Wikipedia:Teahouse

Welcome to the Teahouse...                        

A friendly place to learn about editing Wikipedia.

Ask a question

David Biddulph, 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

???

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

Please make your question slightly clearer as I am unsure as to what you mean Edward1612 (talk) 14:44, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

@The Garmine: @Edward1612:

I believe the question being asked is about the existence of alternate main pages for dates plus or minus 2 days from now. The reason why is so errors on the main page can be seen before they actually show up on the actual main page, and I would presume the old ones are around to allow discussions to make sense the day after about content on the main page. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 15:35, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

It may also be about Wikipedia:Main Page/1 to Wikipedia:Main Page/5. For that, see Wikipedia:FAQ/Main Page#Why are there so many backups of the Main Page? @The garmine: Please inlcude a link when you ask something about a page. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:14, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: Ok, I will do so in the future. And you guessed right. Thanks! The garmine ^(talk) 21:18, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Company Page Approval

Hi, I'd love some feedback on a company page I've been working on. The company is well known within our industry and I felt it needed some recognition here. Any help would be greatly appreciated. I'd really like to see this page become approved.

Thank You

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

MJOHN (talk) 21:23, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, MJOHN. As it stands, I'm afraid that the draft completely lacks substantial independent secondary sources, without which an article cannot be accepted. Two of the references are patents, which are primary sources; one is by RA; and one is a passing mention. The first one (the study from the University of Florida) I am unable to open (it seems to want to download something in a strange format), so I don't know what it contains. But whatever "LPRC" might mean (you neither explain nor link to this term), it seems unlikely to contain substantial independent material about the company. What you need to find is several places where people who have no connection with the company have chosen to publish substantial material about it, since almost the whole of the article needs to be based on these sources, and not on unpublished information or on information published by the company or its associates. (Wikipedia has very little interest in what the subject of any article says or wants to say about itself: it is only interested in what people who have no connection with it have published about it).

Furthermore, since you say you hold the copyright ot File:Tag print.jpg, it would appear that you have some commention with the company. If that is the case, you need to read and follow the instructions relating to editing with a conflict of interest: if you are in any way paid to contribute to Wikipedia (eg if it is seen as part of your job) then you must declare this. --ColinFine (talk) 23:01, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Thank You for response.

I just want to clarify my position in this. I am Loss Prevention Executive who currently works for a Large Retail Organization. I have been involved with Loss Prevention, RFID and EAS for over 20 years. My relationship with this page is strictly professional and that of an observer. My interest in designing this page stems from their involvement and innovation within the industry.

I am familiar with most product currently being used by some of the largest developers. Some of which initially designed by some of the people associated with 'Retailers Advantage'.

Both the 'LPRC' and 'RFID Journal' have been fixtures since the early 2000's and are main staples within Loss Prevention and RFID. In my opinion I do feel these should be considered as substantial secondary sources.

The 'RFID Journal' references a hard tag designed by 'Retailers Advantage' and studies found. Author 'Claire Swedberg', frequent writer for RFID Journal.

I have removed any pictures that could be considered copyright. All remaining are my own property or already on the web.

Though not as large as a 'Sensormatic' or 'Checkpoint'. I do feel they deserve recognition for their continued contribution.

Please reconsider this page or guide me on further adjustments.

Thank You

MJOHN (talk) 04:20, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

MJOHN, that page is not ready to be a Wikipedia article. I've moved it to Draft:Retailers Advantage, where you can work on it if you wish – the references and the overall tone both need attention. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 07:28, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, MJOHN. The bulk of my reply still stands. I can see the LPRC report now, and I accept that it and the RFID Journal article are reliable. The problem is that neither of them says much about the company: they are focused on the product. (I am assuming this from the executive summary). These together may establish that the a3tag is notable, but not that the company is. You still need substantial independent reliable sources about the company.

I hear that you are not connected with the company; but I don't understand then how it is that you hold the copyright in a picture that is relevant to the company. (Note that "already on the web" is not adequate: most pictures on the web are copyright and may not be used in Wikipedia, unless the copyright holder has specifically licensed them with a compatible licence such as CC-BY-SA).

Your feeling that they deserve recognition of course has some relevance if you are in the industry, but Wikipedia's criteria for that is exactly what I mentioned above: that the subject has received substantial coverage by independent reliable sources. Wikipedia does not deal in "recognition": it is only interested in subjects which have already been recognised by independent source. See notability. --ColinFine (talk) 08:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I want no problems with copyright pictures. I will remove those.

I've read all the criteria. There are many holes. My impression is most of this subjective and mainly at the discretion of the admin/s on whether or not a page gets approved.

I'd be curious if all your pages meet these criteria...

I would greatly appreciate if you could be specifics with what you are looking for.

Thanks Again & Best Regards,

MJOHN

MJOHN (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

There are likely many articles that do not meet the criteria, MJOHN, but over time they are likely to be identified and deleted. Many poor articles are from the early days of the project and our standards and procedures have been tightened since then - including the introduction of the Articles for Creation system, which hopefully means that fewer sub-standard articles are created nowadays. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:20, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Hindi language spoken by others?

Are there any cultures in existence that speak Hindi other than those from India? I have a sentence that goes like this: ...is an Indian Hindi language television drama that premiered.... Is the "Indian" redundant?  — Myk Streja ^(what?) 02:37, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Myk_Streja. According to our article Hindi,

"Outside India, it is an official language which is known as Fiji Hindi in Fiji, and is a recognised regional language in Mauritius, Trinidad and Tobago, Guyana, and Suriname. Hindi is the fourth most-spoken first language in the world, after Mandarin, Spanish and English."

