Wikipedia:Teahouse

Dbfirs, a Teahouse host

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

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

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

Help Wikipedia

How can I get my article approved using a picture of the subject whose copyright I am unsure of?

The article was initially rejected as the picture of the subject of the article (my grandfather, now deceased) was a copy of a portrait by an artist (my great grandfather, now deceased), and I do not what the copyright is on that. My family owns the picture, do we hold the copyright?

I then let too much time pass and the submission had been deleted or something like that. I tried re-submitting the article with another picture of the subject, this time taken from a published source that could reference. I have not had any luck.

I have asked for clarification from 'editors' who approve my article but I really do not understand the advice they are giving. It seems they always refer to another set of abstract rules and I cannot get a straight answer. I have been trying to get this small article on wikipedia for over a year. Can somebody guide me to a successful conclusion? Benito Cartero (talk) 12:27, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Benito Cartero, and welcome to the Teahouse. I can't tell whether your (draft) article has been deleted before, but I do find it here: Draft:Harold Burnell Carter. If this is the article you're referring to, it still exists. As to the concerns expressed by the reviewing editor, it boils down to this: everything you add to any article must be verifiable, by adding a proper citing independent, third party, reliable sources. The reviewing editor, in fact, even added indications of where s/he thinks a reference to a secondary, reliable source is required. So, for example, the fact (?) that Harold Burnell Carter has received the "Fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh (1960)" has to be proven/verified by refering to a source.

Finally, given your relationship to the subject of the draft article, please also read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Hope this helps.--talk2Chun^{(talk) (contributions)} 12:53, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Creating my user page

Can I create my user page? Vladi 11:29, 18 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vladimirrizov20 (talk • contribs)

IMDb reliability?

I'm asking whether IMDb is a reliable source, not for movie casts however, but for finding out the birthplaces of people. Depthburg (talk) 10:55, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

How do I move pages without the move option?

I was trying to move OS X on tagalog wikipedia (https://tl.wikipedia.org/wiki/OS_X) to a new page, macOS, but there is no option. Why isn't the move option appearing and how do I move it without the option? Thank you. Itsquietuptown (talk) 08:19, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Itsquietuptown. We only provide advice about editing the English language Wikipedia here at the Teahouse and have no expertise regarding the Tagalog version which is administered separately . I suggest asking at a help desk at Tagalog Wikipedia. It may be that you are not yet autoconfirmed on that Wikipedia. You may possibly need more time and more edits to move articles there. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:35, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Cullen

Itsquietuptown (talk) 08:55, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Search Results on a New Article

Hello, I posted a new article a few days ago called the Battle of Rejaf, which has since been properly reviewed, added to wiki-projects, and categorized. However, in a simple google search for "Battle of Rejaf", the article is not even in the search results. An article I made weeks ago, however, the Battle of Gawakuke, became the top search result the day after it was published. Could someone explain why this is happening?

Thanks, Washoe the Wise (talk) 06:19, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Washoe the Wise. Due to changes made a few months ago, new articles are not indexed for a Google search until they are reviewed by a New pages patroller, or are over 30 days old. There is a big backlog at New pages patrol. It seems that one article has been patrolled but the other hasn't yet been. If you achieve the Autopatrolled user right, your articles will all be indexed by Google promptly. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:13, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Article Issue

Hello guys Can I know how can I completely Make a article in wikipedia and in how much time ?? I'm really pissed off of the page issue Guyss can you look at the Jai Prithvi Bahadur Singh — Preceding unsigned comment added by SawOnGam (talk • contribs) 04:52, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi SawOnGam! I'm sorry to hear you're having a diffricult time -- let's see if I can point you toward some useful resources. First, consider going on the Wikipedia Adventure. It's a fun tutorial that can get you started on editing. Second, see WP:FIRSTARTICLE to learn about creating a brand new article from scratch. Finally, I'm not really sure what the problem you have with Jai Prithvi Bahadur Singh . Could you tell me a bit more about that issue? Thanks! —Non-Dropframe _talk 05:09, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello SawOnGam and welcome to Wikipedia! I looked at Jai Prithvi Bahadur Singh as requested, and found many more issues than just the orphan problem. I added some tags to the page which may help you improve the article. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 07:20, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

History of deleted article

Hello. Is there a way to still access the old history of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Science_and_the_Bible? I was unable to, but remember being able to access the history of some deleted articles before (there may be different delete levels perhaps)? Thanks for your time. PaleoNeonate (talk) 04:29, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that I do have a third-party archive revision, the question was really about the history. PaleoNeonate (talk) 05:07, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, PaleoNeonate and welcome to the Teahouse. I assume you are after the article itself, not the deletion discussion because that is still there. The article has been deleted and is not available, although it is possible to have it restored to your user space - see Wikipedia:Userfication#Userfication of deleted content. --Gronk Oz (talk) 09:40, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I was looking more for the edit history, rather than the deletion log or the article itself. But it was also a more general question about the access to the edit-history for deleted articles, which appears to sometimes be available, and sometimes not. Maybe I could try VPT, or rereading on the deletion procedures, for more information about this in the future. If userfication permits to also restore the history, that would be a nice feature too. When reading on usification, I had the erroneous impression that it was to restore an article that didn't pass reviews to the original author's userspace, as an alternative to deletion (and in this case I was not involved with this article before). Thank you very much. PaleoNeonate (talk) 10:08, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

two questions regarding (1. Offline Work ) and (2. Article Assessment )

I am relatively new to Wikipedia and am getting lost among the infinite pages of templates, categories, banners, assessments etc... and I'm always sure what is up-to-date or not. So here are the questions

1. What are your favorite tools for Offline Work (taking notes with the intention of putting it on wikipedia later)? (examples. text editor with wiki markup... your own wiki... a word processor and then you do wiki markup later... etc.)
2. Are there any API's or something similar to lookup fun stuff like: article assessments, or things like "this article needs references/ citations".
3. BONUS: Do things like article assessment and "page issues" get saved into wikidata ? Or is that just infobox stuff?

Thanks TeaHouse!, Popcrate (talk) 02:01, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Popcrate, and welcome! I'll answer your questions to the best of my ability.

1. I'd just say make a local copy of WP:MARKUP, and edit in Notepad++ (personal recommendation, other programs do exist)

2. There aren't APIs per se; for those two examples specifically, visit WP:ASSESS and WP:WikiProject Unreferenced articles.

3. I'm honestly not sure! Sorry about that.

If you have more questions, you can ask them by commenting either here (please let me know you did so by placing {{Ping|MereTechnicality}} on the page) or on my talk page. Thank you! MereTechnicality ⚙ 02:33, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

What dating styles does WP allow?

BC/BCE is mostly used in WP articles, but what others? Like Anno Mundi, Holistic Era, Dionysian Era, Astronomical dating, etc. 66.109.53.196 (talk) 21:44, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello IP 66.109.53.196 - Please see MOS:ERA "The default calendar era is the Western Dionysian era system system", but "Other era systems may be appropriate in an article. In such cases, dates should be followed by a conversion to Dionysian (or vice versa) and the first instance should be linked" - Arjayay (talk) 21:55, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. An acceptable alternative to the BC/AD designations is use of Common Era labels, namely BCE/CE. This avoids the Christian connotations in articles which have nothing to do with Christianity. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:45, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Creating a page please help

i'm trying to create a page for a living person who has done a lot in their life, and i have proof of who they are they have done, everything from shooting the first movie in their town, to art and being related to the famous group of seven artist, to music which has been used by the president of the USA, but not sure how to write it up. every time Wikipedia takes it down please help DJRRecords (talk) 20:06, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi DJRRecords, welcome to the Teahouse. It is always good to check your talk page, which is here. You'll see that some other editors left some important information for your. It is very important to note that Wikipedia articles are only written about people that are considered notable in Wikipedia's sense (which often differs from what is generally perceived as notable). Furthermore, any claims to notability, and any information in Wikipedia articles must come from independent, reliable sources from third parties. Note as well that Articles must be written in a neutral point of view, which was one of the reasons (among many) that were given for rejecting your Draft article. Finally, as an aside, please read up on Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, which were two links that were placed on your talk page. Hope this helps.--talk2Chun^{(talk) (contributions)} 20:31, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

·

is their anyway I can get someone to help me write this article? i have all the info, the links, the photos etc, the proof :) needed but I don't understand the format of Wikipedia.DJRRecords (talk) 21:02, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

what I need is someone I can give the info to and then they can see it in their point of view, not mine. DJRRecords (talk) 21:08, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

It would probably be more efficient to list the links and such on the article's Talk page, so that fellow editors might assist as they can. - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 21:10, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

where do I find the talk page? DJRRecords (talk) 21:19, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Please start by addressing your user-name problem as was explained in the first post at User talk:DJRRecords over 50 weeks ago - Arjayay (talk) 21:31, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Like Arjayay said. Anyway, the talk page would be associated with the article, or draft, and accessible via the "talk" link at the top left of it; but it seems you haven't actually created the draft yet. No-one will be able to help you write or improve the draft while they have no clue as to who it's meant to be about. Maproom (talk) 21:56, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Draft article has been cleaned-up, but no further action... Have I missed a step?

