Wikipedia:Teahouse

Welcome to the Teahouse...                        

A friendly place to learn about editing Wikipedia.

Ask a question

331dot, a Teahouse host

Question forum

Host profiles

Guest profiles

Experienced editor? Become a host!

Learn more about the Teahouse

Articles to improve

Question archive

Guest archive

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

What to do in the case of no free photo for an article

If there is no copyright free photo for an article, can I upload a low resolution (151×194) version of a copyright protected photo? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikshya (talk • contribs) 17:02, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

What article would the picture be for? -A lad insane (Channel 2) 21:03, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Ikshya it is not required that every article have a picture. Copyrighted images can be used only if they fullfil all of the 10 provisions of Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. Many images will not pass this test. Images of a living person will almost never do so. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:23, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Is it possible for you or someone else to take a photo and release it under a suitable license for Wikipedia?

Mtbu (talk) 14:44, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Notability

Hello! I'm trying to create an article for Darrick E Antell MD FACS, a well known plastic surgeon in the medical field. I believe he deserves to have an article mostly because of his research in twins basically comparing genes and the environment. His work is constantly cited in sociology, medicine, genetics, and even psychology. I thought I provided valid resources, including primary research articles written by him about his work, various video clips of his interviews on national television, etc. Could you possibly give me any pointers to improve the article? I've noticed other plastic surgeons who have wikipedia pages, but do not have any notable achievement in the plastic surgery and aesthetic field.

I greatly appreciate your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by St2671 (talk • contribs) 00:51, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

find reliable sauces, then cite them.--gaLAXP|Talk! 20:54, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi, St2671. IMO, your draft as it stands will not pass review. First, no one deserves an article. Notability, as it appears you are aware, is required. It also appears you do not understand what notability means on Wikipedia. In the simplest terms, it means this: a subject is notable if it has been written about in detail by multiple reliable sources which are totally independent of the subject. So, how does that apply to the good doctor? The majority of your citations are to works authored by him. Those are not independent and are of no use in establishing notability, although you can reference facts to them. His bio from his employer is not independent. YouTube videos (or Wikipedia, which you've cited) are not reliable sources and cannot be used at all. The article in the NYT just mentioned his name in passing - not discussion in detail and of no use in establishing notability. What you need are articles that discuss him (not his work, but he himself) in detail in sources independent of him completely that are not interviews. It is possible that he could meet WP:NPROF, the notability standard for academics, if his work is cited substantially in other's works, but I'm not too conversant with that standard and you have not shown anything like that. John from Idegon (talk) 07:39, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Barnstar

How does a wikipedia user get barnstars?Vinnylospo (talk) 03:13, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Vinnylospo. Wikipedia:Barnstars are given by other users on their own initiative. You cannot apply for it or do specific tasks which are awarded with a barnstar. You can just make a lot of constructive edits and hope somebody notices. Some types of edits may be more likely to produce a barnstar but I don't know which. I mostly get barnstars for helping other users but that's also my most active area with around 20,000 edits. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:16, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

@Vinnylospo: There is one type of award that you can give yourself, called a service award. These are based simply on the number of edits you have made and the length of time you have been registered on Wikipedia. Based on your current edit count and length of registration, you would qualified to display a Novice Editor award. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:04, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Wynyard Group

Hi,

Please review this page and let me know what all changes it need.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:James_aaron/sandbox

Thanks

James aaron (talk) 05:25, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

(The draft is now at Draft:Wynyard Group). Most of the sources cited are not independent, being based on statements made by personnel of the company. It nowhere mentions the rather important fact that Wynard group went into liquidation earlier this year. Maproom (talk) 06:34, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Please help to make the required changes on the page. It's a notable company and hence the page must exist.

User:James aaron - That is one of the less persuasive requests for help that I have seen. The article should explain why the company is notable. Anyone can merely state that the company is notable. Also, if you are being paid by the company, you must declare your conflict of interest. If the company went into liquidation, and the article does not say that, are you asking Wikipedia to present a false picture of the company to our readers? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:38, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

My draft has been declined three times, how can I correct it?

Hello, my draft/Joyce Stevens has been declined three times - 1)notability -fixed that I think 2) tone 3) tone again it reads like an 'advertisement'. How can I improve the tone?

Basically I have outlined her public life and achievements and I removed emotional terms like 'courageous' but DrStrauss thinks it reads like an ad. I want to get the draft accepted so I would welcome any help.

I thought I could delete three paragraphs - an introduction summary of Steven's work and two paragraphs of content from her final book summing up her conclusions about women and work.

Do you think this will help get my entry accepted?

Thanking you,

Passionfruitvine.

Passionfruitvine (talk) 08:03, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

The draft in question is Draft:Joyce Stevens. As the second and third declines explain, the issue is tone. (I declined the first version because it did not establish her notability.) The draft still reads as if its purpose is to praise Stevens and her work rather than to describe her neutrally. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:57, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

how can I prevent wikipedia from vandalism with the help of twinkle

Hello, I'm new to wikipedia, I would like to be a best wikipedia editor. Here I need help to use twinkle to prevent wikipedia from unconstructive edits.

Thanks In Advance :-)

Best Regards Harsh Pinjani — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harsh Pinjani India (talk • contribs) 08:34, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Harsh Pinjani India, welcome to the Teahouse. See Wikipedia:Twinkle and Wikipedia:Twinkle/doc, and come back if you have a more specific question. I see you have never edited an article. It may be good to learn more about Wikipedia before using a tool like Twinkle. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:03, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: This editor is making high-speed reverts of IP edits without explanation, sometimes reverting good edits (such as this). I thought it was a bot run amok before reading their posts on the Teahouse. Not sure where else to report this... Funcrunch (talk) 17:41, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I have warned the user and reverted their edits. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:15, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Blocked as a sock of User:Abrish211. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:06, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

A moderator (?) is constantly removing my contribution, even though i believe it's legitimate. I tried to contact him three times -he ignored all attemps.

Hello guys, I am a big noob here. I also am not that fluent in English, so forgive me all mistakes .

So I added a sentence and removed another in this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_atomic_bomb_project (You can see most recent contribs in history section). I cited 5 sourced in the article+plus I linked 2 russian wikipedia articles about the topic in the edit summary. Then this guy comes along: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Daniel0Wellby_sch and removes my article, writing a post in my user/talk page. No problem, he took it as if i was vandalizing wiki - a mistake! - I thought. I wrote on his user/talk page my objection to his removal, but he plain ignored it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Daniel0wellby#https:.2F.2Fen.wikipedia.org.2Fwiki.2FSoviet_atomic_bomb_project In the scope of the next hour I tried to contact him three times, he ignored it, but reverted my attempts to reinstate the edit. You can see the evidence here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:194.67.216.222#June_2017_2

He didn't answer to any of my explanations about why I added my edit. He also didn't provide a reason for removal apart from the standart copy-pasted message.