Accordingly, I do not think that mentioning India is redundant. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:33, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. That helps.  — Myk Streja ^(what?) 05:41, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

For interest, an additional relevant consideration would be TV and/or radio broadcasts to India (and elsewhere) in Hindi made by non-Indian entities, for educational and/or propaganda purposes. For example, the BBC World Service broadcasts TV and radio programmes in over 20 different languages, including radio programmes in Hindi. Voice of America seemingly makes current TV and radio broadcast in Urdu though not Hindi, but that could change. "Radio Sputnik", formerly Radio Moscow, aims to broadcast in 30 languages, which may well include Hindi now or in the future. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.12.89.162 (talk) 06:44, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

In this particular instance, that is not the case. The program is Yeh Rishta Kya Kehlata Hai‎. Just as some shows are filmed in Hollywood and are totally English, this show is all Indian, likely dubbed for other languages. I just wanted to be sure I wasn't leaving something similar to saying "English English" (which is another way of saying "British English").  — Myk Streja ^(what?) 10:18, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Adding gallery to a page

Good day everyone. I have been trying to organise the images and add a gallery to this page National Rail Museum, New Delhi. However, I don't think I have been able to do a very good job. The page looks a bit messed up at the moment. Could someone help me out and let me know what I am doing wrong? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DreamLinker (talk • contribs) 08:37, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I would be grateful if someone could let me how to correct the formatting mess at the bottom of the page.--DreamLinker (talk) 05:35, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi DreamLinker, the gallery would probably be better off just above the "See Also" heading rather than the bottom of the page. To make sure everything fits, just fiddle around with the spacing between the list of exhibits and the Gallery on the top, and the Gallery and the "See also" section on the bottom. While constantly using the "Show Preview" button below the edit summary to make sure the edit looks the way you want.

Hopefully this helps, Toreightyone (talk) 01:56, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

How to bring attention to article update requests

Hello,

I've recently suggested an update on an article that I have a conflict of interest with (Kona Grill). I am aware of Wikipedia's guidelines on editing articles that you have a COI with, so I have made a request for unaffiliated editors to make updates. My question is, now that I've made the request, how do I bring it to the attention of other editors? Any help or advice is appreciated. And feel free to look into my suggested update on the page and provide any suggestions regarding my request. Thanks in advance Deswans1 (talk) 20:12, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Deswans1, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm sorry that it has taken a while for someone to answer your question. Your request on the talk page has resulted in the page being added to Category:Requested edits, which brings it to wider attention. There is somewhat of a backlog though, so it might take a while for the request to be acted on. You could perhaps ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Food and drink to see if any of the participants in that WikiProject are interested in helping out. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:16, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry:Thank you, I appreciate your help. Deswans1 (talk) 21:50, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Resubmitting a draft

Dearies, I am so glad you exist. want to resubmit a draft I have (hopefully) fixed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Renate_Kordon, but cannot find a "resubmit" button...something I have seen come up in the FAQs you post. How to resubmit? Thank you!Divanova (talk) 14:26, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Hey Divanova. I have added the Articles for Creation banner to the draft and you should now be able to submit it for review. TimothyJosephWood 14:30, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

For reference: Draft:Renate Kordon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, Divanova. I looked at the draft and did some format editing. i also divided it into sections. Theere are still several issues:

• The lead section should summarize the entire article. It needs more content.
• The Work section needs more detail about what kinds of work she produces, and how, and perhaps the titles of a few of her more notable works.
• The career section reads like a timeline or resume. Expand to full sentences please.
• Two of the currently cited sources are dead links. Please fix this.
• Please provide for each cited source such bibliographic detail as: the exact title of the work being cited, and the title of the containing work if any; the author if known; the publication date if known, the page number if a printed source, and the publisher if not redundant with the containing work.

• One source is currently listed as "German News Article on Controversy" please give the actual title, along with an english-language version of the title if possible.

• The draft says that she completed a master class in experimental design at Maria Lassnig. But Maria Lassnig is a person. Did she study with or under Lassnig, or at a school named for Lassnig, or what?
• Provide additional reliable sources, particularly ones that discuss Kordon in some detail.
• Has there been critical comment on or analysis of Kordon's work? A "Critical response" section, with sourced quotes of or refernces to such critical comment would be a good idea, and also help with the sourcing and the demonstration of notability.

It looks to me as if Kordon is notable, but the article doesn't firmly establish it. more sources and content will help with this. This is a good start, but it still needs work. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:14, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Not a friendly place

Hello. I started here last month after I saw that articles on the actuarial and insurance profession were not well represented. I created an article on the Morris Review which had a significant impact on professional standards and training. I based some of it verbatim on the findings of the review, e.g. ‘a lack of scrutiny and audit of actuarial calculations’. I then got a warning that the article would be deleted because of copyright violation. I don’t really see the problem: it’s an official report, why can’t we include the main findings verbatim? In any case, I changed the verbatim bits so they were quotes, to make it clear they came directly from the original source.

I was also warned (see my talk page) that ‘persistent violators will be blocked from editing’. This is quite scary. I was unaware of precisely what the rules were, and I offered to change the article, but no one answered my query and half the article has been deleted.