First, thank you all for supporting questions in this forum. It has been a great resource.

I created a draft article - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Samuel_Casey_Carter - and it has had an independent contributor/editor go in for clean-up, but nothing further has been logged.

I may have missed a step along the way (not unheard of, in my case). Is there another action necessary to have it vetted for official article status?

Please excuse my inability to figure this out myself, and thank you in advance for any counsel. Thomasrugby75 (talk) 18:58, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes Thomasrugby75, you did miss a step. I've submitted the article to review for you. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:02, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much! (Which step was it?) Thomasrugby75 (talk) 19:06, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Essentially, this (WP:AFC): "To nominate an existing draft or user sandbox for review at Articles for Creation, add the code {{subst:submit}} to the top of the draft or sandbox page." I'm sure there are other ways to go through the process, too. Maybe some of our experienced hosts know where these instructions are typically found? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:10, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Thomasrugby75. I took a quick look at your draft article and noticed two significant problems. The first is stylistic. Your references are not formatted properly. Please read Referencing for beginners and reformat them as inline references with complete bibliographic detail. The second problem is far more substantive. You must provide references to significant coverage of this person in reliable, independent sources. Summarizing such coverage is how acceptable Wikipedia articles are written. None of your references look independent to me. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:58, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

can redirect pages have "a little something" in them?

Hi again folks. I understand that the optimal situation would be for a redirect page to be nothing more than a redirect. However, I wonder if there is a way, or a community consensus for the practice, of having a stub-quality article within a redirect page. Let me give you an example. Suppose I wrote about Paralogous genes in an article and created the link as I just did. That link redirects to "Homology (biology)#Paralogy", but the "Paralogy" section no longer exists! Thus, the reader who wanted to learn what paralogous genes are has to sift through the info about other types of homology. What I'm wondering about or suggesting is that the page "Paralogous genes" should be "Homologous genes are paralogous if they were created by a duplication event within the genome of a species." which is a slightly altered versin of one sentence in the fourth section of the "homology (biology)" article. After that definition, I would then write "For further explanation of homology, redirect your attention to Homology (biology)". Thus, risking being annoyingly repetitive, I suggest that "Paralogous genes" should be

"Homologous genes are paralogous if they were created by a duplication event within the genome of a species. For further explanation of homology, redirect your attention to Homology (biology)".

All of that is technically possible, but then "paralogous genes" becomes a stub without references, and eligible for deletion under wp policies. How does the community feel about stubs like that? Will the community realize that it is a redirect on steroids, rather than a stub that should be deleted? As always, thanks for your time and any guidance. DennisPietras (talk) 18:49, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

It's not a good idea. The problem you recount (broken section redirects) can be countered by placing a hidden comment on the target page (see instructions: WP:TARGET), whereas the redirect page can have a template such as Template:R to section (that's the only kind of "a little something" that's allowed, really).

In general, it's a lot easier if only articles are articles, and everything else (redirects, disambiguation pages, etc.) are something else. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:55, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

It worked!!!!!!!!!!!! Thank you DennisPietras (talk) 19:48, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Resolved

I found an article not notable and added template for the same. But it was removed. Where did I err?

This is the article in question Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Basdei.

I didnt find any notable article and added the template, but it was corrected.

Sandy9292 (talk) 16:54, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Sandy9292 Secondary schools are almost always notable. See Wikipedia:Notability (high schools). Theroadislong (talk) 16:58, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Just adding to that a touch, this edit did add a header that is obviously not appropriate, and is probably a mistake, but it looks like it was such a big mistake that the person who reverted it thought it was outright vandalism. TimothyJosephWood 17:00, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Sandy9292, and welcome to the Teahouse. The templates you added were not the right ones for non-notable articles, since (1) you specified, when using the {{Notability}} template, that the article was a Biography of a living person, even though the article is not about a person (see Template:Notability for more information on how to use the template), and (2) the {{Wikipedia subcat guideline}} template is not for articles in the Main Space (see Template:Wikipedia subcat guideline for the documentation). I haven't gone through the article myself yet, but please make sure that by "not notable", you are using the special definition of notability that Wikipedia has defined, and not based on any subjective opinion. Hope that answers your question.--talk2Chun^{(talk) (contributions)} 17:04, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Consensus?

Hi there, i'm relatively new to Wikipedia and I have a question. I have a vast amount of knowledge about Batman, and the section which explains his utility belt doesn't explain many of the gadgets. I really want to add some important information about items he carries in the belt, however I keep getting asked to make a consensus. I don't fully understand what that is, but from what i've read, it seems to be quite a lengthy process. Can someone elaborate?

Sjmtz (talk) 16:11, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey Sjmtz. For the full explanation see WP:CONSENSUS. In an nutshell, with very^veryvery few exceptions, consensus is how basically everything on Wikipedia works. The community makes its own rules for articles and editors and the community decides what kinds of content we include in articles and why. So if someone reverts your edit, the first thing you are expected to do is to go to the relevant talk page, and start a discussion so that the folks involved can hash out the issue, and hopefully reach a consensus of your own regarding your particular disagreement. Sometimes this involves bringing in outside opinions, which may entail a lot of different things that are all part of the Dispute Resolution Process. But most of the time, it's the people who edit the article that reach their own consensus, their own agreement, about what should be in it. TimothyJosephWood 16:20, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Sjmtz, as Timothyjosephwood says, what they are saying is "You haven't convinced us that this is a good edit. You need to do so before we'll accept it". (If the page had not been semi-protected, it might well have gone according to WP:BRD: you would have made the edit to add the material, somebody would have reverted you, and then you would discuss it on the talk page. They are effectively doing the same) The word consensus means "General agreement among the members of a given group or community", and that is what you need to create, but you can't do so on your own!

I suspect the guideline that the others will be thinking of is Too much detail. This does not in the end say how much is too much detail; but it might well be the background against which you need to argue that your material is appropriate.

Two more points: 1) Everything in Wikipedia should have a reference to say where it is published, so that a reader can in principle check that it is correct. If possible we ask for an independent source; but in a case like this I guess a reference to the comic where the thing appeared would be enoughy. 2) on a talk page (or a project page such as this) please don't alter material that is already there, even your own contribution, if somebody has already answered it. It makes it hard to understand what the discussion has been. Always continue the discussion by posting a reply, not altering what you wrote before. --ColinFine (talk) 17:55, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

To add negative news to a firm's page

Hello,
Is this fact something that can go on Jaypee Group's page (with appropriate and reliable sources)?
(Details: Jaiprakash Associates is one of the companies under the Jaypee group. I am redirected from page for Jaipraksh Associates to page for Jaypee group. This company has defaulted on payments to its fixed deposit holders. The concernced govt. authority has granted them time till 31 March 2017 to sell off its assets and settle the debts. They have sold some assets, paid back some investors capital and interest, some only captial, while a lot are still waiting since 2 or 3 years for repayment of even capital)
If yes, then is there a specific format or a fixed section or heading? If no, then why not? Please guide. Thank you.
Roshni Kanchan (talk) 14:53, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey Roshni Kanchan. In order to justify inclusion of content in an article, it needs to have substantial coverage in reliable sources, relative to the other content in the article. If this is the case, it may be suitable for inclusion. If it is however, something you merely happen to know is true, then it likely does not. TimothyJosephWood 14:58, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Roshni Kanchan. You say "with appropriate and reliable sources", so I think that meets most of what Timothyjosephwood says. Certainly negative news may be added, if appropriate. WP:UNDUE says "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." So if, for example, just one reliable source mentions something, but several sources say something different, it might not be appropriate to include it. But if that source is reporting something recent, and there are no other sources since the alleged event, then it might be appropriate to mention it - but not to give it much prominence, until there are several sources to corroborate it. It's all a question of balance, and of consensus: if you are unsure, it may be worth asking on the talk page first, and seeing if other editors agree.

