me know which data need to remove and which data to keep in article. waiting for your reply. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Saveena_Bedi_Sachar Xenderdom (talk) 06:52, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

@Xenderdom: The article has been deleted because some or all of the material was copy/pasted from bollyy.com. It's really quite simple. You can't copy material from anywhere. It's a violation of copyright law to do so. You have to summarize the sources using your own words and structure (i.e., you can't just change words to synonyms of those words and keep the same sentence and paragraph structure). Please read and understand WP:YFA. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 07:37, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

User name

i am having trouble changing my user name i am in desperate need. i have been told to ask the question here. can someone help me please help me. Alvin kipchumba kosgei (talk) 09:04, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Alvin kipchumba kosgei Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm not sure what the nature of your difficulty is; you may make a username change request using either Special:GlobalRenameRequest(if you have an email added to your account preferences) or WP:CHUS(if you don't). 331dot (talk) 09:21, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alvin kipchumba kosgei (talk • contribs) 09:23, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Archives for Talk:Superstition ?

While obiviously Superstition is a subject of perennial disagreement and history of Talk:Superstition seems to begin from 2002 AD then I wonder why previous discussions of the talk page have not been archived or is it a case of archived but not linked? Please can some one look into this and provide suitable support.

Thanks and regards Bookku (talk) 09:27, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

It looks like its just never been archived. And given the massive chronological mess that it's in, it's going to need someone with free time and the patience of a saint to sort out. Or draw a line under it and just archive the old stuff as-is. - X201 (talk) 09:35, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

@ User:X201, Thanks I did not realize it. It seems that some users before 2007 did not sign and some previous comments before 2007 deleted. But which edit deleted is not clear. Probably some one while adding bigger comment deleted previous ones so it's not visible in minus edits. Btw how to show dif of First edit I can show of dif of second edit Bookku (talk) 04:29, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

• This 28 April 2007 dif seem to have removed signatures from edits. will need Bookku (talk) 04:57, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
• This 9 Dec 2009 dif deletion from talk page seems doubtful.Bookku (talk) 05:10, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Article declined

I'm wondering why my article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Solving_(company) about the Finnish company Solving got declined.

The article is a translation of the same article from Finnish Wikipedia. Avokadomackan (talk) 10:45, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

@Avokadomackan: First, English Wikipedia is a separate project, with its own criteria for notability. An article being present on another Wikipedia is worth no more towards establishing notability than an article on a blog, someone's Facebook page, etc., which is to say, nothing.

This article has been repeatedly declined for various reasons (as it says in all the gray boxes inside the pink boxes stacked at the top of the draft), mostly notability, so I'll stick to that. I looked at the eight sources that are currently present. Four of them are from solving.com or fluid-bag.com, and so are not useful (or even reliable, except for basic facts per WP:PRIMARY). Fonecta.fi appears to be a directory service (it's in our list of yellow pages). Yrittajat.fi is simply a mention of the award, with no WP:DEPTH of coverage. That leaves Manufacturing Today and HSS, both of which have the feel of a paid promotional piece, though I welcome more experienced source reviewers to comment. Even if both were considered independent and reliable, the normal rule of thumb is at least three such sources. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 11:44, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

@Avokadomackan: Also, I've removed the text of the Technology section, which was copied letter-for-letter from the HSS source. Please don't do that. It's against the law. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 11:48, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I confirmed the copying, and used revision deletion to remove the copyrighted text from the history. Thanks for spotting this, AlanM1. Avokadomackan, please understand that you must not copy directly from other sources unless you are inserting a quotation, which must be properly marked, attributed, and cited. Also, a few changes in wording are not enough, the facts must be recast in an original form of expression -- that is write new and original sentences and paragraphs. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:19, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Please review and suggest improvements

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Editingwork8/sandbox Editingwork8 (talk) 10:53, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

You have two versions there. Delete the first one. David notMD (talk) 11:07, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

@David notMD Ok — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editingwork8 (talk • contribs) 11:21, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Deleted some stuff and created sections. Keep working on it. Why so many words capitalized? David notMD (talk) 13:42, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

An Article discrepancy found, I do not edit but would like to report.

There isn't a way I could possibly know what is 100% correct with this issue. A report feels wiser.

wiki article discrepancy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Today%27s_featured_article/Most_viewed

The Sinking of the RMS Titanic is listed twice with different hit values.

under the 100k hits portion: number 6: Sinking of the RMS Titanic (15 April 2012) with 177,500 hits

number 51: (or 12th from the bottom) Sinking of the RMS Titanic (15 April 2012) with 102,184 hits.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Today%27s_featured_article/Most_viewed

The Sinking fo the RMS Titanic is listed twice with different hit values.

under the 100k hits portion: number 6: Sinking of the RMS Titanic (15 April 2012) with 177,500 hits

number 51: (or 12th from the bottom) Sinking of the RMS Titanic (15 April 2012) with 102,184 hits. 2601:C4:8381:6FB0:F4C9:BE11:9F20:10F7 (talk) 11:40, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Try reading it again, the second one doesn't say "15 April 2012"; it says "15 April 2018". David Biddulph (talk) 11:50, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia Page for David Day, Canadian Writer is redirected

Hello,

The wikipedia page for David Day, Canadian Writer has been redirected to "Reception of J. R. R. Tolkien From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 (Redirected from David Day (Canadian writer))"

Please can you help restore to the original page and prevent this from happening again?

This seems to be part of a continuing campaign on information for David Day. KingoftheWoods (talk) 15:09, 7 September 2020 (UTC) KingoftheWoods (talk) 15:09, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Replied at the help desk. Please dont ask the same question multiple times, it wastes everyone's time. Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:10, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I panicked as my page has disappeared to be redirected to a page published by by a fan club.

Please can you help restore.

To assist, I provide my credible sources again.