It really was a frustrrating experience, and I also don't know what to do. What do I so in such situations? Who do I contact? 194.67.216.222 (talk) 09:58, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

• Daniel0Wellby has only made 32 edits and is certainly not a 'moderator'. We don't have moderators, but there users who need tens of thousands of edits to become Administrators, they are the only one who can block anyone. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:33, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the reply! But what do I do if someone is continuosly removing my edits? On top of that that person with 32 edits gave me 5 warning about 'inappropriate edits' on my talk page! Can he ban me? Do these warnings matter?
• 194.67.216.222, I'm afraid you have been edit-warring all over the place, not simply in your dispute with Daniel0Wellby. It's not going to end well. When your edit is reverted the first time, you need to take it to the article's talk page and start a discussion. Do not simply remove material with a claim in the edit summary that you know better or that the Russian Wikipedia supports your view. No Wikpedia in any language is considered a reliable source. From what I can see, virtually every one of your edits was inappropriate—removal of text with reliable references, removal of reliable references themselves, addition of unreliable sources, serious violations of the Wikipedia policy on biographies of living persons, e.g. [1]. You have been edit-warring in multiple articles, including LGBT history in Russia, Soviet atomic bomb project, Kursk submarine disaster, Ukraine, and Alisher Usmanov resulting in the latter two articles being semi-protected. I strongly urge you to read the guidance at the pages I've linked in bold. Voceditenore (talk) 11:03, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I see you are so butthurt over you loosing argument about Gorky, that you've not only found this question of mine, but also decided to try and write something up. Okay, let's start First of all, you came to this page from another argument with me about Gorky and homosexuality. Hence, I am not surprised that you are opposed to me, even though you are trying to appear neutral, you are doing it very badly. First, all of my edits were sourced. The gorky edit we've argued about was specifically so, because it was about what was written in his specific article, which I read and linked to you, yet you ignored it. Equally so, all the other edits were sourced and cited, as was the edit that sparked my whole contribution.

Also, you are a master of strawmens, aren't you?

«Do not simply remove material with a claim in the edit summary that you know better or that the Russian Wikipedia supports your view. No Wikpedia in any language is considered a reliable source'»'

Perfect strawman. You completely ignored 5 articles (not wikipedia articles, just articles) that I provided as a source.

«From what I can see, virtually every one of your edits was inappropriate—removal of text with reliable references, removal of reliable references themselves, addition of unreliable sources, serious violations of the Wikipedia policy»

I am sorry, who are you to judje them to be 'inappropriate'? Because you don't seem to provide any proof, do you?

Not to mention that I was edit-warned 'several times' by the same warner over the same edit.

I would argue a bit more, but there's clearly no point since you are apperently just butthurt over our argument over Gorky, and i've done my part in convincing other wikipedians as to why they shouldn't trust your comment.

Shame on you. --194.67.216.222 (talk) 11:35, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I reverted your edit at LGBT history in Russia (which you immediately reverted) after reading your complaint here and checking your other edits to see what was going on before replying. I then came here to outline the wider problems I found before you arrived at my talk page with yet another unpleasant message. You are of course entitled to your opinions, but your aggressive language when people disagree with you will make it very difficult for other editors to collaborate with or even communicate with you. I suggest you dial it back a bit. Voceditenore (talk) 12:34, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

It's so nie that you didn't adress any of my arguments in my post you replied to, instead you chose to continue with your strawmen. Good luck with that, I ain't gonna spend any more of my time on u. --194.67.216.222 (talk) 22:33, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

It is good that you will not spend any more time here, because you were just wasting your own time repeating "strawman" arguments and crude insults. If you really want to discuss, we can discuss. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:53, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Who's the boss?!

Hi there, I'm brand new to Wikipedia, just started adding content this month. I'm a bit puzzled by how this online community works. Hoping someone can clue me in.

I received a "talk" message from someone, didn't introduce him/herself, but wrote: "Hi! I've undone some of your edits." Never asked who I was, what I was doing, why I was doing it, just started taking down the content I had added. I engaged in dialogue, wanting to understand how the guidelines (there are no firm rules, the pillars tell me) are applied and met with what seemed like snarkiness and even hostility (hey, what about the treat others with respect and civility guideline?!)

So is there some hierarchy here? Are there Wikipedia "police" who engage by immediately removing what you've done? Am I now shunned or something? How does one enter this community?

Thanks! Kdndocent (talk) 22:20, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Kdndocent, and welcome to the Teahouse. No one really is the "boss" here at Wikipedia. There are more and less experienced editors, but the experienced ones do not have any more powers or rights at normal editing than anyone else. FYI Justlettersandnumbers is a quite experienced editor.

A relatively few editors are "admins". I believe something like 1,300 of them are currently active. They are trusted with a few extra tools, but have no extra rights in editing.

It is not common for editors to introduce themselves. An editor's signature on a talk page includes a link to that editor's user page or talk page, usually both. From there you can learn a good deal about the editor, and you can also see a list of all of that editor's edits. If you want to learn about who is talking with you, that is the usual way.

The statements of Justlettersandnumbers on your talk page were accurate. I haven't (yet) reviewed your edits in detail, but uncited content can always be removed. (Personally I prefer to use a {{cn}} tag first, but that is not required.) As for "likely to be challenged" that does add to the need for a citation, but once any content has been removed (or tagged), it has [been] challenged, and so needs a cite. I have to go, but will return to comment further here in a few hours. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:56, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Kdndocent. I've read the talk page discussion. Twice. I can't find one bit of snark there. Nothing at all. And really, quite the opposite. The post you quote the first sentence from sounds like it could have been a prelude to something hostile, but reading the rest of it, I see none. What I see is a really friendly (and informative) series of posts, cluing you into highly relevant information about edits you have been making – edits that do conflict with core policies, guidelines and community norms – without any high handedness involved. What am I missing? Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:25, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello again, Kdndocent. I suppose that the exchange I earned my PhD in Anthropology from Brandeis University so I'm fully aware of citation conventions replied to with Well, then, could you not perhaps observe them? might have seemed a bit snarky. But in fact, although Wikipedia's citation conventions are modeled on those of academia, they are significantly different. Things which would be taken for granted and need no citation in an academic paper or book are routinely cited here. Partly that is because in an academic setting one has some trust in the author --whose reputation is on the line, after all -- and so minor points are not cited. Also, Academic conventions areose in an era of printed on paper publications, where conserving limited space was important. That is not so on Wuikipedia, which has influenced our style. But mostly it is a way to preserve some accuracy and authority when anyone can edit, and no one has credentials. You say that you have a PhD, for example, and i suppose that you do. But there is no easy way for me to confirm it. There has been a prominent case in the past of a person claiming a number of significant credentials here, which turned out to be totally invented -- but this was only found out after he has been a prominent and respected editor for years. So now people pay little attention to an editor's stated qualifications.

As for the guidelines, no rules here are absolutely rock solid, but some are much firmer than others. (Well "Do not infringe copyright" is pretty much rock-solid, as is "Don't make legal threats".) Verifiability (a policy and not just a guideline) is one of the more solid ones. It is fine not to cite statements that you think are uncontroversial and unlikely to be challenged. But if someone does challenge them, you need to cite it before restorign it, or convince others on the article talk page that a citation is not needed. (see Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue) Often such a discussion will consume more effort than simply providing the citation will.

Editors here disagree and dispute one another's facts all the time. People are not "shunned" because of it, nor is reverting or challenging uncited facts considerd uncivil or a personal attack. It is fine to write Statement X needs a citation before it is put into the article. It is not acceptable for someone to write You are a lazy nobody who wouldn't know a reliable source if it bit him on the nose.