One important point though, is that an article must not use evaluative language - even as bland as "negative" in Wikipedia's voice. If you are directly quoting an independent reliable source that said that an event was negative for the company, that is fine; but in Wikipedia's voice it may say only that XXX happened, or that YYY said ZZZ. --ColinFine (talk) 17:35, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Timothyjosephwood and ColinFine for your replies. It is a good idea to write on that article's talk page so all relevant discussion is at the right place. I will summarize this discussion and ask my question on that talk page as well. But ... er.. whom do I address it to? I mean who will read one question posted on a random page?

If I use as a source a letter the company has written to its investors, which includes the court order and details of deadlines, amount paid, amount pending etc and which is present on the company's own website, do you think it will satisfy all conditions that you both wrote about? Will that be better choice than news articles?

--Roshni Kanchan (talk) 03:53, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey Roshni Kanchan. Using primary sources like you are referring to is often helpful for knowing if something is true, especially for fairly mundane details that are unlikely to receive press coverage. But things like press coverage, secondary sources, are useful for telling whether facts themselves are important, since they mean someone who writes for a living decided to cover it too. Ideally, you would have secondary coverage to establish importance, and primary coverage to fill in the gaps when they don't quite cover all the details.

Since the article's talk page looks pretty dead, probably the better thing to do would be to be bold and add the content to the article. If someone takes issue and reverts your edit, then discuss the changes with them on the article's talk page. Take care to be as neutral as possible in how you add the content. Wikipedia isn't in the business of picking winners and losers, just in presenting the bare facts with as little opinion as possible, and when needed, presenting the opinions of important individuals as their opinions, not as facts, and never presenting the opinions of Wikipedia editors at all. Also take care to be neutral in how much the article presents, since the sheer weight of even bare facts, can have a way of being biased in presentation, even if otherwise neutral in content.

But other than that, every edit has a risk of being reverted, and that's what the talk page is for. TimothyJosephWood 12:51, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Should I link to the same article multiple times?

Hi there another Newbie here. I was wondering should I link the same word every time it appears in the article? Richard Racoon (talk) 14:43, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Richard Racoon. Nope, in general you should just link on the first instance, but further guidance on this is given at MOS:DUPLINK. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:45, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply, This is the fastest answer I've ever gotten on a forum.Richard Racoon (talk) 14:51, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

How to edit a minor edit?

I rarely do any editing at Wikipedia, and when I do, it's always been MINOR. But sometimes I will suggest a change, usually due to grammar or to remove redundancy. So my Q is this: if I make an error in my explanation to others, for example: typing in the word "two" while I intended to type the words "a few" ... how does one change that goof? Or do we just ignore my error, and let it be? BTW, the written number "two" vs the words "a few" have nothing to do with the article. Again, this is a MINOR edit. Probably not worth using up this space! But I am sorta new, and I would like to know, for future reference. Many thanks! AlaskanAnthro AlaskanAnthro (talk) 08:30, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, AlaskanAnthro, and welcome to the Teahouse. If you make an error in your edit summary, you can ignore it. It's not a big deal and happens to us all. If you think your error might cause confusion, you may make a dummy edit (e.g. add an extra space after a word) and write a new edit summary. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:18, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Userbox

Hi, I am new to Wikipedia, but how do you create a new userbox? Thank youIExistToHelp (talk) 06:27, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

@IExistToHelp: Welcome to the Teahouse. This link will help you create one.Riswa talk 06:58, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

How to publish draft

Hello. I am a long time user of Wikipedia and a first time contributor. I just wrote an article about an artist. It current says draft before the name of the artist (Matthew Kluber). How to I go about getting my article published?

Thanks! Al654 (talk) 04:42, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I recommend you take a look at WP:YFA for advice about your first article. For the specifics of turning it into an article from a draft, take a look at WP:AFC. PriceDL (talk) 06:12, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. I have tidied up a few details in your draft, and added an {{AFC draft}} tag which gives you a "Submit" button to use when you believe that the draft is ready for review. --David Biddulph (talk) 06:15, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Al654. You need to establish that this artist meets our notability guideline for artists. In my opinion, your draft relies too much on sources which are not independent such as galleries selling his work. A Wikipedia article should be based on summarizing what truly independent sources say about the topic. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:27, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Phonetic Symbols

I do not know how to make the special characters in language articles appear. How do I do that? (for example, I copy this phrase from the Modern Standard Arabic article: " marḥaban; ahlan wa-sahlā". I can see the dotted h in marḥaban while editing, but not in preview or in an article. I am on the mobile app by the way). SammyMajed (talk) 05:26, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, SammyMajed. I don't think there is a way, in the standard mobile app. In the desktop version, when you go into the edit window you can pick from a number of different character sets. WP:Mobile mentions some other apps that provide different facilities: I don't know if any of them have this. If you can't find anything there, I suggest you ask at WP:VPT. --ColinFine (talk) 17:24, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Sock Puppetry -- Do the accusations never end?

This is way off topic for Teahouse. This is a forum to answer how to questions for new editors. If you feel there is a behavior issue on the part of a particular editor, take it to ANI

Who over sees this group of people that weave their endless webs about sock puppetry? Is there some source of sanity associated with this portion of WP. I repeatedly get drawn into this topic by people that essentially seem to dwell on conspiracy weaving out of cold thin air that something is here when it is not. That at some level I am a conspirator. I can hardly manage my way through finding a definition/explanation in WP than carry on some subversive action that when I comment on it those in the know seem to be upset that they are portrayed as fools. Who can set these people straight even if they are gay.Srednaus Lenoroc (talk) 23:00, 16 February 2017 (UTC) Hi Srednaus Lenoroc, and welcome. Sorry you've had a bad experience with the SPI. We do try our best not to make unfounded claims or anything that comes out of thin air, but we can make mistakes occasionally. I will say, however, that this isn't the place to defend yourself. Please see WP:Sock Puppetry#Proving you are not a sock for the protocol on that. Just so I can check, can you link me to an accusation made against you? Thanks. Feel free to ask me about any more questions you have! MereTechnicality ⚙ 23:05, 16 February 2017 (UTC) The case is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lrednuas Senoroc. I have, along with some other editors, suggested that there has been a misunderstanding based on Srednaus Lenoroc's username. It would help if Srednaus Lenoroc could confirm that they used to edit using the account Srednuas Lenoroc (note the subtly different spelling), as that would clear up some aspects of the confusion. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:09, 16 February 2017 (UTC) Hi again, Srednaus Lenoroc. Looking at an investigation now, I can see why people might accuse you. Your name, Srednaus Lenoroc, is incredibly similar to Lrednuas Senoroc, who is currently the subject of an investigation, which I've linked here. Please defend yourself there and not at the teahouse. I hope I can help with any other questions you might have! MereTechnicality ⚙ 23:08, 16 February 2017 (UTC) I could care less about your prcess for me to defend myself when at the very places it is requestioned. Get off my back. This makes WP seem like a bunch of jerks with more time on their hands than what they know how to use constructively. And no you do not nee to tell me that you are offended by that statement.23:11, 16 February 2017 (UTC)Srednaus Lenoroc (talk) Larry--you are clueless. Read over the case that has been presented in the words of your very own conspirators!Srednaus Lenoroc (talk) 23:13, 16 February 2017 (UTC) Most people are just trying to disentangle three accounts, Srednaus Lenoroc. Could you help by confirming that you used to edit as Srednuas Lenoroc? That would help clear your name. I am trying to help you, but I am rapidly losing patience. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:15, 16 February 2017 (UTC) If WP is in the state of mind to carry on an investigation then do it about WP's own actions.Srednaus Lenoroc (talk) 23:15, 16 February 2017 (UTC) My user name was clear until WP's sock puttetiers decided that they needed to make something out of what was not there.Srednaus Lenoroc (talk) 23:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC) Please do not accuse other Wikipedia editors of being sockpuppets without providing evidence, Srednaus Lenoroc. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:35, 16 February 2017 (UTC) You continually say not to do something yet the record proves it out.!Srednaus Lenoroc (talk) 23:40, 16 February 2017 (UTC) And if you do review their record you will have to replace what has been edited out.Srednaus Lenoroc (talk) 23:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