I appreciate the management here has a busy task, but it would be polite at least to engage with users, especially users unfamiliar with the system. This has rather dented my confidence in helping with this project. Regards IFRS17 (talk) 18:07, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

• Hello IFRS17. I apologize on behalf of the community; it is true that Wikipedia is not particularly friendly to newbies. We try to improve that, but we are almost all volunteers like you; those who check out new pages often find material that is not acceptable for various reasons, and will use automated tools that leave standardized messages (templates) to patrol faster; those messages can feel impersonal and intimidating.

You left a message at User talk:IFRS17 (naturally, responding to the notice), but it is unlikely that it had been seen by any human. This is a talk page, but linked with your account for people to contact you. In the future, you should leave messages about a particular article on the article's talk page, in that case Talk:Morris Review. Anyways, I will answer: the short answer is "probably not".

The problem is that you cannot copy-paste a large amount of material from another source, even if quoted (attributed) or closely paraphrased (a small step away from a copy-paste), unless the source is under a license that allows you to do so (by default it is not the case, and here, it explicitly is not). Copyright violations (copyvios for short) will be deleted on sight, with a presumption to delete if there is a doubt, because leaving them in the open would expose Wikipedia to lawsuits. I cannot see the edits you made, but you should try to rewrite in your own words what the source says and put it back in the article, citing the report to source the claims. See WP:COPYVIO for more information.

Do not worry too much about persistent violators will be blocked from editing - clearly you are acting in good-faith and trying to understand what happens, so you will not get blocked unless you start reinstating the copyvio without discussing it first (and you coming here counts as discussion). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 18:37, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

• OK many thanks, so nice to speak to a human! Can you just clarify whether it is OK to copy stuff using quotation marks? I would like to preserve the wording of the actual Morris review, at least in respect of the key findings. Note also that, ironically, the FRC material in question was itself sourced verbatim from the report itself, which as a government publication may be reproduced free of charge. IFRS17 (talk) 18:41, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

It would be acceptable, policy and legal wise to quote large chunks of an official government report if it were attributed to the government agency, however it probably wouldn't be appropriate. We are far more interested in what secondary sources have to say and especially their analysis of the material. So your best way forward would be to paraphrase the review. John from Idegon (talk) 18:54, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) @IFRS17: In addition to what John from Idegon said: it is OK to quote small excerpts of copyrighted text, but not to lift whole passages. How much is a "small passage" is subject to interpretation depending on the case. You can also end up quoting a lot of small excerpts but each of them needs to be there for a specific reason (other than "I was too lazy to reformulate").

Beware that "free of charge" still does not mean it is OK to use. Wikipedia's aim is to distribute material with very little restrictions, but price is not the only restriction. See Gratis versus libre for the distinction, see WP:COPYOTHERS for which licenses are acceptable on Wikipedia. (Headache warning!)

Reading Wikipedia:Crown copyright, I believe recent UK government works are not compatible with our license, but I would not say I am entirely sure. If you really want an answer, try your luck at WP:MCQ where people are more qualified to answer. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 18:58, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks again for this help I will persevere. IFRS17 (talk) 05:55, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Where is policy on whether WP articles are intended to …

present a global or more local perspective? E.g., are en.wikipedia.org articles intended to present a global or U.S. or some other perspective? Thx Humanengr (talk) 20:45, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse @Humanengr:. If I'm understanding your question correctly, I'd say that WP:Neutral would be the main guideline here -- keeping an article neutral ensures that it isn't unfairly balanced in one direction or another. What might be seen one way locally can be perceived completely different on a larger scale, etc. I hope this at least points you in the right direction. - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 21:03, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Humanengr. I haven't found a policy, but see WP:NPOVFAQ#Anglo-American focus. Template:globalize exists for tagging articles that are insufficiently global. My suggestion would be that if the topic is not inherently relevant to a particular place (as many are), then it should either be an article called 'XXX in YYY' (eg Education in the United Kingdom) or should have a global perspective. --ColinFine (talk) 21:20, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Thx, @NsTaGaTr and ColinFine: My concern is that NPOV and issues of 'Anglo-American perspective’ are directly contravened by RS news media policy in international disputes. Is the best place to address this NPOV-RS conflict on the RS talk page or is there a better forum to help make WP global? Humanengr (talk) 06:39, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't think I follow, Humanengr. There's no expectation that a RS be neutral: many RS's are overtly partisan. A Wikipedia article should present all mainstream or prominent views, without attempting to draw conclusions. --ColinFine (talk) 10:52, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Media of U.S. opponents are considered non-'RS' (on various grounds such as controlled by state), hence WP is non-global. Humanengr (talk) 13:27, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Please see [[1]] and Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, sorry for coming here and soiling the tea party but I really felt it should be pointed out that this is more then it appears.Slatersteven (talk) 13:44, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Can I publish my draft? Do I need to change something?

Hi, I've created a draft for the artist Peter de Cupere https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Peter_de_Cupere I would like to publish the draft so others also have the ability to add more information about this olfactory artist. Can you give me a tip how to do this? Is my draft ok or should I change, add something more?

Thank you and kind regards, Peterdc2 (talk) 22:26, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

First thing to improve: Do not use references, if you want to link something on Wikipedia, but Wikilinks instead.--93.227.111.31 (talk) 23:30, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I think 93.227.111.31 intended to recommend that you change the first two references (and other Wikipedia links) into Wikilinks. Wikipedia itself can never be used as a reference. Dbfirs 06:59, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Peterdc2. First, your draft is already published, in the sense that anybody in the world can see it and edit it. People tend not to edit other people's drafts unless invited to do so, but that's no more than politeness. If you make it clear that you would like contributions (eg by posting at WT:WikiProject Arts), then people may well do so.