One enters the community by starting to edit, making mistakes, getting opinions on what is acceptable, and learning how this place operates, and how to fit in -- and perhaps eventually making a few changes, by example and persuasion. For example I received a talk page message which included the following when I was new here ... Well, the process for possible Copyright violation problems in Wikipedia:Copyright_problems makes it clear that the ((copyvio)) template should be used. Manually inserting the category was only half-way on the process and got no solution within the 11 days it remained that way. ... That felt a bit hostile to me in tone at the time, and if you look at User_talk:DESiegel/archive1 you will see some others, but I wasn't shunned, and i stayed around. (Then there was the author who was so incensed that I added sourced negative comment to the article about him that he compared me to those inmates in the Nazi concentration camps who assisted the guards. However he didn't get much support.) Do feel free to jump in, and if someone reverts to ask why, but if a legit reason is provided, don't take it personally.

And finally, internal museum records that are not available to the public are not "published" and so cannot be cited as a source here.

Do feel free to ask further questions here at the Teahouse at any time about how to to work in Wikipedia. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 02:13, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

In view of your position at the museum, you are probably easily able to publish the information that you hold, then it would be available to be cited. Dbfirs 08:06, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Kdndocent, my first edit to your talk-page was this; I'm sorry you did not find it a sufficient introduction. I'm inclined to agree with DESiegel that my "could you not observe them?" comment could have been better phrased. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:52, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

IP adress block, no account creation

My IP is block what should I do now to open my IP? Admin set no expiry date and no account creation.(Hide07 (talk) 05:21, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Hide07 and welcome to the Teahouse. You can simply log in using your account, as you have just done. Why do you need to create a new account or to edit without logging in? Dbfirs 07:46, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Hide07 - Perhaps you have been editing from an IP address, and the IP address range has been blocked due to vandalism or some other sort of abuse. Perhaps you have the mistaken idea that you preserve your privacy better by editing from an IP address than by using your newly registered account, which you presumably created due to the IP block. Actually, you are better off editing from a registered account, and may continue to do so. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:42, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I found lack of information on RSU Wikipedia page

Hello sir,

I just found Raksha Shakti University on wikipedia and there is no any valid reference.

Wikipedia Page URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raksha_Shakti_University Deadline43 (talk) 07:49, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Much of the unsourced material has now been removed. Is there a question about the existence or status of the institution? Dbfirs 08:01, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Future of user accounts

what happens to accounts of dead users? Sinner (talk) 08:12, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Nazim Hussain Pak. See Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians/Guidelines. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:00, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

edits not working

My business edits will not updateCaitlinhellrung (talk) 14:18, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Caitlinhellrung, and welcome to the Teahouse. In this sequence of edits you removed a number of source citations, removed some sourced content, and added a good deal of new unsourced content, all without any explanation in the edit summaries or on the article talk page (Talk:City Museum). These changes were all reverted in this edit by Velella, an experienced editor here, with the summary restore version with all its references intact. You then made this edit which removed cited content, replacing it with quite different content, and altered the citation, again with no explanation. That edit was reverted by Fylbecatulous in this edit with the summary Whatever changes are being done here; this is not constructive; please discuss on article talk page.

So the problem is not that your edits "did not update", it is that two different editors have reverted them. Following the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle, your next step should be to discuss your changes and the reasons for them on Talk:City Museum. Ideally the editors there (including you) should seek a consensus on which (if any) of your changes to make and how. Failing that, dispute resolution is available. But the article talk page is the place to start, Please remember to discuss politely and to assume the good faith of those you discuss with. They should do the same. I have not reviewed the details of your edits nor the sources, and so I have no opinion on the actual merits of your desired changes. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:46, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

One further point, Caitlinhellrung, to add to Cullen's and DES's answers: I'm not quite sure what to make of the phrase "my business edits", but I'm guessing that it means you are in some way connected with the business (City Museum) and believe that you therefore have some say in the contents of the article. I apologise if my guess is wrong; but if I am right, please understand that neither you nor the City Museum have any control over the article, and indeed are strongly discouraged from editing it directly. As explained at WP:Conflict of interest you are welcome to suggest changes to the article (preferably with citations to independent sources) but should not make them directly. --ColinFine (talk) 23:01, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Help Me

hello pls help me to creat the tv series and movies like us.Eduardo.jocson (talk) 15:56, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, Eduardoy.jocson, I'm not sure what you are asking. If you are asking for help in the difficult task of creating Wikipedia articles, please read your first article. If you are asking about creating TV series and movies, then I'm afraid that the help desk for Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for that question. --ColinFine (talk) 23:03, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

How to ethically involve more editors in a discussion?

Is there a way that I can bring more attention to a talk page discussion in an ethical way? I know that there is some form of discussion board somewhere in Wikipedia but could I get a direct link. Feel free to shoot me down if I am doing something not considered tactful. SamHolt6 (talk) 16:07, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, SamHolt6 and welcome to the Teahouse. I take it that this is about Talk:Kombucha, is that correct? You seem to have several editors discussing there already. You have been told that rearranging the layout to more closely resemble other beverage articles is fine, provided that the fringe medical claims are featured prominently (which means they should be at least mentioned in the lead section, in my view). You have also been told that content changes might be more problematical. You have also been advised to make smaller incremental changes. I am not sure what you think additional editors would add to this. If you have a specific issue that you think needs wider input, you could start a Requests for comment, but that really requires a specific focused issue to give a useful result. Also, it is not guaranteed to attract large numbers of editors, you never know. There are many discussion boards and notice boards, but most are for specific issues or sorts of problems, and none seem to really fit this case that I can think of. You could ping editors who have been active on the article in the past to join the article talk page discussion, but be careful not to do so selectively, choosing only editors likely to agree with you. Instead choose all editors who have made significant contributions, or who have made such contributions within a given time frame, say the past 6 moths or past year. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:02, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

SamHolt6, you can try to put a neutral request (that´s the ethical part, to avoid WP:CANVASSING) at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Food and drink, something like "I´d like to ask for more eyes/opinions at the Kombucha Article layout discussion." There´s also a Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Food and drink/Beverages Task Force (I swear I didn´t make that up), but it´s been quiet for a couple of years. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:23, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the assistance.--SamHolt6 (talk) 17:56, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Help with Articles Creation

Hello, I am having a bit of trouble with my draft. I submitted it for review but it was declined. I wanted to know what I can do to change it in order to make it accepted for publication. My draft name is Draft:Dr. John J. Maalouf.

Thank You

Ryanmardini24 (talk) 17:06, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

@Ryanmardini24: Hello and welcome. Based on the message you got when the draft was declined, you apparently copied content from elsewhere to your draft, which is not permitted as it is a copyright violation. To have an article about this person, you will need to write about them in your own words, indicating with independent reliable sources how the subject is notable. You may wish to read this page for users writing their first article to learn what is being looked for and a basic idea of how it is done. 331dot (talk) 17:23, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for you're advice. Is there any way you can take a look at my sources and see if they are reliable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanmardini24 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

If you are referring to the sources in your draft, I can say that press releases are not considered reliable sources(which appears to be most of your sources); Wikipedia is not interested in what someone(or their employer) says about themselves, but what others say about them. Basic directory listings probably aren't either(especially if they are user-editable). 331dot (talk) 17:39, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

You will need independent reliable sources that indicate how the person is notable; these criteria list what is being looked for generally. 331dot (talk) 17:41, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Why does a "mandala" in the Wiki Rigveda defenition only refer to it as a hymn?