How to get the same reviewer twice

Hello,

I had a reviewer (Dodger67) who reviewed my newly created article. I have made the changes suggested and now want to go back to the same reviewer. If I press the "Resubmit" button on the review, I willy likely get someone else. How can I get the same reviewer, any ideas?Rgschroeder12 (talk) 20:12, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Rgschroeder12, and welcome to the Teahouse! Can you tell me why you'd want the same reviewer? MereTechnicality ⚙ 20:14, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Rgschroeder12. You could post on the original reviewer's User Talk page, notifying them that you've resubmitted, and asking if they would review again. There is no guarantee that they will do so, but I don't see any reason why you shouldn't ask. --ColinFine (talk) 20:19, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Font is wrong

I contributed a block of copy from another source and it came out in a different font than the regular Wikipedia font. What did I do wrong and how can I make it right? Dougernst (talk) 19:35, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey Dougernst. It's difficult to tell what you did wrong as far as font goes, because something you definitely did wrong was copy content directly from the official website, which is a violation of Wikipedia policy on copyright and has been permanently removed. TimothyJosephWood 19:50, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

What happened is that you wrote a paragraph but put a space in front of it. Compare the following:

This paragraph does not start with a space.

This paragraph starts with a space.

Hope that helps. BethNaught (talk) 19:53, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Want to create a page for my company

Hello. I understand that a page cannot be created to promote a company. But my company, Brown Manufacturing Company, has been distributing wall mounted bottle openers since 1925. I would like to create a page that talks about its history and about the original owner, Raymond Brown and his family. Is this allowed?

Thanks David Brim 2602:306:BCD4:A330:2D57:DF21:E650:7F84 (talk) 18:52, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello David Brim,

Normally, you shouldn't make an article about something that you are related to, as it would most likely biased. I think you should suggest the article to be created by someone else, as they would (most likely) be unbiased.

Bedsidelamp (talk) 19:00, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, David Brim. While Bedisdelamp's advice is good, I would temper it a little. Given the article you have described that you want to create, it seems to me that you are not so likely to be promotional (though you may still fail to be properly neutral!) and I will point out that though you are discouraged from creating an article where you have a conflict of interest, you are not forbidden. What you need, it high quality published sources that are independent of the company (for example, major newspapers, or books from reputable publishers). If you're talking about the 1920s, the resources are probably not on-line, but that's OK: but they must have been published, so that in principle a reader could get hold of them, eg through a major library. You should put nothing at all into the article that is not in a published source (no personal knowledge or unpublished documents); and most of the article - and certainly anything in any way evaluative - should be based on sources unconnected with the company. If you cannot find much independent published material about the company, give up: it is not notable (in Wikipedia's special sense) and no article on it will be accepted however it is written. Bear in mind that what you are doing is not "creating a page for" the company, but "writing an article about" the company.

Do declare your conflict of interest, and use the article wizard to create a draft that will get reviewed before acceptance. I always advise users to get some months experience editing before they try the difficult task of writing a new article; and to read WP:your first article. If you decide to take Bedsidelamp's suggestion, WP:requested articles is the place to go. --ColinFine (talk) 20:16, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

page got shot down -but it's legit

i am an intern at a non profit and am trying to create a wikipedia page for the org. the page i created has been taken down twice - citing conflict of interest. what is the best way to clear the air? Intern UNF (talk) 17:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey Intern UNF. Specifically, your page was deleted because:

1. It was unambiguously promotional,
2. It made no credible claim of significance for the subject
3. It was a copyright violation of the organization's website

You however do need to review Wikipedia's policy on conflicts of interest and do so carefully. Failure to abide by those standards may result in sanctions, including loss of editing privileges for accounts and even IP addresses associated to your organization.

However, to your question about how your organization gets their own Wikipedia article, the short answer is probably that they don't. Unless they have somehow received exceptional media coverage for a community organization in a town of 40,000 people, they almost certainly do not meet Wikipedia's standards for notability. TimothyJosephWood 17:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

• To simplify this for you, for there to exist a Wikipedia article about your organization, you must demonstrate that there is significant, independent coverage of the organization in reliable sources. That is, that people with no connection to your organization, and with a reputation for reliability, have extensively written about the organization. This is because all text in Wikipedia should be verifiable. If no useful verifiable information about your organization can be found, then Wikipedia cannot have an article written about it. If such information does exist, then it should be cited in the article itself so people who wish to can check it out themselves. Writing done by the organization themselves is normally insufficient in this regard, as anyone can create a website, and that doesn't mean that the information is reliable. Instead, we rely on reliable sources such as recognized experts, journals and news sources which are well respected, and the like. --Jayron32 18:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Need Help to Correct Alphabetizing Error

I started the article Ram Iyer, (which is currently being considered for deletion, but I think it will probably stay). In this article's category pages, it is listed under "R" instead of "I". (It is the name of an author, so it should be listed under his last name, not his first.) Does someone know how to fix this issue? I'm guessing it shouldn't be too difficult. LuckyWiki26 (talk) 17:18, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Greetings LuckyWiki26, I fixed this category for you. In wikicode, it's known as the "pipe trick" to force sorting into the correct alpha location. Cheers, — JoeHebda • (talk) 18:00, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't know why JoeHebda decided to change the articles position in the sort order for only one of the categories in which the article appears, but not for the others. It seemed to me to be appropriate for all the categories to position the article sorted by surname, so I did that by adding {{DEFAULTSORT:Iyer, Ram}}. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Advice on somebody who keeps changing an External Link to their own page, even after reverting it.

Hi, I've come to the Teahouse to seek some advice on an issue I'm currently facing. As a newbie on Wikipedia, I'd like to get some advice and clarification on how to best handle this situation.

I decided to watch a few Wikipedia articles that I'm interested in helping with or watching their progress over time. One of which was an article on the Nokia 6 phone (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia_6). I noticed that on 4 February 2017 an External Link was changed to another website (www.gsmarena.com -> www.gsmtube.com). I thought this was odd as GSMArena is one of the most well known and respected Mobile Phone technical details site on the web. I checked out GSMTube and found that it was a website that looks very similar to GSMArena. After a closer look it appears that whoever runs that site is just copying GSMArena's tech specs, review articles and news articles to use on their own site! This must be illegal, as they are just copying copyrighted articles from another site to use on their own site.

After seeing this, I went ahead and reverted the edit that IP Address 113.203.253.18 had made, back to its original link. I did not post a message on their talk page, as I didn't class it as vandalism and didn't feel it generally warranted any further discussion, as I had put my reason in the edit summary when making the revert. They are however in my opinion just blatantly trying to promote their own website, even though their website is illegally copying articles from another website.

After reverting the edit, I see that just an hour and a half later, another IP Address (202.5.142.153, different IP, but it'll be the same person) has reverted my revert! Both IP Addresses are located in Pakistan, so I can only think it's the same person trying to self promote their own website using Wikipedia.

Anyway, I don't know how to handle this situation from here. I don't want to get into an edit war as it appears that if I revert it for a second time, they're likely to just change it back again. If somebody could let me know how this type of problem is normally resolved I would be very grateful.

Thanks for the help. LlamaBear (talk) 11:20, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, LlamaBear, and welcome to the Teahouse. You did well to spot this problem. Theroadislong has removed the problematic link (again) - let's see if it sticks this time. --Gronk Oz (talk) 13:00, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi LlamaBear. The procedure I would follow is to revert and warn – here I would use the template series {{Uw-spam1}}, {{Uw-spam2}}, etc. and if that did not work, then you might seek a block at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism (shortcut: WP:AIV). Since the person appears to have a dynamic IP or is IP hopping, if there was extended persistence, you might seek semi-protection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection (shortcut: WP:RFPP). Reverting vandalism (or to enforce certain overriding policies like WP:BLP) is not edit warring (and does not trigger the three revert rule); adding or continuing to add spam external links is vandalism if the activity continues after a warning. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:20, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks Gronk_Oz, Fuhghettaboutit and Theroadislong for your advice and help with this, it's much appreciated.