Current Credible Publishers: Penguin Random House - https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/authors/2142156/david-day Quattro Books - http://quattrobooks.ca/authors/david-day/ Octopus - https://www.octopusbooks.co.uk/contributor/david-day/ Simon and Schuster: https://www.simonandschuster.com/authors/David-Day/141023395 https://www.simonandschuster.ca/search/books/Author-David-Day/Format-Trade-Paperback/Imprint-Thunder-Bay-Press/_/N-1z0zkteZi8xZ1z0zs0c/Ne-pgt?options[sort]=BOOK_ORDER%7C0%7C%7CTITLE%7C1

Current Sales on Amazon - https://www.amazon.com/David-Day/e/B00LX3YZCC%3Fref=dbs_a_mng_rwt_scns_share.

These are not self published but my well known publishers and most have been published in up to 7 languages.

Newspaper/Article Links New Scientist: https://books.google.ca/books?id=EIZI3TDTGTsC&pg=PA44&dq=doomsday+book+of+animal&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj0_Kb2s9frAhWlzlkKHThbB_MQ6AEwAHoECAAQAg#v=onepage&q=doomsday%20book%20of%20animal&f=false BC Book World - https://abcbookworld.com/writer/day-david/ Quill and Quire - https://quillandquire.com/nevermore-a-book-of-hours/ Detroit Free Press - https://freep.newspapers.com/search/#query=David+Day+Tolkien+Encyclopedia https://latimes.newspapers.com/search/#query=david+day+tolkien+illustrated+encyclopedia

TV Links Searching for the Hobbit - https://distribution.arte.tv/fiche/_A_LA_RECHERCHE_DU_HOBBIT_-_EPISODE_1

University https://www.uvic.ca/alumni/impact/home/awards/distinguished/2015-DA-bios/index.php

There are hundreds of reviews of David Day's books easily available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KingoftheWoods (talk • contribs) 16:28, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Please stop posting here, KingoftheWoods. As you were told above, posting in multiple places just wastes people's time. I have replied to you at the Help desk. --ColinFine (talk) 17:17, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

coerced labor - legal forms needed to file a Bonded Labor or Debt Bondage case

legal forms needed to file a Bonded Labor or Debt Bondage case 174.217.1.40 (talk) 17:14, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia. We are not a search engine or a government office. If you want those forms, please use google or ask a lawyer. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:05, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Have any Wikipedia editors died of COVID?

I admit this is kind of a weird question but I am curious. Dingleberries Fincter (talk) 17:51, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Dingleberries Fincter, Yes, a few sadly. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:03, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

John Mock Infobox

Link to page: John Mock

I'm trying to update the instrument list in the Infobox. All of the instruments are appearing in the saved text but aren't appearing in the actual Infobox on the page. Can you please help? Thank you! Bhsas (talk) 22:03, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Bhsas. I've fixed it (more by luck than by judgement, though I can explain how, if you need me to). Please note that the Template instructions make it very clear that "Instruments listed in the infobox should be limited to only those that the artist is primarily known for using. The instruments infobox parameter is not intended as a WP:COATRACK for every instrument the subject has ever used.". So, you will need to cite sources to show that these are the main instruments that they use. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:34, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

The preview as a template, or as a module, or as a JavaScript?

Hi! I just want to ask, if the hover preview function (when you hover on top of a main article, then it shows a preview) exists as a template, a module, or as a JavaScript?

Thanks!
 180.251.144.179 (talk) 00:31, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm new and wanting to publish my first page but having trouble citing sources and web pages and news etc.

Hi. My name is Mike I'm trying to create a new page but got rejected, the editor said:

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by KylieTastic were: This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources. 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. 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. Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved. If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:The Liar's Dividend and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window. If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:The Liar's Dividend, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit. If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted. If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors. KylieTastic (talk) 19:51, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

• • As a bare minimum I need to cite web: https://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/the-liar-s-dividend

and cite news: https://news.abs-cbn.com/overseas/11/25/19/internet-companies-prepare-to-fight-the-deepfake-future

I'm not sure what the rules are on Wikipedia relating to citing social media comments so that is also something I would be interested in taking advice on too...

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:The_Liar%27s_Dividend  Micstusmi (talk) 01:07, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

In the feedback which you received, on the draft & on your user talk page, the words in blue are wikilinks to further advice. Try reading the pages to which the links lead, particularly Help:Referencing for beginners. Also, in quoting the message you added the template {{Db-g7}} to this Teahouse page, thus nominating it for deletion. I have changed your message to link to the template rather than applying it to this page. --David Biddulph (talk) 02:05, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy, the item in question is Draft:The Liar's Dividend. In my opinion, not even close to being acceptable. The entire "...in a sentence" section needs to be deleted, and most of the rest is in the form of an essay, i.e., your original thoughts on the matter, rather than what published sources say. David notMD (talk) 02:31, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

New Editor for Advice

New Editor for Advice Hi, folks. I have a ton of information about the architecture of the Nassau County, NY town where I'm stuck during lockdown. I'm thinking about contributing it to Wikipedia so that if more information can be generated, the seeds will be sown here. A lot of the information is barren. It would be more of the skeleton of a new branch of wikipedia, based on connections made by meticulously studied government records. It's a bit daunting, requiring links to a lot of other pages, and the creation of a lot of new ones, those linking to photos, ultimately, which I've taken and most of which I probably would add to the public domain here. I'm absolutely confident in my writing style at this point, but I can humbly say I'd be happy for any advice as to strategies or pitfalls to avoid.