In Sanskrit, as I understand, Mandala means, "circle." As I was taught, it was a geometric representaion of the universe and a tool for meditation - for example, the Buddhists and Hindus often made highly complicated designs and focused on meditation and focus for the particular design - in order to reach a higher form of consciousness. My point being - that the Wiki article refers to the mandala only as a hymn used in the Rigveda (and other vedas), somewhat similar, but excluding the mandala as a tool for meditation - as a representation of the universe (or possibly, multiple) as we know it. I do not claim to know everything, but I would like someone to study if my teaching was incorrect - other sites include the designs as a meditation path. Am I incorrect? Please adviseAv8r67 (talk) 20:07, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

We have an article Mandala. Is it not accurate? Have you found an error in some other article? The Rigveda article is specifically about hymns, so you would expect that meaning to be discussed. Dbfirs 20:47, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Are some countries not accepted on wikipedia?

An article i contributed on wikipedia "Kang Quintus" the volunteer supervising me on the page has said Nomination of Kang Quintus for deletion and also added articles from Cameroon are relatively rare and the country is under-represented here.I have humbly appeal on talk page for the article but no one has make any comment. I want the article to be review so that i know what is lacking to improve it.

Thanks a lot everyone.Abanda bride (talk) 20:39, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Abanda bride, and welcome to the Teahouse. Ther are no countries which are "not accepted" on Wikipedia. What was said at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kang Quintus was that since articles about Cameroon are relatively rare, we need more of them. Therefore the volunteer is reluctant to suggest deleting Kang Quintus, but there do not seem to be the sources needed to demonstrate that this person is notable. If you wish to comment on this, the place to do so is the deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kang Quintus. You might want to read Wikipedia's Golden Rule and Our guideline on the notability of biographies before commenting. Basically what is needed is independent published reliable sources that discuss Kang Quintus in some detail. If you can find and prevent several such sources, the article should not be deleted. Otherwise, it quite likely will be. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:32, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Creating a Page

I commonly watch this tv channel called FE-TV, but I realized there was no page for it on wikipedia, how can I make a page for it?Dylanr2002 (talk) 00:12, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Dylanr2002. Writing an acceptable new article is difficult but not impossible for a new editor. You can start by writing a rough draft in your sandbox. Make efforts to improve existing articles, so you can learn how things work in smaller chunks. Read and study Your first article. Gather a list of URLs of independent reliable sources that devote significant coverage to this channel. Summarizing those sources is how articles here are written. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:31, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Can we not create articles that can be accurately cited?

On the Everipedia everipedia page (funny right?), there is a quotation in the article that I would like to cite. "Unlike Wikipedia, Everipedia allows users to create pages about any person, organization, object, or idea that can be accurately cited." Is this true? Wikipedia allows users to create articles about notable subjects. Can this article make this claim? Let me know your thoughts. Jamesjpk (talk) 03:12, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I'd also like to add, that on the Everipedia everipedia page about Wikipedia they say this quotation: "This site, Everipedia, is intended to be the for-profit, modern version of Wikipedia." Modern??? What isn't modern about Wikipedia? Jamesjpk (talk) 03:15, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

"The original version of this page is from Wikipedia, you can edit the page right here on Everipedia."

Even worse I just found this on the website:

OK maybe I'm just a little fired up. Still, Everipedia should be looked at and examined. Jamesjpk (talk) 03:38, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello Jamesjpk, and Welcome to the Teahouse. This page is primarily for questions about how to edit Wikipedia, not about Everipedia and how it works. We do not currently have an article Everipedia, although one could be created if Everipedia is notable. Various projects to create variants of Wikipedia have been tried, with some change in the polices and practices that the creators of those projects have thought to be improvements. So far, none of them have been nearly as successful, but that can always change. You would have to ask them in what way they consider themselves more modern than Wikipedia. Anyway, i don't see any harm being done to Wikipedia, nor anything that we need to do about Everipedia. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 04:09, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

First question: I see no reason to doubt what it says. (I doubt that the results will be useful, but that's another question.)

Second question: it's a statement of their intentions, and again there's no reason to doubt it.

Third question (which I've taken the liberty of reformatting so that the image gets rendered): I don't understand the problem.

Overall: there's nothing to get worked up about. If their project works as they hope, that'll be great, we'll have a free-to-use resource even better than Wikipedia. But I'll offer long odds against that ever happening. Maproom (talk) 06:27, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

But they are using Wikipedia content without the required acknowledgement, and claiming copyright to it themselves. Maproom (talk) 06:38, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

So are a great many of the sites listed on Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks, and that has been true for years. Individual users whose copyright has been infringed can issue DCMI takedown notices, or could even sue (not likely). Copyright rests in the individual contributors, so there is nothing that Wikipedia (or the WMF) as an organization can do, I am afraid. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:20, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

In the examples i looked at, they do link back to the source Wikipedia article. They don't provide the proper copyright notice, but their FAQ page says all content is under CC-BY-SA-4.0. I sent a DCMI takedown for a sample article i contributed to, and listed them in Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:57, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

User Pages

I have a quick question to ask users of Wikipedia.

How do you put those blocks that are like "This user is a fan of...?" I REALLY wanna put that on my user page! Please respond ASAP!

Thanks,

WarriorsFan30112335 — Preceding unsigned comment added by WarriorsFan30112335 (talk • contribs) 05:16, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, WarriorsFan30112335. Please read Wikipedia:Userboxes for complete details. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:03, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Welcome committee guides

Hey, I was wondering what tools would prove helpful in greeting new users besides Wikipedia:Welcome committee#Welcome templates? I've been cataloging my edits here, but I wasn't sure what reception it's been getting nor how useful it might be to anyone but myself.-🐦Do☭torWho42 (⭐) 08:21, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, DoctorWho42. I am not clear on what sort of tool you are looking for, or what you want to do with it. Would you care to explain in more detail? Personaly I dind {{welcome}} to be all that i need in most cases.

By the way, you can keep a log such as User:DoctorWho42/Welcoming templates if you choose to, but Special:Contributions/DoctorWho42 is kept automatically, and most of the info could be gotten from that. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:15, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

@Murph9000: recommended I should use {{Welcome}} less and instead make the most of the wider range of Welcome templates on Wikipedia:Welcome committee#Welcome templates. Multiple users, like Murph and Primefac, instilled that only using {{Welcome}} can prove disruptive and not very helpful when welcoming bots, spammers, vandals, etc. Users like Jc86035 recommended Twinle though.-🐦Do☭torWho42 (⭐) 21:52, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

That is something of a matter of taste and style, DoctorWho42. I agree that clear cut vandals and spammers should not be welcomed. I don't usually bother to welcome those who do not register and log in. I don't like the larger welcome form produced by Twinkle, and never use it, although I use Twinkle a lot for other purposes. I have been using {{subst:Welcome}} Since I was welcomed with it myself over 10 years ago (I keep the original welcome from Flockmeal at the top of my user talk page when other content is archived). I find it to be just what I want. But you may use any of the many welcome templates available or even craft your own, if you choose. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:08, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Why was my article deleted?