Just looked at the revision history and they reverted Theroadislong's first revert as well (using yet another IP from the same region), however Theroadislong has since changed it back again and provided a very good reason to them, so hopefully it stays like this now.

Thanks again for the help, I'll certainly look into the help topics of the different warnings and Administrator intervention etc. in more detail now, should the need ever arise in the future.

PS. I made this reply earlier but I accidentally posted it above this particular topic, so it got reverted... ooops, sorry about that ChamithN. Cheers, LlamaBear (talk) 19:21, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

No worries, LlamaBear. I'm partly to blame because I forgot to provide an edit summary as to why I reverted your edit. -- ChamithN (talk) 20:11, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

how to edit text in wikipedia article Agartala

how to edit Agartala article in wikipedia. It contains incomplete informationTjsjc (talk) 05:58, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey Tjsjc. Guidance is available at Help:Editing, or you may want to consider our interactive tutorial at The Wikipedia Adventure. TimothyJosephWood 13:22, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Editing an information table within an article

I want to edit a table within the article en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caldbeck_transmitting_station .

This transmitter broadcasts both the COM7 and COM8 multiplexes, according to this website : www.a516digital.com/p/com7-and-com8.html

There is an information table within the 'Caldbeck transmitting station' titled 'Services listed by frequency - Digital television'

This table omits the information that this transmitter broadcasts COM7 and COM8, on UHF channel 32 and 35 respectively, as shown on the website :

www.a516digital.com/p/com7-and-com8.html

How do I update the table in the article, and cite this reference? Thank you

Boleslaw (talk) 05:48, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Boleslaw, I don't understand the subject area at all, so I can't fill that in for you, but the markup is pretty simple and you should be able to do it yourself. I'm assuming you know the basics of editing. In the page source, look for this table header:

===Digital television===
{| class="wikitable sortable"
!Frequency
!UHF
!kW
!Operator
!BBC region
!ITV region
!System

Following that are the individual rows, each organized as a list of the entries named in the header, in the same order (frequency, then UHF, then kW, etc.) (the "|-" signifies the start of the row). Below is the coding for the first row (BBC B).

|-
|{{UK DVB-T|ch=22|off=neg}}
|22-
|100
|[[BBC]] B
|[[BBC Scotland|Scotland]]
|[[ITV Tyne Tees & Border|Border]] (Scotland)
|[[DVB-T2]]

Copy that code block above, and replace the values with those you want to have displayed for COM7; make another equivalent block for COM8. Then paste both at the very end of the "Digital television" block, just BEFORE the "|}" that closes the entire table. Better preview your changes before saving. Looking at the reference, I suggest you put that directly behind the "Operator" entry. In the above example, that would be "|[[BBC]] B<ref> REFERENCE CONTENTS </ref>".

Note that the entry for Frequency has the form of a template that takes the channel and spits out the corresponding frequency. If that does not work in this case, you might want to replace the template (everything between the curly brackets, as well as brackets themselves) with the plain number, or a "—" if not available.

Hope that's helpful; if not, shout :) -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

De-orphan

Hello, I think my Article should be De-orphan and also ready to be appear on Google search result... Please help ! Ainul.Axom (talk) 04:58, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Ainul.Axom, and welcome to the Teahouse. It would be helpful if you provide a link to which article you are talking about: I will assume it is Tirap Gaon, Ledo but let me know if that is wrong. The reason it is classified as an "orphan" is because no other articles contain a link to that one. This is easy to check: open the article and click on "What links here" under Tools on the left hand side. Once other articles link to this one, it will be time to remove the Orphan tag. --Gronk Oz (talk) 05:19, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ainul.Axom. You did not provide a link to any articles in your post, but it appears you are referring to Tirap Gaon, Ledo. An orphaned article is one that has no incoming links to it from other Wikipedia articles. If you look at Special:WhatLinksHere/Tirap Gaon, Ledo, you can see that there are no incoming links from other articles which means that the "Orphan" template should not be removed just yet. De-orphaning an article is basically done by adding a link to "Tirap Gaon, Ledo" to another Wikipedia article. You can find out more details about how to do this at WP:DE-ORPHAN. As for your question about Google, I don't think there's anything we can do here on Wikipedia about that kind of thing. Things that show up in Google searches are determined by Google, not Wikipedia. It just may take time for a newly created article to start showing up in Google searches.

Finally, one minor thing. Technically, there is no "my article" when it comes to Wikipedia. Any articles we create or edit are not owned by us. I'm assuming you just referred to the article as such just to keep things casual, but you might want to take a look at WP:OWN for reference just in case. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

how much link need to be ? Ainul.Axom (talk) 06:54, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi again Ainul.Axom. Only one incoming link is needed to de-orphan an article, but you need to make sure it's not a link from one of the "pages which do not count" listed in WP:O#Criteria. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:22, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi... May u confirm that my Article is ready to be De-orphan ? Ainul.Axom (talk) 13:08, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

How to resolve disputes regarding proper editorial/discussion guidelines.

I’m relatively new, but I believe the primary obstacle I’m encountering is experienced editors who misunderstand Wikipedia policies. How can I gain some support for getting the editors in question to follow the policies in question?

Specifically, the experienced editors seem to believe they are exempt from structuring their talk discussion around weighting rules (to be based on determining the proportion of reliable sources rather than proportion of editor opinion), rules for weeding out fringe theories (to be based on reliable sources regarding the respectability in their field of the theories proponents, rather than editors opinion about the theory), and in general exempt from needing to provide reliable sources to back assertions they make in the talk discussions.

I believe the over-all problem is a disagreement about the philosophy of how Wikipedia is supposed to work. I believe those editorial guidelines are intended to allow an article to evolve to become meaningfully different from what a majority of the editors currently think the content should be based on their personal opinions. My understanding is that if a structured discussion of the available reliable sources points in a different direction than the editors’ opinion, the article should be allowed to differ from the editors’ opinion of what the article should be until such time as the editors can locate reliable sources to shift the article back.

Editors will not all have the time to deeply ponder complicated topics. For controversial topics, they may focus more on policing than on examining new source information. For those reasons and others, I believe Wikipedia is designed to allow changes to occur in advance of an eventual change in the gut feel of current or future editors.

Because I called out the specific policies I believe the editors are ignoring. I suspect that the editors understand them but believe that, for reasons of expediently protecting the article from improper edits, they are exempt from applying the policies to a controversial article. The editors seem to feel that if they follow those guidelines, they’ll get overwhelmed by people who propose things faster than editors can response to, or who erect a “wall of text.” I respect those issues and limit the discussion rate and try to focus on only one narrow discussion at a time, so things don’t get out of hand, but the editors seem to try to re-broaden the questions and to still not follow the policies.

I’m not confident in the resolution methods for this policy conflict. 1) The editors in question seem to be unwilling to discuss the policy dispute explicitly, 2) The content-dispute resolution methods seem prone to being derailed by the failure to follow the policies in question, as well as by unduly casual rendering of opinions. (so I can’t ignore the policy problem and just focus on content and expect to get good results) 3) the editorial rules resolution method seems to be ANI, but ANI seems subject getting derailed into something other than a resolution of the dispute over what rules should be followed and 4) Starting an ANI seems like a dangerous way to find out how serious Wikipedia is about the polices in question.

The ANI process seems to be the only one designed to focus on process issues like the above, but I get the impression that in practice ANI disputes are usually resolved to side against anyone who they believe has a content dispute, and side against anyone complaining of actions of a generally very respected and accomplished editor who is impeccably polite and informative in general.

ANI seems to be designed to address malicious or recklessly disruptive behavior, rather than well-intentioned misapplication of proper editorial discussion rules. It also seems that once an ANI is started, it will devolve into an over-all critique, unwilling to closely examine the evidence of the misapplication of guidelines (because at some point a few specifics are needed to show the an example of a policy not being followed.) I get the impression that the ANI will devolve into a person A against person B, losing sight of the specific editorial policy concerns. An editor expressed confidence that I’d get “hammered” if I brought an ANI, declining to offer details, but the above is my best guess for why based on all feedback I’ve received.