Thanks so much! Ambassador.Ryan (talk) 01:55, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Ambassador.Ryan. Your first step is to read and study Your first article. I am concerned that the foundation of your work will be "meticulously studied government records". Government records are primary sources which can be used by journalists, historians and other professional researchers. What Wikipedia editors do is summarize the published work of such professionals. But one of our core content policies is that Wikipedia does not publish original research and such content is not allowed in this encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:30, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

As an alternative, you could consider adding a Significant architecture section to Nassau County, New York. Content should be referenced, as as Cullen328 mentioned, to secondary sources, not primary. David notMD (talk) 02:43, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Copiague, New York

i live in the town that you took my stuff i wrote out of Uwuman13 (talk) 02:33, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

An editor reverted your edits because they were vandalism (deliberate misspellings, etc.). David notMD (talk) 02:38, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello Uwuman13. You added your personal opinion that one neighborhood is better than another and some other nonsense, and you got reverted. Please stop all disruptive editing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:40, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Did I make an article?

Did I make an article here? If so, did I do it correctly and does anyone have any suggestions? Is it likely to be deleted? Thank you. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 03:46, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello again, Lima Bean Farmer. Yes that is an article, and at least technically correct in form. Whether the sources are sufficient to pas WP:NORG and so demonstrate Notability, I am not prepared to judge at the moment. I did add a minor clarification that this is a US political group campaigning in a US election, which the article failed to state. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 04:40, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Some issues with sources and article-editing

I tried to edit the article Chandragupta Maurya with information I found recently on reliable sources, particularly books and old encyclopedias, but when I publish it, another user tells me there are not enough sources. However, the sources I use are not online opinions, but rather books and old encyclopedias on print and PDF. Why, still, my article edits keep getting undone by others? MansoBoricua (talk) 04:57, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for asking, MansoBoricua. You and RegentsPark should discuss this at Talk:Chandragupta Maurya. -- Hoary (talk) 05:32, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Where do we discuss the subjects of an Article?

I am not sure I understand, and now I am scared to be banned from Wikipedia.

I made a SINGLE "undo" on a page about Patriot Prayer. I was not aware there was a partisan edit war going on. I then added "talk:" in front of the url and discussed why I made the undo (First, Do No Harm) Then an admin told me: "we don't use talk pages to discuss the subjects of an article, however interesting your question might be"

I am afraid to continue on the talk page, because people are saying things I do not understand, using jargon I have never come across before: "I suggest ANI or ArbEnf on Rian Geldenhuys' repeated NOTHERE behavior, if he isn't blocked or banned before you get to it."

Please help - I am not here to fight - only to build an encyclopedia. I was a television news editor for 22 years and consider myself experienced in avoiding harmful biographies of living persons. I cite the sources accurately and am told it is "contrary to the sources". Rian Geldenhuys (talk) 05:21, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

• Link: Joey Gibson (political activist)

You appear to be talking about something in "Talk:Joey Gibson". Gibson is the founder (I read) of something called "Patriot Prayer" (PP). You take very seriously his description of PP. I'd agree that his description of it is worth a mention; but what matters much more are descriptions of PP from independent, reliable, published sources. There are numerous instances of organizations describing themselves in one way but being generally described in more or less authoritative sources in a way that contradicts this; Wikipedia follows the latter. Wikipedia avoids what's potentially libelous; but as for harm, it avoids harming its readers by whitewashing what's important and verifiable in order not to hurt the feelings of particular people. -- Hoary (talk) 05:51, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Dear Hoary Thank you very much - but with the greatest of respect - could you also try and answer my question: "Where do we discuss the subject of an Article?" That said - let us use the case/example for the sake of gaining clarity. Your point about the harm of whitewashing it taken. But so is the harm of telling one sided stories. I respectfully disagree with your assumption that I "take very seriously his description of Patriot Prayer". You are incorrect to assume that. I worry when my personality is under discussion. In the last 24 hours I have been called a "bot", a "repeated NOTHERE behaviour" person and a stalker and was accused of threatening people with a lawsuit. I am not even in USA, so I can certainly not sue anyone there - neither do I want to. For the record - I do not take him seriously - I take the sources seriously and the sources tell both sides of the story. If I have a POV, it is to report both sides of the story without fail. As I said I have many years of experience and TV News editor at a Public Broadcaster and I do not have a POV on the matter. I notice though that the selective characterisation seems to cause people to shoot each other. I do not take HIM seriously. I take the SOURCES seriously and the sources say that he describes himself as a "Moderate Libertarian". It is my humble submission that the sources are selectively used, and that is not encyclopaedic. I wish for Wikipedia to be encyclopedic - because it is all we got. Rian Geldenhuys (talk) 07:05, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

• @Rian Geldenhuys: Where do we discuss the subject of an article? Nowhere. As such this diff is (slightly) offtopic.

Regarding your main point, it has been explained to you at length already that we do not respect a subject's self-characterization when it goes opposite what reliable sources say. For example, politicians of all party affiliations and all nationalities have a tendency to claim they are the victim of a vast judicial/media conspiracy when they are accused of or condemned for various crimes; it would be absolutely not "balance" or "fairness" to report this self-interested characterization against reliable sources as a "both sides" story, see WP:BALANCE. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:07, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Rian Geldenhuys, your edit summary "What a living person SELF IDENTIFIES as is what we write - not what others that do not know him claims he is" shows a misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia's policy is to base its articles on what is written about the subject in reliable independent published sources. What a subject says about himself is likely to be biased, and should be treated as unreliable – though it may be quoted. Maproom (talk) 07:51, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

True, but one shouldn't attribute a description to a particular source when the description doesn't appear there. And this, I think, is what RG objects to. -- Hoary (talk) 07:59, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I looked, and I agree that you (Rian Geldenhuys) have a point. And so I've added my two groats on that talk page. (Perhaps I'll be blocked too!) Advice: stay cool and terse. (And don't suggest that you're particularly well qualified to make judgments, even if you are.) -- Hoary (talk) 07:59, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

@Hoary: just to clarify, Rian Gildenhuys wrote " I happen to take an interest in why people murder others in the street and I saw a video of this man mourning his friends death in Portland. I am wondering what caused the murder and mayhem. Could it be because of demonisation and symbolisation? Rian Geldenhuys (talk) 6:06 am, Yesterday (UTC+1)" It was that specific comment that I told him wasn't appropriate for the article talk page, not his other comments. The comment about ANI was made by @Hipal/Ronz: who might want to chip in. Doug Weller talk 08:25, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

No objection from me to your objection, Doug Weller, to that comment. (And pinging Hipal, as I believe he is.) -- Hoary (talk) 08:50, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

This is very sweet Jorm. Does that mean you are an Administrator? Should I obey your every whim? Is it time to move a service such as Wikipedia OUT of the USA perhaps? Is the Electronic Frontier at risk? Did Aaron Swartz sacrifice so much for nothing? [1]. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:14, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Sweetpool50 appears to be engaging in "gatekeeping" behaviour.