I take it you are really asking about making the draft live - you can do this by moving it to article space, but I would recommend that instead you submit it for review. I have added a header to the draft, so that once you've edited it, there will be a button to submit it.

As the comments above say, you should not have references to Wikipedia articles: you are encouraged to use Wikilinks, but references should be to reliably published sources (which Wikipedia is not) and mostly to independent sources. Looking at the draft, I see that the section "About the olfactory works of Peter De Cupere" is entirely unreferenced, and furthermore reads like the artist talking about himself. Please understand that Wikipedia has little interest in what anybody says or wants to say about themselves: it is only interested in what people unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish about them.

In fact, judging from your username, it would appear that you are de Cupere. If this is the case, please read about why writing about yourself is strongly discouraged in Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 11:32, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Templates havent all updated

I've updated the template for the alt-right, however even though I updated it, it's not shown to be updated on the other alt-right links in the template such as Alex jones, 4chan, etc.Vinnylospo (talk) 00:25, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Vinnylospo. Pages are cached for performance reasons and there is a delay before template edits are propagated to pages using the template. The time varies a lot. See more at Help:Job queue. You can force an immediate update of a specific page by purging it but there is rarely reason to do that. PrimeHunter (talk) 08:33, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Talk

The talk page of the main page is for improving the main page. Where is the talk page for improving Wikipedia in general, If any? The garmine ^(talk) 00:25, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia: Community portal and Wikipedia: Village pump are probably the best areas. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.217.250.149 (talk) 01:05, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

@The garmine: The best place depends on the type of improvement. Do you have something specific in mind? PrimeHunter (talk) 08:29, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: No, I was just wondering. The garmine ^(talk) 12:19, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Page views

How can I see the amount of people who viewed a page that I created?

Niylesh (talk) 01:06, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Niylesh. The menu on the left side of every page has an option "Page information". Click that and scroll to the bottom where you will see the option "Page view statistics". That tool will give you the information that you want. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:31, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

The same tool is also linked at top of the page history seen by clicking the "View history tab". PrimeHunter (talk) 08:25, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Can a copyvio be perpetrated against a Wikipedia article?

Excepting the infobox, this article, Rex (Police dog) (2012), is nearly word-for-word the same as this section from Inspector Rex (2004). Quite obviously a cut-and-paste. Is the first article then a candidate for CSD? If so, what category? Would a redirect be called for instead?

Thank you.  — Myk Streja ^(what?) 01:49, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it can Myk Streja. Most material from Wikipedia may be copied and reused for any purpose provided it is properly attributed. I looked in the history of Rex (Police dog), and there is no such attribution in the edit summary, so it is indeed a copyright violation. If the editor who copied it had said in the edit summary where they copied it from, it would not be (which doesn't mean that it might not be deleted for other reasons). See copying within Wikipedia.

I see that Maproom has now proposed it for deletion. --ColinFine (talk) 11:39, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Advice needed on proposed article

Hi, I have drafted an article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Robertjgray/sandbox about my father having noted that a number of the recipients of the French Legion d'Honneur have short articles about them.

First question then is does he meet the notability criteria?

Secondly is if so the content of the article appropriate?

This is my first article and it's harder than I expected :)

Thanks in advance

Robertjgray (talk) 03:46, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Robertjgray. The French Legion d'Honneur has five levels and your father received the lowest level, the Chevalier, which has been awarded to about 75,000 people. Only receiving a country's highest award for bravery in combat, such as the Medal of Honor in the United States, creates a strong presumption of notability. So, it is how significant the coverage your father has received in reliable sources that is the determining factor, not the medal. Please read Your first article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:47, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

i want to learn how to make a best article

R. sir/mam i am vikas sharma i am happy to use wikkiedia and i want to learn how to make a article on wikipedia. so please teach me and provide me a better guidelines to creat wikipedia article. i shall e very thankful. Thank You Vikas Sharma (vikas sharma (talk) 03:58, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Vikassharmasfd, and welcome to the Teahouse! I think a good way could be to start from our pages Help:Getting started and Wikipedia:Your first article – they list and describe things one should do (and things one should avoid!) when writing articles, as well as they refer to other, more specific guidelines ang policies ruling Wikipedia. --CiaPan (talk) 09:14, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Please tell what should i have need to change on this article

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Vikassharmasfd/sandbox vikas sharma (talk) 04:03, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

The first really big problem here is that you're trying to publish a page about yourself. That is a Conflict of Interest issue and a Webhost issue. Your page will have some immunity in the sandbox, but not much. One thing is you can't place images in it yet.

Every one of your references are primary (you are the source) or they are unreliable. Facebook is content created with no editorial management at all. Anyone can say anything and claim it's true. The MTV cite was a video of someone else. Blogs are the same as Facebook without the dubious benefit of community control. You would need solid third party references for any of that information to stay. Trade magazines, Like Billboard. Newspapers like the New York Times or the Times of India. Major magazines or books. Websites that are affiliated with reliable sources.

Before you can have an article in anybody's encyclopedia, you need to be notable. Have you had an international #1 song? Have you performed for royalty or national leaders? Those are just obvious examples, but the world needs to know who you are already. Wikipedia is not a magazine or tradepaper, and we are not a webhost to promote you. And if are noteworthy, you would still need to enlist a disinterested editor to write the article. You can post the original article in draftspace, as you have done, but the final article would need to be gone over and approved of by our editors when you submit your draft for review.