Are my concerns unwarranted? Again, how can I gain some support for getting the editors in question to follow the policies in question?Rob Young in New Hampshire (talk) 02:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Rob Young in New Hampshire. Which article are you referring to? Such a lengthy and complex presentation can only be addressed properly in the context of a specific debate. I recommend that you begin by a careful reading of how consensus works here on Wikipedia. If consensus is against you on one article, there are well over five million others to edit. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I’ll reach out to your talk page, but for the benefit of any readers here, consider this:

I think there is a misperception in an "answer" provided to the newer "consensus" teahouse question: (dif): "In an nutshell, with very^veryvery few exceptions, consensus is how basically everything on Wikipedia works. The community makes its own rules for articles…” That seems wrong because the community should not be able to waive “policy and sources” rules just because doing so makes it easier to police the content. Based on those rules, the article should reflect the “balanced truth” as defined by net of all available reliable sources, even if that differs from the balanced truth as defined by the gut feel of the editors. Those two definitions of truth should converge over time, but talk page says it is not the mechanism to do that, nor can most editors commit the time to let it do that even if you wanted to. Only when the editors can be reminded to follow the “policy and sources” and let the article and discussion evolve based on policy and sources, can opinion the article topic converge to better match the “balanced truth” as defined by net of all available reliable sources. That, rather than omniscience, is what Wikipedia promises.

I think the problem I’m running into is experienced editors’ apparent misconception about WP:Consensus, particularly this phrase: ”Here editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense.” It seems perhaps “and common sense” ends up meaning, in practice, that the talk page instruction really is “This is a forum for general discussion of the article's subject,” rather what it really says, which is the opposite. In other words, they act as if the consensus is supposed to be regarding the articles subject rather than regarding how “policy and sources, when applied with common sense”, say the article should read. By failing to follow policy, they prevent such consensus from properly being formed.

It’s just so tempting to look at the specifics of the article without keeping the above in mind that I think is why the editors feel that the ANI process will not side with my concerns. Also, based on WP: consensus defined, there is nothing resembling consensus on the article in question, but something much close to gut-feel voting. I want to focus energy on articles with such problems, rather than just look for pages to edit.

Am I misinterpreting WP:consensus? Can ANI drive proper interpretation of it?Rob Young in New Hampshire (talk) 03:38, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

[accepted revision]

I see that diffs now have [accepted revision] with blue highlighting, at the top of each version. What is the significance of this? I am pretty sure it wasn't there earlier today (it is still 15 Feb here)--Quisqualis (talk) 02:25, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. The "[accepted revision]" indication occurs on those articles which are the subject of Pending changes protection. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:08, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

How to get Huggle for 10.10.5 Yosemite

I am running Yosemite (os X 10.10.5) and the current version of Huggle is for Os X 11>. Clicking the "download previous version" takes me to GitHub and give me a list of I-don't-know-what, and none of them say "Yosemite users get Huggle for Yosemite by clicking right here". Does anyone know where or how I can get Huggle for Yosemite? Thanks. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 23:32, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi L3X1. Since Yosemite was released in October 2014 and El Capitan not until September 2015, I assume any revision of the page history of M:Huggle/Download between those dates, like this one, will provide a link to the right dmg file for Huggle when Yosemite was current – which from that page appears to be 3.1.16. I am not a coding wizard so I hope the assumptions I've made are on target. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:50, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Fuhgettaboutit, it worked! Now I am trying to login, but it keeps telling me "ERROR: api.php responded with unknown result: WrongToken." I will go over to the Huggle talk page and see what is up there. Thanks for helping me. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 02:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi again L3X1. That falls in the coding arena, that I'm not the person to help you with. However, when I search "token" at Huggle/Feedback, where bugs and problems are discussed, I see many threads that you might look to at as a start. If no help, you might also try the computing section of the reference desk, maybe referencing this thread. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:58, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bestand:Saltboemel.JPG

We actually own the map that appears on this page and would like to find out more about the origin. Is there any way to contact JoJan to ask some questions? Thank you!108.18.97.221 (talk) 22:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi. JoJan seems most active on the Wikimedia Commons and can be contacted at his talk page there: Commons:User talk:JoJan regarding File:Saltboemel.JPG (if you look in edit mode you'll see how to wikilink an image without having it display – note the prefixed colon). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:28, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Why is my article going to get deleted

My page about Jonathan and Anna should not get deleted fans loved both Jonathan and Anna why have you got the right to delete it — Preceding unsigned comment added by CalebBenjamin012 (talk • contribs) 13:49, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

The articles in question here seem to be Jonathan Joly and Anna Saccone. Firstly, please be aware that these are not "your pages" - every Wikipedia article is a joint effort by the whole community. So everybody has an equal right to modify or propose deletion within the policies. Specifically, the first one was initially tagged as BLP PROD because it had no sources at all - that has been fixed and the tag removed. The second one does not seem to have been proposed for deletion. --Gronk Oz (talk) 22:56, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Even so, these articles do not currently show that the subjects meet the standard of being "notable" (in Wikipedia's particular meaning of the word). So if you want to reduce the chances of these articles being deleted, the best thing to do is to provide reliable sources which are independent of the subjects and which discuss them in depth: that is how notability is established. --Gronk Oz (talk) 23:07, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Peters band

Hello, I edited a page that I felt was used in bad faith. I replaced with a link to online shaming (wiki). The article was reverted back to the original by the reviewer crissymad. I received an invitation to this page so, My question is, was I correct (or other suitable verb) in removing information the was used against someone that is before the courts. Also the information provided would allow someone to extrapolate the homes of the people mentioned. 2b0o1b7 (talk) 17:56, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Both you, 2b0o1b7, and Petersbandmember17 need to stop edit-warring, and follow the procedure in WP:dispute resolution - which begins by discussing the disagreement on the article's talk page. It is clear that feelings are running high here (Petersbandmember17 should read our policy on conflict of interest, and I'm guessing that 2b0o1b7 should as well, though I may be wrong) and it may be that you will need to get some outside help. But nobody will look at helping you if you haven't attempted to resolve your disagreement first.

I have no idea as to the merits of your two cases, and I don't want to. I observe that Petersbandmember17 did include some references, but did not format them properly, and in particular, did not attach them to particular statements - in contentious material like this, it is really necessary to do so: please see WP:referencing for beginners. Assuming that at least some of the references were reliable sources and supported the text in the article, 2b0o1b7 should not summarily have removed the text, though it is possible that it could or should be worded differently (if a reliable source has reported that there is a court action pending against the subject of an article it is often - though not always - appropriate for the article to say so, though it must not take sides). 2b01b7's addition of a link to Online shaming was completely inappropriate - whatever your feelings about the case, that is an extreme example of WP:editorializing, and does not belong in any article unless an independent reliable source has explicitly talked about online shaming in the context of the subject of the article. --ColinFine (talk) 19:28, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Is Jack Merridew still out there?

No question for the Teahouse

Is the infamous Jack Merridew the sock puppeteer still on Wikipedia, or is he gone for good> 66.109.53.196 (talk) 21:33, 15 February 2017 (UTC) I'd advise against saying "infamous" because it glorifies vandalism. Please read WP:DENY as to why. MereTechnicality ⚙ 21:45, 15 February 2017 (UTC) How does infamous glorify vandalism? I'm sorry if it does, but he was an obscure user who only came into light because of his many sockpuppets 66.109.53.196 (talk) 21:54, 15 February 2017 (UTC) OK, I mean notorious 66.109.53.196 (talk) 21:57, 15 February 2017 (UTC) What does this have to do with editing articles? Per WP:DENY and WP:DNFTT this thread should be collapsed or even deleted. MarnetteD|Talk 21:58, 15 February 2017 (UTC) MarnetteD Deny and DNFTT are one and the same essay, and they represent minority viewpoints, not set_in-stone hardcore do-or-die policy. These same minorities who would have us VanPoPo never say the V*nd*l*sm word, or ABF, or join CVU. Someone tried to hold me accountable for entire actions of CVU once. Conversing about LTA and sockers like JM isn't sinful, and I doubt JM is having a big belly laugh at the pub with his mates over all the attention he is getting. At least, that's how I see it. I am wondering, in a ABF way, perhaps the IP is connected to JM, and is wondering if it safe to return and stir up more trouble. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 23:38, 15 February 2017 (UTC) First your ping did not work because of this. Next, the essay is not a minority viewpoint. Last, this whole thread is not what they teahouse is for and should be collapsed. MarnetteD|Talk 01:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

user boxes

how do I make/place userboxes?L.S. inc. (talk) 20:32, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi L.S. inc. - you can find all the relevant information at WP:UBX. Justin15w (talk) 20:42, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

thank you, Justin15w. L.S. inc. (talk) 20:43, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

How are the category boxes in the category pages generated?