I was notified that a copyedit I'd made to Beau Brummell had been undone, with the comment "not helpful". Looking at the history of that article, this user has made more undoes to this article than actual substantive edits, undoing nearly every change made to it. On reviewing Special:Contributions/Sweetpool50, this is a more general pattern; user's behaviour seems to fit patterns at WP:OWN. How to proceed? IceKarmaॐ 06:25, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi IceKarma. While I wouldn't have probably left the same edit summary as Sweetpool50 did when they reverted the edit you made, I do tend to agree that your edit, though made in good faith, was probably not an improvement per se. Generally, MOS:DATERANGE advises us to use spaced n-dashes in cases when dates in different years are involved; so, your change to a regular n-dash seems contrary to that. In addition, although bold text is also used for the first mention of names in articles per MOS:BIO#First mention, I think your tweak of the bold syntax for "Beau" was a mistake per MOS:BIO#Pseudonyms, stage names, nicknames, hypocorisms, and common names since your edit made the quote marks also bold, which doesn't seem to be common practice. As for the other change you made, moving the reference inside of the paranthesis could unintentionally change the target of the citation from the everything that precedes the footnote marker to only the date of Brummell's death. That might have been why that part of your edit was also undone.

As for your general comments about gatekeeping, it probably would be a bit more helpful for Sweetpool50 to leave more specific edit summaries which actually reference the policy and guideline reason an edit is being undone; however, lots of editors also don't do as much and it's perfectly OK for you to ask for clarification about the edit on the article's talk page if you like. So, I'm not sure that the edits being made to that article disruptive which is what gamekeeping behavior seems to imply. Some editors are highly vested in certain articles per WP:STEWARDSHIP, which is not automatically a bad thing; however, you should feel free to ask for clarification for any edits that were made on the article's talk page if you think it's needed or you're unable to figure out why they were made. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:54, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion re disambiguation bot

There is a BOT that advises editors that they have linked to a disambiguation page rather than directly to the article in question. My suggestion is to mark disambiguated links as soon as they occur, instead of waiting days for the BOT to advise you. Something like this:

• Hooo - red - no such page or spelling error.
• Ho - blue - disambiguation page - should be say yellow.
• Ho - blue - good - no disambiguation ----MountVic127 (talk) 06:33, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

@MountVic127: There is an add-on listed in Preferences that allows you to see that. I see them as yellow. -- a lad insane (channel two) 06:38, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I wish more people would enable that gadget. It's incredibly useful. Instead of the gadget, I use a more orangeish color by simply adding the following line to Special:MyPage/common.css:

.mw-disambig {color:#FF8921 !important;}

—[AlanM1 (talk)]— 18:13, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Article Publish Problem

what is the problem in my article as i wasnt published... and i am not being able to understand the reason of decline.. here is the link of draft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Zillur_Rahman_Khan FahimRahmanKhan (talk) 10:34, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

FahimRahmanKhan, you article isn't acceptable at all in its current form. Wikipedia is not the place to write what you know. Everything you add here is required to be paraphrased from reliable published sources, without exception, and you should cite those sources. You should read WP:Your first article where what is required for any new article is explained. After you read that, feel free to return here if you need help understanding that guide. John from Idegon (talk) 10:58, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

It appears from your name, the subject of the article may be a relative of yours. If so, please also read WP:COI. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 11:00, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Article text should not contain hyperlinks. Nothing should be bold except the first use of the subjects name. You have many red wikilinks on names of organizations that are unlikely to ever be articles. And you have lots of unnecessary capitalizations. Of greater importance than any of this, all of your content is not referenced. David notMD (talk) 12:26, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Concerned about Urdu Wikipedia articles' truthiness and neutrality

I don't know Teahouse is the right platform for this issue or not, but I am posting my concern. (Please mention the right platform to address this concern) I auto translated some of the Urdu Wikipedia articles just for curiosity and read, I shocked by the false and propaganda type content on that Urdu Wikipedia. I am posting some of these here, compare it with English Wikipedia (Which is most edited and trustworthy).

• Operation Dwarka English - Urdu

Urdu version claims two Indian officers and 13 salesmen were killed, while English Wikipedia claims no casulties.

• Kargil War English - Urdu

Urdu version claims No country has had a clear victory in this war. But the Pakistani army shot down three Indian fighter jets. In addition, the Indian army lost its balance in the Kargil sector and killed more than 700 soldiers, while English Wikipedia says Decisive Indian victory.

• Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 English - Urdu

Urdu version claims Taking advantage of the Pakistani government's actions, Bengali separatists took advantage of the Mukti Bahini separatist movement in the eastern part of Pakistan, which later turned into a violent guerrilla force. India did not let this golden opportunity go to waste and showed its hypocrisy and took advantage of Pakistan's civil war and Mukti Bahini. it hardly seems neutral!!!

• Kashmir English - Urdu India and Pakistan want to plunder the resources of Kashmir like paradise and US imperialism is taking its interests from both the countries by keeping both the countries in a state of war.
• UN mediation of the Kashmir dispute English - Urdu

The UN resolution of 13 August 1948 stated that Pakistan would first withdraw its troops from Kashmir. Pakistan accepted the demand, but on March 14, 1950, the Security Council passed a resolution stating that the two countries would begin withdrawing troops at the same time. a false claims and propaganda type statements.