I submitted an article on a restaurant called Taro and it was deleted, despite the fact that i cited it and have created an article exactly like this before ([franco manca]) and it was not deleted. Stan traynor (talk) 10:47, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

The reason for deleting your article on Taro is explained here. I think you're lucky that Franco Manca has survived. Maproom (talk) 12:49, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

i am a confussed

how do i am a wikipedia i did not know how for long i do not how it edit do i do That Random Edmontonian (talk) 20:09, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

thank you if you say how make the wikipedia i am very great That Random Edmontonian (talk) 20:12, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi That Random Edmontonian. I think you might benefit from taking a tour through the Wikipedia:Tutorial and then reading Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:03, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

That wasn't me. My roommate is unfamiliar with Wikipedia (and English, obviously) and sneakily used my account (which was unfortunately open) and typed this out. Sorry. -- That Random Edmontonian (talk) 21:15, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Please Help

Abrish211 (talk · contribs) The IP address of this user is block for creating new accounts can any body help to unblock his IP. We will e very grateful to you on your act of kinds. Regards:

Hide07 (talk) 20:26, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

@Hide07: you have already raised this at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Request to unblock IP. That is the location where this can be discussed and decided, not here. Nthep (talk) 20:33, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Writing and linking articles on the same subject in different languages?

Hi there. I am composing an article about a well-known artist who passed away 20 years ago and has no Wikipedia presence. I am writing it in English and I wil also write it in another three or four languages after that, so the language links to each language article can be seen at the left under "Languages". How do I publish the other articles in each language and how do i link them? Thanks! WPWorksWPWorks (talk) 21:50, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, WPWorks. I'm afraid we can't tell you much about publishing in other languages, because each language Wikipedia is an independent project with its own rules and procedures: you would have to ask on each of then. There might be some generally useful information in WP:translate us, but I'm not sure. To link the articles together when you've created them, you edit the Wikidata entry: pick "Edit links" under the list of languages.

Some advice on your draft: in my personal view, if you have written text and not cited a source for the information in that text, you have already gone astray. Wikipedia is not interested in what you or I know, it is only interested in what reliable published sources say. --ColinFine (talk) 22:40, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your input ColinFine. Obviously the most important part is your advice about citing sources. There are books published about the artist that can be referenced, as well as catalogs from Town Hall-sponsored exhibitions and events, but all have been published in Forli, and Bologna Italy and carry no ISBN. Could I reference each publication mentioning publisher, author and copyright year? Would that be enough? I am also in contact with the Assessor of Culture of the Town Hall Administration of Forli and could collect further proof of sourcing. Also there are articles by l;ocal newspapers published at their media websites; would such links be considered sources? The artist is unknown beyond her native region and therefore the Wikipedia entry I am attempting to create would be among the first efforts to get the artist known beyond that region of Italy. How uphill a project would you say I am facing? WPWorks (talk) 23:19, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, WPWorks. Absolutely you can cite books as long as they have been published by reputable publishers (not vanity presses). They don't have to be available online, or in English, as long as an interested reader could in principle get hold of them, eg through a major library. You need to give enough bibliographic information to make this possible, and also to help a reader judge whether a source looks to be reliable. Please see referencing for beginners.

Having said that, if she is unknown beyond her native region, it is possible that she would not meet the standards for notability - it all depends on the quality and reliability of the sources. What we are interesed in is writing about her by people unconnected with her - so not catalogues, or interviews, and probably not anything put out by a gallery who exhibits her. (Those sources may be used for uncontroversial factual data such as places and dates, but they do nothing to establish notabillity). WP:Golden rule may clarify for you. --ColinFine (talk) 16:40, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello and thank you again ColinFine! Totally understood and truly helpful. Thankfully I did find, today, two books with ISBN at the Italian amazon that I can use as sources. Most of the other books I have that I talked about are published by the town of Forli rather than vanity presses or private concerns (but are difficult to find anywhere but at the Town Hall and Town library). Most of the Exhibitions and Events before and after the artist’s passing were organized by the Town Hall rather than private galleries, another plus. And there is a Park named after her, and there are several sculptures that stand in spots around the town of Forli. It seems to me that she is unknown beyond the region not because of the level of her work or worth, but because of the level of the town’s know-how, or lack of it, or lack of interest, in promoting their own. I am assured by friends in academia back in the States who have seen the work that they believe it to be world class, as I do. Therefore I think it takes someone, at some point, who is not aiming at personal gain, to make such an artist available to a wider public and Wikipedia seems the most appropriate platform? What do you think? By the way, at my sandbox in the artist’s infobox there’s already a link to the website of her work if you are interested. WPWorks (talk) 17:57, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Is humour allowed?

I know what you're thinking: Of course it is! There are several articles with jokes. So when I wanted to put some humour in such a boring site, I went to the Central African Republic section of the Country Etymology page and made it read "Do you really need to find out?" I mean, seriously! CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC. It's pretty much self explanatory. BUT NO!!! My work was DELETED and replaced with the original junk! But I thought it didn't show up because it didn't work, so I tried again. STILL it wasn't there! So the next day, I found a message. It turned out I was BLOCKED for vandalism. VANDALISM!!! It was HUMOUR, OK?!! Ever hard of something called CONSISTENCY???

That Random Edmontonian (talk) 23:45, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, That Random Edmontonian. This is a project to build a reference work, specifically an encyclopedia. Please take that seriously. No, we do not include jokes in encyclopedia articles, unless the article is about humor and the joke illustrates a legitimate point. So, stop that inappropriate behavior, or you are at risk of being blocked. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:22, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Okay, THAT incident was LONG ago. That Random Edmontonian (talk) 01:25, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Why are you bringing this up? As explained, you made a mistake. Happens. The block was appropriate, but is no longer in place. So why are you revisiting it? If you would like to contribute responsibly, go for it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:29, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

That was my...old account...don't ask. Long and embarrassing story. That Random Edmontonian (talk) 03:07, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

To clarify what Cullen said, Wikipedia hosts , but they all have one thing in common: they aren't in the main namespace. The main namespace is the one with all the articles. Since it's the one that most people see, it's held to higher standards.

Your joke might have worked better if you'd told it somewhere else. Player 03 (talk) 14:10, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

How I can create a New Wikipedia Page on "Kalpana Chawla Memorial Planetarium"?

Hello,

Kalpana Chawla Memorial Planetarium is located in Pehowa, Haryana India. It was established in the memory of late NASA Scientist Kalpana Chawla.

How can i create a wiki page?

Please suggest.

Thanks

A. Gupta 23:58, 1 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guptaamanladwa (talk • contribs)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Guptaamanladwa. Begin by reading Your first article, and feel free to return to the Teahouse with more specific questions. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:26, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

AfC inaugural editor has gone dark (non-responsive for 20+ days)

this editor says the article "needs non-local refs" (it has non-local refs) and "needs refs that are not from the political sphere" (a personal interpretation of the need for refs to be independent, reliable, in-depth ie. non trivial / non directory info only).

these queries were posed over 20 days ago. no response. despite plenty of further talk edits on their page.

may the Teahouse volunteers pls clarify: what is meant to happen when an editor makes personal interpretations of the rules, then stops responding to their talk page??