I've placed a Welcome message on your sandbox's talk page. Read it over and check out the links provided. You also have some information on your personal talk page you should review. No doubt you know about the Rony page, but the notices do contain some useful information.  — Myk Streja ^(what?) 04:53, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

 Administrator note I have blocked Vikassharmasfd (talk · contribs) indefinitely for sock puppetry: see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rajanthegame. Mz7 (talk) 23:06, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

How do you submit your article ?

Hi There:
This is the first time I try to write an article in Wiki..... I am almost done with my article in the Sandbox and I am wondering how can I submit it for review or posting into Wiki.

My article is User:AntPeople/sandbox/Wang XiSan

Thanks for your help AntPeople (talk) 04:10, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I installed the sandbox tag on this article. It needs to stay there for two reasons:

1. A user's sandbox is allowed to bend the rules a bit, otherwise no articles would survive Wikipedia policy. It's understood that the article in the sandbox is raw and a work in progress.
2. Your sandbox in not indexed by search engines, such as Google. Outsiders can't find your sandbox page and the warning notice let's editors know what to expect.

You really should have created this article in your main sandbox and named it after it was ready, but I think you'll be okay as long as you leave that tag at the very top alone.

Now, to submit your article for review, click on the big square blue button that you now have. Don't lose heart if you don't pass the first review. Take their comments at face value and learn from them. Then get busy again.  — Myk Streja ^(what?) 05:25, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with this being at User:AntPeople/sandbox/Wang XiSan rather than at User:AntPeople/sandbox, Myk Streja. AntPeople, if you submit this draft for review as it stands, it will certainly be rejected because it is not sufficiently referenced. You need to ensure that all of the material in the draft is supported by references to reliable sources, as explained at Wikipedia:Verifiability. If you need help with learning how to reference, please see Help:Referencing for beginners. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:48, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Article reviews problem.

Hello Wikipedia administrators,my first article I published,i received a notification article reviewed but recent ones I have not yet seen any notification. Pls I want to know why and how long does it take for each article to appear when Google the subject. Thank you. Abanda bride (talk) 21:47, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Greatings wikipedia administrator. I am glad to take part of this volunteer services. My first article i ever created, a notification alert message was sent to my account dashboard saying that"article review" I have created newly articles for some days now alert saying article review i did not see it.

I want to know why I stop receiving notification and also how long does it take for an article to rank top on search engine when a wikipedia subject or article is been search?

Thank you all, I am ready to learn from great guys like you.Abanda bride (talk) 13:10, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Abanda bride, and welcome back to the Teahouse. I'm sorry that you had to ask this twice before receiving a reply. I have combined your two questions into one section to prevent duplication. The review notification you received is the outcome of the new page patrol feature. There is quite a large backlog of new articles that need to be patrolled. Note that "review" is rather a misleading word here, as the articles are only subject to some basic checks. If you want your articles to be reviewed more thoroughly, then I suggest creating them as drafts via the article wizard. I believe that your question about Google was answered previously, archived here. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:30, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

How do do these codes

when doing a wiki page you have to do these codes like {,Red} or something like that that are used for the placement of the word and its location i think how do i use them and how much of them are there188.52.197.255 (talk) 08:41, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not aware of a code saying {,Red} and your current IP address has edited no other pages so I don't know which type of code you refer to. If you mean code like {{Red}} with double curly brackets then it's usually a template and there are tens or hundreds of thousands of them. See Help:A quick guide to templates. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:08, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

How to create a page on wikipedia

Hi,i want to ask that how to create a page on wikipedia if it doesn't show a red link.I know that if a article has a red link then it can be created but how to create a page if it doesn't show a red link.For example, a new batman film is in production in DCEU but when i open that page it redirects to batman in film.It doesn't have a particular page like The Dark Knight.So how to create it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Md.Yahiya Kamal (talk • contribs) 09:30, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Md.Yahiya Kamal. Please have a look at WP:Your first article. I suggest you use the Article Wizartd (as mentioned there) for creating any articles, rather than create them by picking a red link; because if you create a draft from picking the red link, it will go directly into article space, and be immediately subject to all the rules on article quality. --ColinFine (talk) 11:43, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Sir,thank you for your help.But i have an another question?what is the difference between visual editing and source editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Md.Yahiya Kamal (talk • contribs) 16:42, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Sir i opened article wizard.But still i got nothing.Its first page has introduction,then subject,notability,sources,content and end.By reading this apge i understood that there is draft page and real page.But i can't find either page.Please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Md.Yahiya Kamal (talk • contribs) 17:16, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Rubric for COIs?

I note there are a lot of pages especially about women which have COIs on them. Looking at the editor history I see that these pages have a disproportionate number of male editors. Is this the reason for the COI - i.e. that 95% editors on pages about women is seen as a conflict of interest? While I understand the logic behind this I am also concerned that this might discourage men from editing women however. Also I read (on wikipedia!) that wikipedia is edited by 90-95% men anyway so it seems unfair to penalise women for this general statistic. Any suggestions gratefully received. Where there is no discussion of, or reason for, the COI, and no attempt to resolve or justify it, how long should the COI stand before it is removed? Many thanks Perry Bill (talk) 09:50, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Perry Bill. The {{COI}} notice should be put on only when an editor has a specific reason to think that an editor with a COI has been editing the article, and there should be an explanation somewhere of why they think that. (It may be in the edit summary, so you might have to trawl through the article's history to find it). I would find it strange if somebody put the tag on just because it was a man editing: I would call adding the tag disruptive in that case. While I can't categorically say this hasn't happened, I would be very surprised, and I would also be surprised if any men were discouraged from editing articles for that reason. I am also surprised that there should be a disproportionate number of COI tags on articles about women: where do you get that statistic from? --ColinFine (talk) 11:51, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Correcting spelling errors in Wikipedia articles