Hi, I am using Wikipedia as a data source for a NLP-type project, and I'm particularly interested in working with the category graph. I read the help page on categories, but I'm not sure I completely understand how the category pages are generated.

Consider, for instance, the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:1985_establishments_in_Japan. It has four categories listed at the bottom: 1985 establishments by country, 1980s establishments in Japan, Establishments in Japan by year, 1985 in Japan, 1985 establishments in Asia. But the text of the page is just:

{{estcatCountry|198|5|Japan}} [[Category:1985 establishments in Asia|Japan]]

I've noticed this sort of behavior for a lot of "establishments in" categories. Does the line "{{estcatCountry|198|5|Japan}}" trigger some special macro? Are there any other exceptional cases that I should be aware of?

Thanks! Paul 108.176.28.82 (talk) 20:07, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. The relevant template is Template:EstcatCountry. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:13, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

See Help:Template for templates in general. Lots of templates add categories. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:50, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Introduction and question about editing content

Hello all,

I am a longtime Wikipedia reader and now attempting to edit content on behalf of the seminary I work for. I have had material removed for "copyright reasons...you must write all content in your own words."

I neowikite in terms of editing content so I am trying to learn, please help me. If I am using content that has come directly for my school's website, and citing it, do I still need to put it in my own words? I guess this is similar to writing an academic paper and trying not to plagiarize but instead use my own words. And, to give proper credit.

Please counsel, I am merely trying to start a good content base for my institution. Dlmartin85 (talk) 16:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Dlmartin85. If you look at the bottom of a Wikipedia page, you'll see the statement that "Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License". As a result, material from other websites can only be used word-for-word if its copyright status is compatible with that licence - otherwise, Wikipedia would be breaking copyright rules by releasing it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Even if you cite the source, if that source is subject to copyright, then it's a copyright violation even if it is not plagiarism. In any case, material on a school website is unlikely to be written in a suitably encyclopedic style for Wikipedia. Ideally, most of any article should be based on what independent sources say about a subject, rather than sources published by the subject. Finally, I would advise you to read and follow the guidance at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:25, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Larry,

Thank you for your advice and counsel. This is very helpful! Dlmartin85 (talk) 17:28, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Re-review of my article: Operations Management for Services

I received a rejection of my article: Operations Management for Services. I have revised it extensively based on the reviewers comments. I have also just resubmitted the article. (1) Will it be reviewed again by the same person? (2) How can I communicate with the same or new reviewer about the changes I made?Rgschroeder12 (talk) 15:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey Rgschroeder12. Your draft will be reviewed again; however, there is a substantial back logs and this make take a few weeks. There is no requirement that the same person review the article, and although there is also no prohibition, many volunteers at WP:AfC will allow others to review a draft they have previously declined in order to get a third opinion. If you would like to communicate with others regarding the draf, the appopriate place is Draft talk:Operations Management for Services. TimothyJosephWood 18:08, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Reliable Sources to Cite- Secondary School Website

Hi

Please can you advise in relation to the following article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abby_Kane

I have been working pupils from Abby's secondary school, they have been carrying out research and added their research to the above article, however we didn't cite the additions that were made and the changes were deleted, all part of the learning process at our end. I see from the articles that secondary sources are the preferred option, if the research was published on the school website would this be considered a reliable source that we could cite?

All help greatly appreciated.

Mortonlvm (talk) 14:47, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey Mortonlvm. Whether a source is appropriate largely depends on the magnitude of the claim that it supports. So for example, mundane personal details do not require a very strong source at all, while contentious material about living persons requires a very strong source indeed. Since the article in question is about a living person, other editors are definitely within their rights to remove content that is unsourced entirely, and likely will do exactly that. If someone removes sourced content on the grounds that the source isn't good enough, the correct response would be to address the issue on the article's talk page, and see what their problem with the source, claim or both exactly was, and what they recommend in order to fix it. TimothyJosephWood 18:14, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Mortonlvm: Mr. Wood gives some good advice above. Upon reviewing the reverts, I'd advise you to remove all of the empty subcategories and add those only as new information is added to Wikipedia. On another note, I am big believer in this Wikipedia policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. While this policy is somewhat tongue-in-cheek, I consider your students' additions to this article as doing nothing other than improving Wikipedia, so my suggestion is to insert the new information with the school's website as a source, and see where that takes you, in addition to commenting on the article's talk page to perhaps open a dialogue with the reverting editor. Lastly, another project you might consider for your students is adding Ms. Kane to S13 (classification) in the "Competitors" section (with a source), and perhaps others involved in the 2016 Paralympics. I notice that the current article only includes athletes from the 2008 games. Good luck! Justin15w (talk) 20:30, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

How do I duplicate a template or use the original and simply give it a different display title?

Hello. I am creating new articles on WWII Philippine Army Divisions. I want to use the small box template titled Template:US Regiments, but would simply like to hide the name "US Regiments" and visually replace it with "1941-42 Philippine Army Divisions"---either by copying and creating a duplicate template that simply has a different name, or by some other means in my code allowing a different title to be displayed. Here is the original template code:

Usage: Template:US Regiments

Example: Template:US Regiments sidebar

I want MY new example to look like this:

Example: Template:1941-42 Philippine Army Divisions sidebar

I am new at learning your code, navigating your help pages, and I don't know how to create a new template, or to edit the US Regiments one to make a different title be displayed (i.e. "1941-42 Philippine Army Divisions"). Either solution would work for me. Please help, and thanks! Mluklu7 (talk) 14:34, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

(See Article on 11th Division (Philippines) for example of my attempt to use this box template, etc. Notice the template works; I simply need to change the title in my edit code so it will read "1941-42 Philippine Army Divisions", instead of "U.S. Infantry Regiments".)

I'm sitting here looking at your post and the 'blank' usage and example lines, wondering what was going on... I just now noticed that it put them under the infobox on this page, lol - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 14:47, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry about that---the template brackets must have actually applied them here. Been in certain aspects of this business since 1983, but technical programming is new to me---even simple stuff. I guess just go to the 11th Division (Philippines) article and go to the edit function to see how this is all typed out. In fact---if you have the solution, just fix it and I will make the correction up and down the line on each of the other pages. They're all under construction anyway. Thanks! Mluklu7 (talk) 14:53, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Mluklu7, I have answered you at the Help desk. Please don't post the same question in more than one place. In answer to how to mention a template without getting it substituted, you can put it between <nowiki> and </nowiki> (You should be able to use the template {{tlx}}, but I can't get that to work for your particular examples.

So

<pre><nowiki>{{US Regiments sidebar
|previous=[[4th Infantry Regiment (United States)|4th Infantry Regiment]]
|next=[[6th Infantry Regiment (United States)|6th Infantry Regiment]]
}}</nowiki></pre>

displays as

{{US Regiments sidebar
|previous=[[4th Infantry Regiment (United States)|4th Infantry Regiment]]
|next=[[6th Infantry Regiment (United States)|6th Infantry Regiment]]
}}

(I've also used <pre> ... </pre> to preserve the line breaks). --ColinFine (talk) 20:28, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

To change the language of article.

MrKerimov (talk) 14:09, 15 February 2017 (UTC)Hello. Glad to see that I'm invited to a chatroom where I'm able to ask my questions. I'd like to know how to translate my article of Alexander Palishuk and created the translated version of article. Can you explain me the easiest way? Thanks!MrKerimov (talk) 14:09, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, MrKerimov, and welcome to the Teahouse! The easiest way to get a page translated is to list it at the pages needing translation board. If you have other questions, feel free to ask! MereTechnicality ⚙ 14:20, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

MrKerimov. I'm not sure whether you're talking about translating into or from English, but either way, there is useful information at WP:Translation. (MereTechnicality, the page you pointed him to is for articles which have already been added to English Wikipedia but are not in English. Also, if you reply to a message here, it is helpful to ping the questioner - I use the Template:U so: {{U|MrKerimov}}, but there are also other ways). --ColinFine (talk) 20:10, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Consideration for an updated page.