Although I stated few lines here, the most part of some articles are neutrality disputed and contains manipulated content. Majority of India-Pakistan related articles are neutrality disputed. I don't know the Urdu language enough to edit those articles. I can only add neutrality tags on it. (All lines I quote here from Urdu Wikipedia are auto translated by google translator.) ❯❯❯Praveg ^A=9.8 10:45, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Pravega, this is English Wikipedia. It's an entirely separate organization with its own policies and procedures from Urdu Wikipedia. You'll need to contact someone at Urdu Wikipedia. John from Idegon (talk) 10:52, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Pravega, as this isn't an English Wikipedia issue, we can't help much. You might want to bring this up on Meta Wiki, or the . There are clear issues here that need to be addressed ASAP. Ed talk! 10:57, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Can anyone post the link of exact platform of Meta Wiki where I can post this issue??❯❯❯Praveg ^A=9.8 11:07, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Black Squirrels

Do black squirrels have blue eyes??? I have a picture of one with blue eyes is it rare??? 98.22.49.219 (talk) 11:33, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Dunno. Teahouse is not for these questions. User:98.22.49.2.Nihaal 12:31, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Format fixed Victor Schmidt (talk) 13:04, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

@98.22.49.219: Probably rare. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael ^(marhata) 14:28, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

This would be a good question for the Wikipedia:Reference desk. Please ask there. Also, @User:Jeromi Mikhael, pings don't work for Ips. Ghinga7 (talk) 15:21, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

COMPANY PAGE DELETED

Hi all,

new to this page, but not new to wikipedia. I established a fashion company 17 years ago. Around 15 years ago i posted a wiki page so that anyone interested in finding out the factual basis behind the company could do so. At the time i viewed (and still do) wikipedia as a reliable and factual based resource to discover 'fact' based information on a particular subject. The name of the fashion company is KING APPAREL. The article has existed in place since that time until now, 15+ years, and has now been deleted, based on a 'wiki gnomes' opinion that the article was not notable enough.

The brand is sold globally, online, exists on all major social platforms and without trying to come across as conceited, is one of, if not the foremost streetwear brand certainly in the United Kingdom and recognisable globally.

So i'm seeking some advice from more knowledgeable people from wikipedia, with regards to how i can re-post the brand page on wikipedia without having someone find fault and look to take it down again. Essentially the page is supposed to be a fact based resource article on the brand. That is all.

Incidentally, i do realise that wikipedia may view that i have a conflict of interest with posting a factual based page on a brand i founded and to this end i have declared this openly on my talk page so it is transparent. I would also like to point out that i have been told that this has nothing to do with the removal of the page.

Any tips and advice would be welcome.

many thanks Tim Hoad --Timhoad (talk) 11:50, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

The article was deleted as the result of this discussion (in which you were eligible to participate). The reason given for deletion wasn't that KA wasn't notable (in any normal sense of the word); it was that sources used for the article weren't reliable and didn't establish what Wikipedia terms notability. -- Hoary (talk) 12:22, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Timhoad Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You have a common misconception about what Wikipedia is; it is not a place for companies to tell the world about themselves, or as you put it, "posting a factual based page" Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that summarizes only what independent reliable sources with significant coverage (not name drops, brief mentions, press releases, routine business announcements, etc.) have chosen on their own to say about the subject, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable organization. Wikipedia has no interest in what a company wants to say about itself. It is usually very difficult for people in your position to write in the manner required; you in essence need to forget everything you know about your company and only write based on the content of independent sources. 331dot (talk) 12:25, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi guys, i am aware of the conversation in 2007 as i was part of that at the time. I also understand the concept of what wikipedia represents. What i find hard to understand is why pages exist for other brands - for example >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lifted_Research_Group which are effectively identical as the pre-existing KING APPAREL page, yet wikipedia does not appear to have a problem with these pages?! There appears to be no cohesive consensus in this case. So if LRG can write a page about their brand, i would like to know how we can.

thank you --Timhoad (talk) 13:05, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Timhoad. In the deletion discussion, the article was described as It's blatantly promotional and full of editorialization/puffery.. Having reviewed the deleted text, I must agree. Such text as King has grown through an unwavering work ethic and constantly evolving dynamic:, From this modest beginning King has now grown to present fully comprehensive seasonal collections. KING have utilised their experience and knowledge in headwear development to manufacture their own line of headwear whilst paying homage to the old school, low profile, square bill shape of the original Starter hats and many other such comments ar quite unacceptable in a Wikipedia article. Besides better sourcing, this article needed a major rewrite to achieve neutrality. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 13:09, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Timhoad Using the argument that other poor quality articles exist is not going to help. Theroadislong (talk) 13:13, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Tim, as this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, poor quality articles will get by us, it's just the way it is. You're welcome to assist the thousands of editors in detecting and addressing them if you wish. 331dot (talk) 14:10, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

hi guys, thank you for your input. the copy has been rewritten to exclude the "editorialisation/puffery". I agree that articles should not promote the subject matter, merely provide a factual and informative context. I would appreciate some prior vetting before attempting to get something back up if anyone would be happy to have a look. I would also assume that posting of said article should come via another independent source. I don't want there to be any conflict of interest if i can help it.

many thanks.--Timhoad (talk) 19:39, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Rating question

What topics are rated higher than others? How should I go about contributing to a lower rated article?