How to shortlist all those Wikipedia articles having spelling errors? Aninda005 (talk) 11:22, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

There are "bots" (automated programs) that go through articles searching for Commonly misspelled English words, but human intervention is always required to ensure that the correction is valid. It is much more difficult to identify mis-spellings that are not on the above list. If there was a way to identify these, then we would have someone going through making the corrections. If you find a spelling mistake in an article, please make the correction, but be very careful not to change British to American or American to British spelling unless there is a good reason to do so (see WP:ENGVAR). Dbfirs 11:40, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

If you're up for fixing more than the odd spelling error, Aninda005, and are capable of copy editing, do take a look at Category:All articles needing copy edit. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:51, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Dbfirs and Cordless Larry Aninda005 (talk) 11:55, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

What exactly does Copy Edit means @Cordless Larry ? Can you please tell me thing or two about it?Aninda005 (talk) 11:58, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

There's an article about it at Copy editing, Aninda005. It does require a high level of English-language ability, though, and without wanting to be disrespectful, you might be better off starting off just correcting obvious spelling errors. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:06, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Actually Wikipedia:Basic copyediting might be more useful, Aninda005 if you want to try such a task. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 14:09, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Uploading pic if not original photographer

Hi Community. I just have a small question about uploading images of a person. In all my research, I’ve found that PERHAPS the only way to upload an image of a person, is to be the photographer that originally took the picture. Am I right there?

This tutorial video for example (at 0:59) makes reference to a message that says, “This site requires you to provide copyright information for this work, to make sure everyone can legally reuse it”. Is uploading images only reserved for original photographers? What if someone had the photographer’s permission?

I’m learning. Thanks in advance! Consciencecreator (talk) 11:38, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Consciencecreator. You're mostly right: images must be licensed by the copyright holder, who is usually the person who took the photograph, but not always. For example, if the photographer is working under a contract that says that all the photos are the property of somebody else (might be the subject, or might be an agency), then they will own the copyright, not the photographer. Secondly, the copyright holder has to give permission, but it's not enough to give permission to use the image on Wikipedia, and it is not enough just to tell somebody that they may use the picture. They have to license it under a licence that meets Wikipedia's requirements that its material can be reused by anybody for any purpose, commercial or not, as long as it is properly attributed. And they either have to do this publicly (eg on a website) or they have to communicate the licence directly to Wikimedia foundation. See donating copyright materials for more information. --ColinFine (talk) 12:04, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

A special thanks

Thanks sir for inviting me to tea house. I want to learn a lot as a member of Wikipedia.

Again a special thanks to all for considering me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikibhushan (talk • contribs) 14:55, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

You are very welcome! The other one (talk) 16:44, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Question about referencing sources

This question has been copied from the Teahouse talk page DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:29, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello Team, I have two queries about reliable sources. Please clarify and help me. I am new to writing article.

1. I have few articles published in leading regional language newspapers. Those are still available on Web. The regional language is "Kannada". This is the scheduled, administrative official language of a state in India. More than 50 million people talk this language. "Kannada" has a wiki page. You can read more if you want. Can I create references to these articles?

2. There are some articles those were published in leading English news papers but those are no more available on Web. Because they are archived/removed. We have preserved those and published on our site https://sanchaaritheatru.wordpress.com. Can I create references linking to these sources? Nagaraj Kolara (talk) 03:39, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Nagaraj Kolara, and welcome to the Teahouse.

1. You may use citations to sources that are not in English, including to sources in Kannada, or Hindi, or any other reasonable language. It is helpful if you provide a translation of the title of the source, and an indication of the source language. if you are using the Cite XX templates, such as {{Cite web}}, {{Cite news}}, {{Cite magazine}} (and others, see Wikipedia:Citation templates) the parameter |language= can be used to indicate the source language, and the parameter |trans-title= can be used for an English-language version of the title. It can also be helpful to translate a short excerpt from the source showing exactly how it supports the statement(s) in the article, The |quote= parameter can be used for this purpose.
2. Sources do not need to be available online, provided that they can be found in libraries or public archives. Give the title of the work, the date of publication, the author (if stated), and the page number of the print publication. This is true for sources in any language. If an archive version is available online, you can give the link. Use the |archive-url= parameter if using one of the Cite XX templates. If you know when the site or page was saved to the archive, use |archive-date= to provide the date.

I hope this is helpful. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:47, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I just want to chime in on the second question. I would be a bit wary of a source that's reprinting news articles on a blog. Have you heard of the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine? That's an archiving service that may have archived copies of the original articles, which you can find by entering the URLs of those articles. Given the choice, I would put a lot more trust in an archived version of the original site rather than a copy of the article on a different site. I hope this helps! Howicus (Did I mess up?) 15:54, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you DES. This helps. Following your instructions.Nagaraj Kolara (talk) 20:12, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Article I created was tagged for deletion within a few hours. I found out only because I decided to randomly check it

Hello. Today morning, I looked at some deletion notices for transportation articles. There were many articles about bus terminals and each one was individually tagged for deletion. So I tried to combine and merge them and created List of bus stations in Singapore to save the content. In another discussion, someone had suggested to create an entire list of bus stops (instead of individual articles), so I applied the same advice here. I modeled the article after seeing List of former bus stations in Singapore along with List of bus stations in Wales, List of Greyhound Bus stations, List of Perth bus stations, List of bus and coach stations in London. I liked the table layouts but I don't know how to create a table, so I just pasted them in a list, intending to learn the table layout and edit the article later.