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Primefac/Archive_10#query_re_national_coverage.2C_reliable.2C_independent...

Skinduptruk (talk) 02:47, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Then you ask someone else. There's no need to wait 20 days. Primefac doesn't own that draft, and other editors are equally qualified to make judgments.

In response to your discussion with Primefac, you quoted a section about "Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office" (emphasis mine). However, Kurt Pudniks' campaign failed, so he never held that office.

It seems to me like Primefac was right. WP:POLOUTCOMES states "Losing candidates for office below the national level who are otherwise non-notable are generally deleted." Player 03 (talk) 13:46, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Published Book

I have a recently published book, and like everybody else am trying to promote it. I created a Wiki page for it, but was immediately deleted, because it was "self-promotion." There are so many thousands of books in Wikipedia. How do they get past this filter? Can I have a friend/author to use their account to create a Wiki page for my book? As per the filter, that won't be "self-promoting."Accidental Refugee (talk) 03:33, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Why did you waste so much time writing a useless little book when you should have gotten up of your bum and actually get some fresh air?!

Ugh, where am I getting? That Random Edmontonian (talk) 03:52, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

That Random Edmontonian, you are hereby warned to avoid insults at the Teahouse. You may think that was a joke but it is not funny. Stop this behavior, please.

Welcome to the Teahouse, Accidental Refugee. Wikipedia is not a promotional platform, and you will get strong pushback from experienced editors for any attempts to use it that way. Please read our notability guideline for books. An acceptable article about a book that meets that guideline will neutrally summarize what reliable, independent sources say about the book. The most common acceptable sources for articles about books are reviews written by professional book critics and published in newspapers and magazines which are well known for reviewing books.

It is a bad idea to try to recruit someone else to write an article about your book. In my experience, such an effort will fail over 99% of the time. Instead, work to get your book professionally reviewed in a respected publication, and not by some "pay to play" publication. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:05, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Steve smith

I added the template for the 2001 ap all pro first team on Steve Smith (sr.)'s page and even though it showed it, when I collapsed the template on his page, it wasn't bolded and blckened, which is what it for the 2005 all pro team template. can you help?Vinnylospo (talk) 04:48, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Vinnylospo. A wikilink directly to the page itself becomes unlinked bold text. See Help:Self link. It failed here because it linked via a redirect. Fixed in [2]. PrimeHunter (talk) 07:35, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Can someone help improve a table at sefirot?

There is a table at [3] with a note beneath it asking for it to be corrected. I was not quite successful in making it as it should be... You don't need any prior knowledge of Kabbalah to do it, just how to make a table on wikipedia ;-) 238-Gdn (talk) 08:06, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi 238-Gdn, welcome to the Teahouse. Does [4] look OK? I used style="vertical-align: top;" at Help:Table#Vertical alignment in cells. PrimeHunter (talk) 08:29, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to Primehunter for immediately stepping in to make the necessary correction! 238-Gdn (talk) 08:31, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I have restored PrimeHunter's reply here, 238-Gdn. I presume you removed it by accident. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:49, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Wasn't aware I had done that. 238-Gdn (talk) 11:52, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

No worries, 238-Gdn. Your edit was made shortly after Primehunter's, so it probably happened due to an edit conflict (see Help:Edit conflict). Cordless Larry (talk) 12:00, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Seeking advice for a page which lists fundraising days

Hi,

I'm looking for formatting advice about a page I've drafted in my userspace: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SunnyBoi/Wear_it_Purple_Days

I'm making the page because there are multiple charity fundraising days which focus on wearing the colour purple, and it can be quite confusing. I know it's very drafty at the moment, cos I first started it just for me, but I'm wondering if it might be more broadly useful. I'm not sure about the best way to format it?

Some of the specific purple days were held as one-off events, whereas others are annual. Would you suggest a tabular format similar to this one (on a different subject) which someone else compiled? I could maybe do two separate lists within the one page, to show one-off and regular purple days? I could organise in "year held" order too.

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

Thank you for your advice! SunnyBoi (talk) 08:57, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, SunnyBoi. My advice is, before worrying about how to present it, concentrate on getting the solid substantial independent sources without which no information should appear in Wikipedia. On your draft, you have a number of references; but it looks to me as if most or all of them are articles in local papers announcing an event. (I haven't gone looking for the ones that you haven't given a link for, but I doubt if they are any more than that). I'm afraid that these are of no value for establishing that a subject is notable (in Wikipedia's special sense) because they are generally based on press releases from the event, or else are no more than a listing. Wikipedia has essentially no interest in anything which a subject - be it a person, a group, an organisation, or an event - says or wants to say about itself. It is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject have chosen to publish about it. My suspicion is that few of the Wear it Purple days are individually notable. The movement as a whole may be, but only if you can find enough independent published material about it to base an article on (I see that we have an article on the Australian version, Wear it Purple Day). If so, it might then be appropriate to list individual ones with only the level of sourcing that you have - but unless there is other substantial content, then I don't think such a list would be appropriate for the article. Note that in List of LGBT awareness days that you reference, the majority of the entries are blue links, i.e. we have separate articles about them. --ColinFine (talk) 17:15, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Articles

Please i need someone to assist me with an article for my mentor, all details regarding his biography is with me thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibabanaija (talk • contribs) 09:20, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

@Ibabanaija: The person you are writing about must be a notable person, as Wikipedia defines notability, before an article about them will be accepted. If they are currently alive, then there is a specific policy for biographies of living persons that you must follow.

You must show that this person has had significant coverage by providing references to multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject. This person's own website and/or social media sites will not be enough to establish their notability.

If you know this individual personally, then you have what is called a conflict of interest. We discourage editors from writing about people or things with whom they have a personal or professional relationship. You can find out why in Wikipedia's plain and simple conflict of interest guide.

Finally, there is a problem with your username. You should not use an account whose name is the real name of another person. Wikipedia will often block these accounts to prevent damaging impersonation. I would advise you to change your username to something else. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 13:54, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of list in epilepsy Purple Day page

Hello,

I've made some edits to the Purple Day page, which was flagged as having a lot of promotional content. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purple_Day

It looks like there haven't been other edits in quite some time. Would you recommend asking this question (below) on the talk page for the actual page? Or is it okay to seek guidance here?

I would like to propose removing the bullet point list of celebrities under this existing heading: "Other celebrities who attended the event include..."

This is because while celebrity support for causes is helpful, it doesn't seem super notable in this case? But I'm concerned that this might be viewed as unhelpful editing.

Thank you very much for your guidance! I'm happy to put this on the talk page if that's your recommendation. SunnyBoi (talk) 10:49, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, SunnyBoi. I agree that the list of celebrities is not appropriate - the article is about the continuing day, and while some mention of the international launch is appropriate (according to what independent reliable sources say - blogs are hardly ever considered reliable sources, and Robin Slick was connected to the event) a list of celebrities in lead section is certainly de trop. As for removing it - please have a look at WP:BRD. As long as you make an edit in good faith (and I strongly advise you to put something in the edit summary to say why you think this is a good edit) nobody should take it as disruptive. If somebody disagrees, they might revert you, and then you can have a discussion on the talk page. --ColinFine (talk) 17:22, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Need help on potential editing war.