I am a new editor on Wikipedia Cory C Ccarson2 (talk) 11:56, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

@Ccarson2: You can choose your favourite topic but try going on to improving stubs and try making your own article. Use This,this,This and This For articles..Nihaal 12:27, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

You appear to be a student in a Wikipedia class project. I imagine your instructor can be of some help. In general, at the top of Talk pages for articles, the articles are classified Stub, Start, C-class, B-class, etc. These are quality rankings. As Nihaal pointed out, adding reliably sourced references is a good starting point. A more advanced level of expertise would be replacing bad references. David notMD (talk) 12:35, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia has many feeble articles. Here's one that I discovered just today: Sharman Kadish. At a glance, it looks serious enough, and it has no warning templates. But if you examine it you discover that it has only two sources: (i) the biographee's own website; (ii) the website of an organization headed by the biographee. This is unacceptable. I don't know if the biographee merits an article; but if she does, it should be far better than this. -- Hoary (talk) 13:14, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

One of your school lessons points out the need to comply with WP:MEDRS for any topic that relates to health, medicine, psychology... Not complying means your edits will be reverted (reversed). David notMD (talk) 15:52, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Added a reference to a scientific study done in 37 countries - Did I do it right?

On Emotional Intelligence - thought it was helpful to see some actual research. Please let me know if done correctly! TruthLover123 (talk) 11:59, 8 September 2020 (UTC) @TruthLover123:

It reads like you reverted the old edit. Good.Nihaal 12:23, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

At Emotional intelligence, too much detail in your description, and you did not comply with standard reference format. Go back and fix. See other website refs for format. David notMD (talk) 12:41, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

You added just a bare URL. In this edit I expanded it to show further detail. David Biddulph (talk) 12:46, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Article Publish Problem (References Added)

Article Publish Problem (References Added)

I have added cite in my article as a proof of references from published newspaper url. Is my article now able to be publish? If its yes then i want to submit it again for review FahimRahmanKhan (talk) 12:54, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

@FahimRahmanKhan: To submit an article for review, insert {{subst:submit}} to the top of the page you want to submit for review. Note that you need to copy it as it appears when you view this page, not as it appears in the edit window. Victor Schmidt (talk) 13:02, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

The draft has been declined twice, and many of the references are just passing mentions of the person by name rather than having extensive content about him. Also, there are sentences praising him that have no references, and are therefore seen as coming from you - the article creator - rather than independent, published sources. Draft needs more work. David notMD (talk) 15:58, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Help learning wikitext

Hello!

I just created a Wikipedia account, and I would like to know if any experienced Wikipedians would like to teach me the basics of Wikitext editing. I would greatly appreciate it if somebody was willing to guide me through my first couple of days on Wikipedia. My sandbox is at User:Ravenzing/sandbox for reference. Ravenzing (talk) 13:04, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

@Ravenzing: I suggest you have a look at Help:Wikitext, which covers most of the things you need for editing pages on Wikipedia. If you look for something to do, look at the Task Center. Maybe Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user is something for you. Victor Schmidt (talk) 14:08, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

@Ravenzing: see also Help:Introduction. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:03, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

@Ravenzing: Keep in mind that you can always view the text of an existing article and use that as a model. This is something I do from time to time. For example, I wanted to add a "citation needed" flag to an article I was editing but didn't know how to do that. So I found an existing article that had that flag, then went into "Edit source", from which I could see the relevant code. This approach shouldn't replace Help:Wikitext or the other help sources mentioned above, but might help supplement your knowledge. Mike Marchmont (talk) 16:39, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

My article has been moved back to draft after 90 days in mainspace

Hello Teahousers, I asked a question a week or so ago about Google searches, and I was happy to discover on Friday that my article was finally being found by Google. Thank you to those who replied. But this morning when I logged on, I discovered that someone named John from Idegon had moved the entire article back to draftspace, saying it had no sources. But it has books, magazines, and newspapers! How do I reverse this? Is there anyone I can appeal to? I've worked really hard on this, and I'm so disappointed. Btbky (talk) 13:45, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

To anyone reading this, I would suggest moving the responses to User_talk:John_from_Idegon#The_Iris_Network. Victor Schmidt (talk) 14:02, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I did leave a message on John's talk page but he has not responded. Btbky (talk) 14:14, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Can only edit source

Hello, I'd like to put references on my draft, but I can only edit the source. I remember from the Dutch wikipedia that I could Edit this Page, without having to mess around with the source code. Why can't I do this on my draft? It is hard referencing in the source code instead of the "front page". All my references are on the Dutch wikipedia page https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariecke_van_der_Linden My draft page is called Mariecke van der Linden. Draft:Mariecke van der Linden) Voortgang (talk) 16:04, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Voortgang. When I pick "Edit" on your draft, there is then a pencil icon at the top right, allowing me to switch between visual editing and source editing. Have you got that? --ColinFine (talk) 16:23, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

How to start as a beginner

How do I start as a beginner in creating Wikipedia pages such as bios. 41.190.3.141 (talk) 16:54, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

See WP:YFA But, creating new articles is not an easy task for a beginner. It is better to start by working to improve existing articles instead, to gain experience. Try WP:ADVENTURE, the interactive learning game. RudolfRed (talk) 17:14, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Creating a Wikipedia account for yourself is very helpful.

Working on biographies is very difficult, because they are held to a very high standard per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, and there are special editing restrictions on them. If you work from reliable, independent sources, you shouldn't go far wrong. WP:RSP and WP:RSN are helpful in determining if a source is reliable. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 18:27, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Help with making a project page look beautiful

Hello! I am helping to run a wikipedia project dedicated to creating and improving articles about photographers whose photos are held at the Conway Library at the Courtauld Institute of Art. I have made a very basic project page Wikipedia:WikiProject ConwayLibrary, but I would love some help to make it look fancier (especially as some of our lists of articles to create/ edit/ outcomes are getting rather long). Any pointers (even to existing help pages or 'guides', I have had a look but am not having much success) very happily received! KerstingFan (talk) 17:26, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

@KerstingFan: Try, Wikipedia:User page design center. In haste, Nick Moyes (talk) 18:24, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Thank you so much! This is just the sort of info / guide I was looking for! :) KerstingFan (talk) 18:26, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

How to report unwanted edits and vandalism

How to report continues edits which include vandalism and not proper edits by specific user. Is there any option to stop his edits in some specific page Rahul Soman^{talk - contribs} 08:33, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello Rahulsoman, and welcome to the Teahouse. On Wikipedia, we have a warning system. If an editor makes an unhelpful edit, you can use a template to tell them. Start with the level 1 warning, and work your way up if they do not stop. If after the level 4 warning they have not stopped, report them to WP:ANI, or drop a message on an admin's talk page. If they are a vandal, report them to WP:AIV. That said, please be careful when using the word vandalism, as it has a very specific meaning here. More info is available here.