However, I just checked it right now and it is tagged with a deletion banner. I was given no alert or email. Is there a way so that I can receive an update when an article I created is tagged for deletion?

I am also a bit disappointed that my article will be deleted. I spent a lot of time trying to learn how to copy within Wikipedia and I also put proper attribution. There are similar articles about bus terminals and I tried very hard to follow all the merge and attribution rules. So I don't understand what I am doing wrong. I understand that the article doesn't have a lot of references, but many articles do not have references. There are lots of articles about New Delhi which still don't have references (even though the information is correct as per my personal knowledge). However, when I took one of them and searched a bit, I did mange to find some references as well. Perhaps all it requires is a bit of time.

I would be happy to receive some advice on how to proceed here. Is there any way I can improve the article so that it is not deleted? Thank you.DreamLinker (talk) 15:39, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I nominated the article as it seems to fail WP:GNG, Some articles here do get sent to WP:AFD for various reasons and some cannot be nominated because of various policies,

As for the notification - You should've been sent a notification via Twinkle however Twinkle does occasionally play up so that's probably why you hadn't got one, –Davey2010^Talk 15:52, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Forgot to include but I indeed to apologise for you not receiving a notification, Thanks. –Davey2010^Talk 16:12, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

(ec) Hi DreamLinker There are basically two things you can (and should) do: First, continue improving the article, particularly by finding more sources that discuss Singaporean bus stations in significant depth. The second thing you should do is to participate in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus stations in Singapore. Deletion is far from a sure thing at this stage. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:58, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You should comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus stations in Singapore, DreamLinker and provide your reasons, if any, why you think the article should be retained. An AfD nomination only means that one editor thinks the article should be deleted. Other editors will give their views. At the end of the discussion, usually after 7 days, an uninvolved admin or expereinced editor will close the discussion and announce what the consensus was, to delete, to keep, or any of several other possibilities. You might want to read Wikipedia:Guide to deletion before commenting. As the given reason is that this list does not meet the General notability guideline the best improvement would be to find and cite additional sources. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:02, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Davey2010, you are responsible for what you do with twinkle or any other tool, and should notify manually if automated notifications fail. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:02, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

DESiegel - I'm responsible for the edits I make with it - I take no responsibility if someone isn't notified, Sure I apologise if they're not notified however I take no responsibility if the notification doesn't work. –Davey2010^Talk 16:10, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Davey2010, DESiegel and Dodger67. Thank you for your prompt replies. I just read the WP:GNG article and I will try to find references. I will also try to improve the article by copy editing, removing content which is too detailed and if possible I will also create a table to organise it like List of bus stations in Wales. I will read the guidelines you have posted and try to understand the process better before participating in the discussion. The 7 days is a relief for sure! :) Thank you so much for your help.--DreamLinker (talk) 16:15, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi DreamLinker, No worries, ofcourse if you can find sources then I'd be more than happy to withdraw :), Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 16:19, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Help

What to do here I am new so please tell — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikibhushan (talk • contribs) 15:57, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Wikibhushan. If you are looking to get started with contributing to Wikipedia, you might want to start by taking a look at Wikipedia:Tutorial. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:08, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

question on rejected article

Hi! I'm a first-time article writer. My reviewer stated that my article "read more like an advertisement" and that the "tone really needs work."

I just wondered if there's any way for someone to be more specific? I was careful to go through the tutorial, used at least 10 independent sources for reference and tried to follow the format of two similar subjects that have pages on Wikipedia (Broadway performers, in this case).

feedback greatly appreciated! LynnieGodfrey (talk) 16:50, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse LynnieGodfrey, Writing an autobiography is probably the most difficult thing to do on Wikipedia and is STRONGLY discouraged. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, which summarises what independent sources have published about subjects and has essentially no interest in what anybody says or wants to say about themselves, on Wikipedia we need reliable sources independent of the subject. See also the general notability guide. Theroadislong (talk) 17:29, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

How do I know when an article has been reviewed

Hello,

I submitted an article for review on June 2, 2017 titled "Louis DeJoy". It has been over a month...How do I know when it has been reviewed? And then, how do I know when it actually becomes a "finished article" on Wikipedia?

Thank you very much for your help. 216.237.208.134 (talk) 17:35, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse 216.237.208.134,Your contribution history shows only one edit namely this one on the Teahouse, I can find no article titled Louis DeJoy can you provide any more details? Theroadislong (talk) 19:56, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

A search of all namespaces found User:Hrmrlf17/sandbox/Louis DeJoy. It was created June 2 but not submitted for review until today. It was declined as the page shows. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:28, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Article on Popejoy Hall

I cannot find in Wikipedia any article on Popejoy Hall. It's a performance hall built on the campus of The University of New Mexico. It's the only hall that can accommodate the major touring Broadway shows in New Mexico, such as Wicked, The Lion King, etc. As such, it serves as the performing arts center for Albuquerque and much of New Mexico.

The hall itself is now 52 years old. The idea to build such a hall in New Mexico began as early as the 1920s, but took another 40 or more years to realize. The story of getting it to fruition is an interesting story of mismatched priorities for such a hall, and how the man for whom it is named made it his personal mission to get it built. There are many references available on the construction of the hall, since it was built with public funds, as well as articles on what happened in the space in the intervening 52 years, mostly in local newspapers.