Hello and thank you for your efforts in assisting us, as we develop a greater understanding of submitting to Wikipedia. It sure helps!

As of this morning I finished my last edit on Don Gregorio Antón, based on the suggestions I have received from your representatives. Will this newly revised article be saved directly to those who will now consider its content for submission?

Lastly, if it satisfies the requirements necessary for inclusion, how long does it usually take for it to be posted on the web?

Thanks again for your support!

BLAN-JU (talk) 13:44, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, BLAN-JU. I'm not sure where or when other Wikipedia editors made suggestions to you, but Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Gregorio Antón closed with consensus that the subject was not notable. The current version of the article, Don Gregorio Antón, only cites one source. Significant coverage in reliable, independent sources is needed to demonstrate notability, and everything in the article should be based on what published sources say about the subject. If a subject is not notable, then no amount of effort on your part will satisfy the requirements. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:03, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Could someone help me make amends Newcastle College page?

Hello,

I'm the digital officer for Newcastle College. I've requested amends to be made to the Newcastle College page but am currently in a queue of 114 people. The page appears to be backlogged by a couple of years with some people asking for the same amends as me.

I appreciate I can't amend the content being associated with the college, but can anyone advise on how I can make updates or who to contact? The page is outdated now and sitting a little unloved and dormant. HannahCostello (talk) 12:19, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi HannahCostello. My suggestion to you is to make a request on the article's talk page as explained in Wikipedia:Edit requests if the change you would like to make is not considered a minor edit or uncontroversial edit as explained in WP:COIADVICE. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:36, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I've tried this option, but no-one has responded. There's a back log of 114 requests on the talk page and I'm not sure how I can get another editor to look at this, if there isn't already an editor looking after that page HannahCostello (talk) 14:15, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi again HannahCostello. All Wikipedians are volunteers which means it sometimes takes time for such requests to be responded to. You can ask for assistance at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard, Wikipedia talk:Schools or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject North East England if you prefer per Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide#Steps for engagement. If any of changes you want to make have to do with violations of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, then you can probably make the correction yourself. Just make sure you clearly state so in your edit sum and then explain in more detail in a separate post on the article's talk page. Sometimes serious violations may need to be revision deleted by an administrator, so follow the instruction in WP:BLPCOMPLAINT if that's the case. On the other hand, if you simply want to make changes that simply bring the article up to date, then you probably should stick to asking for assistance from others. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:04, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Numerical time telling ?

What is the style for telling time in numbers and am pm?Srednaus Lenoroc (talk) 07:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Srednaus - It's described at MOS:TIME. EricEnfermero (Talk) 07:34, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy on use of tertiary sources and COPYVIO when translating

Hi Teahouse. I'm currently working on improving Oscar Efren Reyes, and I've encountered two issues which I hope you could help me with. (I've also left some messages on the talk page, for those who want a bit more info)

1. What is Wikipedia's policy on the use of tertiary sources that is not a wiki or user-generated? Specifically, I'm referring to [1] and [2], which seem to be (biographical) encyclopedias written by two (reputable?) historians.
2. What is Wikipedia's policy where a sister wiki (specifically, es:Óscar Efrén Reyes) has more content than we do, but the content seems to violate WP:COPYVIO if the sources were in English? (I've tried as best as possible to rephrase the existing content based on the Spanish sources, but given that the page has a 'suggested translation from Spanish wiki' tag, I fear that myself or other (less experienced) editors may inadvertently add translated 'copyrighted' content)

Thanks again for your help. --talk2Chun^{(talk) (contributions)} 00:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

1. You are allowed to use tertiary sources, but there is a preferences for secondary sources (In my experience this preference is not particularly strong: unless you have a Featured article nomination or similar in mind, tertiary sources are no different than secondary. In fact, tertiary sources probably give you good insights to balancing different viewpoints since they've had to do this.)
2. Do not translate COPYVIO material. I'd say it's good to remove that translation suggestion tag since the material on the Spanish Wikipedia is unsuitable.

– Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:01, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Talk2chun. I agree with my colleague Finnusertop but would like add my own thoughts. At first glance, those Equadoran biographical encyclopedias look like reliable sources, but please evaluate their reputations. Do other reliable sources praise them or criticize them for inaccuracies? Is one more highly regarded than the other? This is where you need to exercise editorial judgment, since you may know more about the sources than many other editors. Or be in a better position to evaluate them.

As for translating sources that violate copyright, please summarize those sources instead, and reference them properly. And research where the proper place to report copyright violations on the Spanish Wikipedia is. I am sure there is such a place, but my Spanish is too weak to find it. Editors there will help you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:10, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Finnusertop and Cullen328 for your clear answers. Just to be clear on my part though, I didn't copy/translate anything from the Spanish wikipedia; I just noticed that the text there very much resembles (almost word for word) the two sources I mentioned. As for the two sources, I completely agree with you, Cullen328, that their reliability will likely need to be evaluated, which unfortunately I'm not in the best position to do. In the face of lack of any sources, and with their outward appearance of having been written by two prominent Ecuadorian historians, I thought it reasonable to cite them until better sources are found.--talk2Chun^{(talk) (contributions)} 09:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Quick stat boxes

How to make the quick stat boxes which appear on the top right corner of famous articles? Baldclock (talk) 18:41, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello Baldclock, I assume you mean infoboxes. You can read more about them at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes. All the best, Taketa (talk) 19:25, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Taketa. Baldclock (talk) 05:38, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

How to Edit A page That is Protected from vandelism

Hi, how do I edit a page that is protected sure to vandalism? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by L1amw90 (talk • contribs) 05:32, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Which page? It depends on the type of protection. Your account should be autoconfirmed soon, so you will be able to edit semi-protected pages then. In the meantime, and for any other pages you cannot edit, propose your edits on the article's talk page. See WP:EDITREQ. Meters (talk) 05:41, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Deleting Multiple accounts and deletion of an error in the archive.

Hello. I need assistance in 1. Deleting obsolete data from the archive- I tried to delete but I was reverted. 2. What can I do to have one account if I had opened other two wikipedia accounts i.e the account with most contributions?-Information in my talk page/my talk page history.Renamed user abkluv 07:36, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

1. You should not remove information from archives. Even if it might seen obsolete to you, it might be helpful to other editors in the future. That's the very reason it was archived rather than deleted in the first place.
2. There are allowed and prohibited uses of multiple accounts. In my opinion, you should keep using the account that is newer, not the one with most contributions. Novelty of the account points to one such legitimate use (namely a clean start) while the amount of contributions has no bearing.

Also, I'm quite confident that having a white-on-white signature is against the rules. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:49, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Editing

Hello. Assist in editing this stub: Sadura. thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riswa (talk • contribs) 06:07, 17 February 2017 (UTC)‎

Hi Riswa, welcome to the Teahouse. Normally, this place is for editors to make enquiries regarding issues they come across while editing Wikipedia. So, you might not get what you want by posting here. May I suggest you try Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indian districts or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject India instead? -- ChamithN (talk) 20:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

@ChamithN:  Thank you very much! Riswa talk 06:07, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

New page

How to create a new page on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SKYKEY (talk • contribs) 09:24, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

@SKYKEY: Welcome to the TeaHouse. There are so many new pages that you can create in wikipedia for example:

• A talk page
• A user page
• A sandbox page
• A article page e.t.c

Which new page do you want to create specifically? You've already created a userpage and a talkpage. Riswa talk 11:04, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

@Riswa: I'm not convinced that SKYKEY has created a talk page; which one did you have in mind? If they mean to create an article, WP:Your first article is good advice. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:19, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Creati

How do i create an article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeidipimp (talk • contribs) 17:07, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Jeidipimp. You can find lots of information (including a warning about how difficult it is to write an acceptable article, and the adviseability of spending some time improving existing articles before you try) at your first article. --ColinFine (talk) 17:57, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Help with categories

Hi! I need some help with categories. I've understanded that for add categories to a page I need to place the template of the refering project (it's that so or I'm thinking wrong?) So, there is a page where all the templates are toghether? Thanks. Justmeonhere (talk) 12:23, 18 February 2017 (UTC)