Hi, I'm a new editor. I'm trying editing something controversial. I first raise my concerns about some issues, which are obviously against the five pillars of Wikipedia, in the talk page. Then I undo twice the main article, so nothing changed, to attract attention. I ask editors who support current edition to add reliable sources etc. and I found my request was completely ignore. Then I try first replace the unreliable source with the citation mark "citation needed", but found my edit was reverted without provided any reason that challenge the reason I provided in talk page. I don't want to enter into an editing war here, what should I do?

The page is here: Nathu La and Cho La clashes. The concerns I raised are in section "Discussion about improving this page" in talk page. --Fenal Kalundo (talk) 11:17, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

If you have a concern about a source being reliable, the proper place to ask is at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. You can also tag the source with {{Unreliable source?}}. What you don't do is remove a source and add a {{citation needed}} tag. ~ GB fan 11:40, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Got it, thank you. Can I also ask where should I seek help if I think the page includes irrelevant information? -- Fenal Kalundo (talk) 12:40, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

You have already taken the first steps in dispute resolution, Fenal Kalundo. That link tells you how you can proceed further. --ColinFine (talk) 17:26, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

ColinFine Thank you, I am actually proceeding now. :) -- Fenal Kalundo (talk) 08:26, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Please help

How can I create a page and appears on Google — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyonnebuka (talk • contribs) 14:47, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Lyonnebuka and welcome to the Teahouse. My first answer is that we are here to create an encyclopaedia, not to publicise or promote anything, and therefore (in my personal view) it doesn't matter whether it gets indexed on Google or not. Having said that, if you write an acceptable encyclopaedia article in Wikipedia, it will in time get indexed by Google. I urge you to read the links that C.Fred has put on your user talk page, especially your first article. Writing an article that gets accepted is quite difficult, and few people manage it without first acquiring some familiarity with editing Wikipedia. One more point: writing about yourself is strongly discouraged in Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 17:49, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

How to add a draft?

Good morning, I clicked on Teahouse "Ask a Question" and I assume this is where I ask a question.

I’m trying (unsuccessfully) to add 8 more (of 11 rail trail descriptions) into Wikipedia. Each town that the New Haven and Northampton Canal Greenway travels through has their own advocacy group dedicated to maintain their greenway. I’m trying to add each rail trail name into Wikipedia. So far I've added the New Haven Vision Trail, Southington Rails-to-Trails and the Plainville Bicycle Travelway.

When complete, I then plan on linking each rail trail description to the New Haven and Northampton Canal Greenway (yet to be included in Wikipedia). I cannot find the link to create a new draft. I do have a complete description of the 8 yet to be included.

Thank you, Bob — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.237.9 (talk) 14:50, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Bob. Please see the Wikipedia:Article wizard. As a gut check: are you certain this subject is independently notable and that you will be able to demonstrate that in a draft by citations to published, reliable, secondary and independent sources that write about this topic in substantive detail? Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:57, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

How should I solve this dispute.

Hi, I entered a dispute with another editor here in section "Discussion about improving this page". The counterparty seems take this issue very personal at the very beginning and keep refusing to discuss the content while I stated my reasons over and over again. My question is where should I seek help? "Resolving content disputes with outside help" or "Resolving user conduct disputes"? -- Fenal Kalundo (talk) 15:33, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Fenal Kalundo. Your concerns were responded to by other editors in the talk page section above, and it is not useful to repeat yourself. You have not yet obtained consensus for the changes that you propose. You are criticizing one of the sources, a book, by claiming that the author's conclusions are only opinion. The best place to discuss the reliability of a source is the Reliable sources noticeboard. You may also want to formulate a carefully worded Request for comment, which will bring in uninvolved editors. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:10, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Thank you for advice, I'm repeating is bcs in the talk while it appears my counterparty is discussing, they don't address my argument at all. I have given very specific reasons and focus on the content, but since my counterparty keep throwing words irrelevant to the content I don't know if they can understand my point. I actually have already sought help from Reliable sources noticeboard at section "14.Can I conclude this source unreliable?" and it said the problem of this source is, quoted, "this is ore an issue of Undue weight being given to one version of events". –– Fenal Kalundo (talk) 08:24, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Is there a "code completion" kind of thing, but for templates?

I'm terrible with titles. So, let me put in other words: In IDEs like Eclipse, you can easily start a method, for example, and after the dot (.), find suggestions to complete the method. What I would want, to give an example, is that when I input, {{nowiki|citeweb}}, more stuff show up as I press, I dunno, Ctrl + Space.

In yet another words, I wonder if there are more powerful editors for Wikipedia. I'm fine with the current way of editing, I'm just curious about more efficient methods. Tetizeraz (talk) 18:25, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Tetizeraz. I must confess I am confused by your post. It may be an issue of jargon. I don't know what "IDEs" stands for, even after looking at IDE. I don't know what you mean by "starting a 'method'"; I don't know which period (.) you are referring to; I'm not sure if by your use of the nowiki tag above (which I have closed; if you use a <nowiki> tag and don't close it with an ending </nowiki> tag [note the forward slash) all of the code after it on this page will not work) you meant for that to display or to use it to make {{citeweb}} into a link, and so forth. Possibly this might help: there are certain tools you can use to automate populating citation templates to an extent. For example, Refill is very useful, as is Wikipedia citation tool for Google Books – see more at See Help:Citation tools. If this is all off target (and no one else comes along who understands your post better; it might just be me) then if you could clarify a bit, that would be great. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:46, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

It's fine. Thanks for the help, I'll check the links. Tetizeraz (talk) 19:03, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi - I figure you mean Eclipse (software). I suspect autocomplete in the Wikimedia software would be stymied by the many, many possibilities, even within templates. (The only place I've seen anything like it is in the results that appear below the search box.) But for all I know the Visual Editor does have such a thing. So far as I'm aware, the text editor and the Visual Editor are the only editors (in that sense) that we have. Sorry - I am not known for my technical expertise. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:41, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Tetizeraz I am a software developer and I understand exactly what you mean. No there is no such code completion tool for wiki markup in general, nor for templates in particular. For citation templates specifically, I make some use of the RefToolbar, but there are other tools available, listed at Help:Citation tools. Several of these take the form of a popup form in which you fill in data values, and which then builds the citation wiki-code for you. However, anyone used to creating code in Eclipse will not find manually inserting citation templates very taxing.

For others on this thread, including Fuhghettaboutit, much software development is done using Integrated Development Environments or IDEs. In many of these when a user starts to enter a syntax element the environment will offer a choice or list of choices to complete it, based on its programmed knowledge of what choices are available, This is a bit like the search suggestions below the search box. If we had such a thing, after one typed in {{Cite it might offer choices of Web, Book, News Magazine, etc, and after one typed in {{Cite Web it might offer choices of the various parameters available. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:51, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the information, Yngvadottir and DESiegel. Tetizeraz (talk) 20:58, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Help review for page submission

Hi,

I have submitted a page for review but was declined with the following message from reviewer:

The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you.