Please note that you should not use warnings against users you disagree with. They should be used objectively. The warnings are available at WP:WARNINGS. Hope this helps. Regards, Giraffer (munch) 17:42, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your reply Giraffer (munch).

Hi @Rahulsoman, you can easily revert edits by users by using tools such as Wikipedia:Twinkle or Wikipedia:RedWarn, which also warns vandals. These tools also have features built in to report to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism which is where you can report vandals that you have warned. Ed talk! 17:37, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply Ed talk!. Wikipedia:Twinkle I am not much familiar with and dint felt comfortable. I will go through Wikipedia:RedWarn.

Erasing a message from my talk page

How can I erase a response from my talk page? I sent the message that should go to the Wikipedia page in Portuguese to my talk page in English. Lamanix (talk) 18:14, 8 September 2020 (UTC) Lamanix (talk) 18:14, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Lamanix. Simply click 'edit source' for that particular post, select some (or all) of the text, and delete, then Preview, then Publish. If you want to delete the entire thread, inclding the heading, select everything and then deleting it (shortcut method: by pressing Ctrl-A, then Ctrl-X) and then Publish Changes. Nick Moyes (talk) 18:21, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Question regarding notability?

Hello,

My question is regarding notability. Can I possibly write about a company based within Ontario Canada and its history? 74.15.25.171 (talk) 18:36, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

See WP:Notability. If you want more specifics, you need to provide details here for us to be able to judge the notability of the company. Also, if it is a company you are related to, I strongly suggest that you do not write about it. On Wikipedia, we call this a conflict-of-interest, and many editors will be a lot harsher on drafts written by an editor with a COI as it is generally frowned upon within the community. For more info on COIs, see WP:COI and for more info on how we create articles, see WP:AfC and WP:YFA. Regards, Giraffer (munch) 19:16, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Remove my page completely from Wikitia

How can I remove this page completely? Everytime i am typing my name Padmini Dutta Sharma , I see my links on Wikitia. Please help me remove my links from Wikitia. Pdswashington (talk) 18:36, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Pdswashington, and welcome to the Teahouse! Unfortunately, Wikitia is not related to Wikipedia, so we can't help you with that here. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:42, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

What Is Meant by Contributions Not Being Constructive?

Recently, I made a "contribution" about Pete Conrad, in the "In popular media" section, in regards to him having had a cameo role in 1996 on "Beverly Hill 90210." I submitted, "In 1996, Conrad played himself on the teen drama ""Beverly Hill 90210" on the episode "Nancy's Choice"." However, it was deleted because of it not being constructive... what does that even mean? How many people actually look for Conrad's Wikipedia page, never mind that the information was actually factual? It's no more or less "constructive" than this passage on Conrad's page: "In 1998, Conrad played himself on the CBS sitcom Family Matters, Season 9, episode 21."...? 2601:805:C280:F360:F5A2:C8C2:6382:257A (talk) 18:45, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

TJRC reverted your edit with the summary "unsourced". Anything that is not common knowledge (like the information you added) should be cited to a reliable source to allow other editors and readers to verify it (see those links for details). The best thing to do when you have an issue with an edit (or a reversion) by another editor is to discuss it with them, either on the article talk page (in this case Talk:Pete Conrad) or on the user's talk page (in this case User talk:TJRC). If you use the article's talk page, you should include a ping of the user involved. In this case, you could start your message with {{Re|TJRC}}, which renders as "@TJRC:". You don't have to do this when leaving a message on the user's own talk page, though, since they are notified in that case anyway.

As far as How many people actually look for Conrad's Wikipedia page ..., that sounds like you're saying "nobody looks at this, so it doesn't matter what I write", which is totally the wrong attitude. We're trying to collect and curate information accurately here. There are problems with a lot of it that has slipped through the cracks over the years, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to be better. See WP:OSE. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 20:49, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Woodrow Wilson categories need to be changed?

Woodrow Wilson is listed in a category of white supremacist. Is this a joke or what? He was a President and that seems a fairly serious charge without any evidence presented, please remove for me or tell me how to change this? Ty78ejui (talk) 19:09, 8 September 2020 (UTC) Ty78ejui (talk) 19:09, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Ty78jui, for any questions regarding specifics articles, take them to the article's talk page (in this case Talk:Woodrow Wilson). Giraffer (munch) 19:22, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

@Ty78ejui: the statement in the lead is cited to two recent sources – a NY Times article and a Cambridge University Press-published book (click on the little ^[3] and ^[4] after it). You may want to read a relevant discussion about the treatment of the issue eight months ago at Talk:Woodrow Wilson#Whitewashing the race relations part of the article. and/or start a new section on that page if you have issues with those sources or the way they are interpreted. Thanks. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 20:56, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I am not interesting in starting a debate on Woodrow Wilson on his talk page. I just feel that category is incorrect. Just having some racist believes does not make someone (a former President) a White Supremacist. Having that makes the article non neutral. I would like to remove him from that category. I also don't want to spend hours researching and debating. The category listing just makes Wikipedia look like it is rewriting history in a bias way. I am not against having evidence on his article, only feel the category listing is unfair. Why not also put both Mark Twain and Lovecraft then under White Supremacist and then change the category to "harbored racist views". To be a White Supremacist person needs to actively worked towards that goal for example Hitler belongs in it.Ty78ejui (talk) 20:56, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

@Ty78ejui: I'm sorry, but this is a general editing help forum. Other editors interested and experienced with that article are found at the article's talk page. It's also the place where people would look for previous discussions about the article, so it's in everyone's best interest that it be in one place. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 21:05, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Citing a website that contains a searchable database

Hello, first teahouse visit. I have a question on citations.

I would like to cite a scientific society's website, where they provide a searchable database of awards they have made; I'm trying to provide a verifiable source for an award for the person I'm writing about. If the reader would have to go to the website, then type in the name to search, does this constitute an acceptable source? That is, if the reader has to do some work, is that still ok?

Thanks in advance! Gigiandd (talk) 19:14, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Gigiandd, and welcome to the Teahosue.

Databases are a problem for Wikipedia mas sourfes, because if it is a live DB, even with t4eh exact same search, the reader is not guaranteed to get the same result as the editor did. Editors are instructed not to cite web searches for that reason. But in that case it is pretty much always possible to cite the final result page(s) that the search finds. But for a DB record, that is not normally the case.

There is the start of a discussion on this at Wikipedia talk:Citation templates# Citing archival databases but it petered out because the particular DB used as an example is just repeating info from a source citable directly.

We do not have a {{cite DB}} or the like. For an award, i woulds try hard for an announcement of it being made, either from the society or from news coverage. if there was no coverage, it is probably not much of an award anyway. But that coverage existed does not make it easy to find and cite, particularly if this was pre-internet. If the DB has a unique record ID that can always be sued to find the exact same info, i would include that in the citation. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:45, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for these helpful suggestions! Gigiandd (talk) 21:44, 8 September 2020 (UTC)gigiandd

How do you do a autobiography

How would you format an autobiography? Vindem5 (talk) 19:27, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean? If you are using one as a reference you'd format it like any other reference and if you are doing it about yourself . . ...... don't. Carptrash (talk) 19:39, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Carptrash's point, perhaps a bit terse, is that Wikipedia tries to dissuade people from crafting an autobiography (see WP:AUTO) because it is difficult to write about oneself with a neutral point of view, and only depend on what can be referenced written by other people. David notMD (talk) 20:20, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

And your draft has been Rejected, which is stronger than Declined. The former means no change while the latter means needs work. David notMD (talk) 20:24, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Curiosity

What is a "diff"? I've seen it on a few pages, but could never figure out what it meant. I think it means different, but I'm not sure. Can someone clarify? Also, how do some Wikipedia users make their names multi-colored? That's also something else I've tried to figure out, but have been unable to. This is my first time in the Teahouse, so I apologize if I look like I don't know what I'm doing. TheKingCartii (talk) 19:59, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi @TheKingCartii, welcome to the Teahouse. A diff page is short for a "difference page". It shows you the changes made (differences) between two edits (revisions). You can read more about them over at Help:Diff. As for making your signature (where you can make your name multi-coloured), you can read this section of Wikipedia:Signatures. I hope these linked pages help :) Ed talk! 20:08, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

@TheKingCartii: By way of an example, if you click this link, you will see the 'diff' which shows your actual timestamped edit. On the left side of the page you see the old version of the page, and on the right the next version of it. Each shows who made the edit, and allows us to undo it, go to the editor's user page, check their contirbutins, or move forwards or backwards by one edit. Lower down the page you see what that page looked like after that edit of yours. Hope this helps, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:11, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

For @RegentsPark: Why does my article require some changes, if I did research on books by actual Indian authors?

For @RegentsPark: Why does my article require some changes, if I did research on books by actual Indian authors?

Good evening, RegentsPark! I understand you have concerns about the article on Emperor Chandragupta Maurya and my edits on it. But I did research those books on PDF (dating back to the 19th century and the 1970's) and many of the sources are written by actual Indian and Ceylonese historians, not religious authors. By the way, I found that the date of 312 B. C. was a commentary of an actual Indian historian, K. C. Jain, which I found on the Wikipedia article 'Mauryan Empire'. Also, the three ancient sources found on Paranavithana's 1971 book say the same thing about a princess named Berenice marrying the Emperor of Pataliputra. Yes, I know some of the information is written by Jain and Buddhists authors, but the main source was information given verbally by an East Roman merchant dating back to the 12th Century on a visit to Ceylon (Paranavithana, 1971).

Well, I'm not trying to be rude; I just wanted to share some information I found on old sources. I did read other sources, like the House of Seleucus and The Land of the Elephant Kings. So, I believed all of that information could be relevant to Wikipedia. And no, I would never intend vandalism. I just wanted to add key details I found on these books and sources.

By the way, I also watched the film Samrat Chandragupt, and it's a public domain movie from India. And from what I've learned from other Wikipedia users, the extensive sources on the Greek general Seleucus never mention a Mauryan lady marrying a Macedonian general.

Quite frankly, I don't understand why the links are still unsourced, even if I write their authors' names. These books are actually available on the internet, and are not religious or legendary, but serious historical analysis by actual teachers and historians. I understand you are concerned, and if you're able, please, please let me know why my edit is not sourced.

I promise if there's an error or more, I will surely correct it using Wikipedia's guidelines.

Kind regards! MansoBoricua (talk) 20:52, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy ping: @RegentsPark Ed talk! 21:01, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi @MansoBoricua, welcome to Wikipedia, and to the Teahouse. If you want to contact an editor directly, it's best to use their "talk" page. You can do this by either clicking "talk" in their signature, or elsewhere where there username appears. There, you can click "new section" to start writing a message. There's no need to do this in this situation as I have "courtesy pinged" RegentsPark so they have received a notification. You will likely be pinged in the same way when you receive a response. Many thanks, Ed talk! 21:05, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

:Erasing a message from my talk page

@Nick Moyes: Thank you, Nick. Lamanix (talk) 22:39, 8 September 2020 (UTC)