Could you please help and check on the same and let me know what needs to be done?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Prem_Kumar_Chanda/sandbox

Thank You Prem Kumar Chanda (talk) 18:55, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Prem Kumar Chanda: you do have footnotes, so I think the reviewer must have meant that they should not be bare links. I've formatted a few of them using the citation templates, so you can see how that is done. I didn't examine the type of references you have, so it's possible I misunderstood what the reviewer meant. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:33, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Prem Kumar Chanda , and welcome to the Teahouse. Based on the guideline section that the reviewer (TheSandDoctor) linked to (WP:MINREF), s/he thought you did not use enough footnotes, and in particular that thre were items which require inline citation but did not have them. These items are:

1. Direct quotations;
2. Any statement that has been challenged (e.g., by being removed, questioned on the talk page, or tagged with {{citation needed}}, or any similar tag)
3. Any statement that you believe is likely to be challenged.
4. Contentious material, whether negative, positive, or neutral, about living persons.

I didn't notice any such content without an inline citation, myself.

However, TheSandDoctor may have meant the bare links, as Yngvadottir suggested. In any case, providing proper bibliographic detail will improve the draft, and make it easier to use later.

I did notive a few instance of promotional or WP:PEACOCK language, such as original ideas and pioneering analysis, eminent publishers, truly outstanding Indian companies, Over two dozen industry captains and subject experts have appreciated his research through insightful observations., leading Indian dailies, the prestigious programme ‘State of the Economy’, and leading publishers including Sage, Emerald, Taylor and Francis and Palgrave Macmillan. Such statements should be either removed, or attributed to a named person as a direct cited quotation. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:06, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

???

Why are there like five pages of the main page? The garmine ^(talk) 19:29, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

AWB

Hi! Instead of downloading tools like AWB, is there any other such tool available which can be enabled on the account instead which needs no downloads? Thanks. Adityavagarwal (talk) 01:36, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Adityavagarwal and welcome to the Teahouse. While there are various tools and scripts available on-wiki, I don't know of any that is at all comparable to AWB. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 02:54, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks buddy. So, it would be best to use AWB right? Adityavagarwal (talk) 03:36, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

That depends on what you want to do, Adityavagarwal. AWB is a very powerful tool, and should be used with caution. You also need to be authorized to use it. But if you want to do the kinds of things it is good at, I don't know of a better tool. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 04:54, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Using Wikidata on Wikipedia

I am new to editing Wikipedia, and I have been reading about using Wikidata on Wikipedia. However, after reading various help and FAQ links, I am still confused about how Wikidata works, and before I use Wikidata I figure that I should get a better understanding of how it works. Does Wikidata update Wikipedia articles with new information when the Wikidata item is edited? How is Wikidata information integrated into Wikipedia articles? Are all Wikipedia articles required to have a corresponding Wikidata item? Any answers and/or help links would be greatly appreciated! Name goes here (talk) 02:55, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Name goes here. Yes, as far as I know, Wikidata items automatically sync in both directions if they are in the proper template here. However, this forum is for answering questions about English Wikipedia. Wikidata is a separate website and I've noticed it doesn't seem to have strong support in the en.wiki community in general. Perhaps someone here will be able to help you, but I'm not going to bet on it. John from Idegon (talk) 07:09, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

What is the proper style for "Time" magazine?

I came across this edit to Bradley Cooper (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bradley_Cooper&type=revision&diff=788570028&oldid=786868066) that seemed to me to be incorrect.

I've asked one editor about it and was told I'm wrong, but no explanation was offered, so maybe someone here can clarify the situation for me.

• Should the magazine be referred to as "Time" or "TIME"?
  • The argument FOR using "TIME" is that the publisher styles it as "TIME".
  • Here are the counter-arguments:
    • Usage across Wikipedia varies, though it looks to me like the large majority of pages use "Time" rather than "TIME".
    • Per WP:MOSTM: Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules, regardless of the preference of trademark owners.
    • Virtually all style guides (well, ALL the style guides I checked) say to use "Time".

So, aside from the fact that I'm "picking at" a minor issue, why am I wrong? Fabrickator (talk) 03:44, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Fabrickator. On the substantive point, i think you are correct. However, it is a minor point, and you have been edit-warring over it, which is much more incorrect. So has Froid. You should have taken it to the article talk page after the first revert. Do not revert again or you will be blocked for edit warring. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 04:52, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I would be interested in some additional opinions, as this one seems fairly weak. Fabrickator (talk) 06:05, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

An administrator tells you that if you revert again, you'll be blocked, and that's a weak opinion? Technically, you are correct. It isn't an opinion, it's your final warning. Time to put down the staff and back away from the deceased equine. Edit warring over MOS is a seriously bad idea. Edit warring over MOS on a featured article is an even worse idea. John from Idegon (talk) 06:26, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Fabrickator, that administrator's opinion from DES was far from "fairly weak". It was a clear and unambiguous warning, rooted in policy. I urge you to take that warning seriously. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:47, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Get all the opinions you like, Fabrickator. Better yet, start a discussion on the question of TIME vs Time on Talk:Bradley Cooper. Seek opinions on that issue there. Just don't keep edit-warring. I try not to be overly dramatic or hostile about things. I prefer to be friendly and helpful. But if I see another revert on the TIME vs Time thing from either you or Froid, I will block. And I left formal warnings on both your talk pages so that if anyone else notices such a revert and looks around, they will know that a block is warranted. I don't block that much -- about 150 compared to over 2500 pages deleted, and I'm noted for inclusionism. But edit warring will get me to block every time. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 07:01, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Why does my article keep getting declined when it push it through for review?

I honestly see no issue when it comes to my article, with its sources or with what I've written. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ski_Mask_the_Slump_God Just wondering if anyone can give me a serious critique before the review comes back. WolvesS (talk) 04:30, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

The draft has already been rejected twice because its references do not adequately show the subject's notability. What is needed is several independent published sources with significant discussion of the subject. Which of the references do you believe qualify? Maproom (talk) 08:23, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

My Infobox won't display in the relevant article

Hi there, and Thank You in advance for any helpful info.

I try to implement an infobox

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MPhilMKBielicky/sandbox

into the article

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Bielický

whenever I hit preview though I see a "Template:Infobox artist " text in red (Sorry if this is not the exact wording, I try to translate from German). So I tried to put it up on review and only got a "this seems to be a test" kind of decline.

How can I get the infobox to work?

Thank you again for your time,

MPhilMKBielicky (talk) 07:23, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi MPhilMKBielicky, welcome to the Teahouse. Each Wikipedia language has different templates and can decide their own policies. The German Wikipedia has no equivalent of Template:Infobox artist or the general Template:Infobox person. de:Kategorie:Vorlage:Infobox Person shows infoboxes for some professions but not artists. Google translation of the text there: "Note: The use of infoboxes for persons is controversial in German-language Wikipedia. Before a new infobox is installed, the respective specialist portal or the responsible editorial department should always be approved." PrimeHunter (talk) 08:14, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

My page has been rejected, what should I change?

My page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:The_North_Highland_Way) has been rejected for reading too much like a tour guide, I received very little feedback, however, I have edited the areas where the feedback was more specific. I don't want to remove too much of the page, as I feel that I have provided useful information about the route, and the sections explaining the route would appear very empty if I was to remove any more. I consulted the West Highland Way page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Highland_Way) when creating my article and I feel that I have followed a similar format, could anyone provide me with some more feedback or guidance on my article so that I can resubmit it? Thank you in advance. EleanorLC (talk) 13:30, 29 June 2017 (UTC)