Would this make an interesting article for Wikipedia? If so, how do I go about getting it written? I work at Popejoy Hall, so I am not the most objective person to be its author. Suggestions?

97.123.7.111 (talk) 17:36, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, IP Editor:

• First, review our guideline on notability, our policy on verifibility, and our general notability guideline (GNG). Consider whether your subject clearly meets the standards listed there.
• Second, read Your First Article and referencing for beginners and again consider if you want to go ahead.
• Third, If you have any connection or affiliation with the subject, disclose it in accordance with our guideline on Conflict of interest. If you have been or expect to be paid for making edits, or are making them as part of your job, disclose this according to the strict rules of the Paid-contribution disclosure. This is absolutely required, omitting it can result in you being blocked from further editing.
• Fourth, Gather sources. You want independent professionally published reliable sources that each discuss the subject in some detail. If you can't find several such sources, stop; an article will not be created. Sources do NOT need to be online, or in English, although it is helpful if at least some are. The independent part is vital. Not press releases, nor news stories based on press releases, or anything published by the subject itself or an affiliate of the subject. Not strictly local coverage. Regional or national newspapers or magazines, books published by mainstream publishers (not self-published), or scholarly journals are usually good. So are online equivalents of these. (Additional sources may verify particular statements but not discuss the subject in detail. But those significant detailed sources are needed first.)
• Fifth, use the article wizard to create a draft under the articles for creation project. This is always a good idea for an inexperienced editor, but in the case of an editor with a conflict of interest it is essential.
• Sixth, use the sources gathered before (and other sources you may find along the way) to write the article. Cite all significant statements to sources. Do not express opinions or judgements, unless they are explicitly attributed to named people or entities, preferably in a direct quotation, and cited to a source. Do not use puffery or marketing-speak. Provide page numbers, dates, authors and titles for sources to the extent these are available. A title is always needed.
• Seventh, when (well perhaps if) your draft is declined, pay attention to the comments of the reviewer, and correct the draft and resubmit it. Repeat this until the draft passes review.

Congratulations, you have now created a valid Wikipedia article. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:40, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh and I would add, obtain a free account and use it when editing. This is not required, but is a very good idea. See Wikipedia:Why create an account? for details. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:43, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

A request for some input from an experienced editor.

Greetings to the Teahouse, I have recently translated and expanded an article and I got the "This article contains wording that promotes the subject in a subjective manner without imparting real information" flag. Can I get an experienced editor to bracket out the offending passages so that I can expand with information? (Dump the copy on my talk page?) I need some experienced eyes on it to help me out please. I can guess where the problems lie and I am comfortable that they can be addressed with longer explanations, but in some cases it will expand a short biography into a short course on microscope optics- what I was trying to avoid. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Oberhaeuser Thanks in advance. MikroSammler (talk) 21:16, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, MikroSammler, and welcome to the teahouse. That tag was added manually in this edit by Alphalfalfa, who could best explain the reasons why it was placed. Any editor may remove it if s/he sincerely believes it is not currently appropriate, or a discussion can be started on the article talk page (Talk:Georges Oberhaeuser in this case). I do note that the first paragraph of the Microscope and optics workshop section is unsourced, and doesn't really explain why this student model was successful. Sill i don't see any obvious puffery on this page. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:55, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh, MikroSammler, for proper copyright attribution, the talk page statement should include a direct link to the source article. Technically it is a copyright infringement without such a link. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:59, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I added the tag because I think that some of the language seems a bit subjective, and maybe a little bit unconsciously promotional. I have fixed some of it, and the rest is nothing a little editing can't fix. Please, if you think you have thoroughly addressed those issues, feel free to remove the tag. alphalfalfa^(talk) 00:19, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies folks. I'll take a guess at the issue and see if I can support the statements without getting too far off track in the article. Just getting started and learning. MikroSammler (talk) 16:48, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Iloilo CODE-NGOs article looks like an advertisement

Need help reviewing our article. I already made some edits after I got the notice. Thanks.

Iloilocodengos (talk) 00:31, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Iloilocodengos. I tend to agree with the editor who reviewed the draft—it looks to me more like an advertisement than an encyclopedia article—but I think the problem may go deeper than that. Please carefully read Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies); this is the guideline used to determine if an organization or company meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines and is therefore eligible to have an article. In looking over your draft, I do not see evidence of notability as the guideline defines it. (This shouldn't be seen in any way as a reflection on Iloilo CODE-NGOs. It simply may be that Wikipedia's scope isn't broad enough to include such organizations at this time.) If you're quite sure the subject is notable, you will have to prove it by citing a sufficient number of reliable, independent sources that together offer adequate coverage, per the guideline. Please also read the conflict-of-interest guideline and the policy on paid editing; both are important, the latter critically so. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 04:30, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Passive voice

How much and when should a Wikipedia article use the Passive voice. I am working on the article "Proto-Indo-European language" and I realized that it used a lot of passive voice instead of repeatedly using the word "linguists" as the subject of the sentence; Is this okay? Jackpaulryan (talk) 00:44, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Jackpaulryan, and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia:Basic copyediting says: Some style guides advise against grammatical constructions such as passive voice, split infinitives, restrictive which, beginning a sentence with a conjunction and ending clauses in a preposition. These are common in high-quality publications and should not be "fixed" without considering the consequences. Changing a passive to active may inappropriately change the topic of the paragraph, for example.. :Our manual of style advises the use of the passive voice to avoid first person speech in article text. It suggests correcting Throughout the proof of this theorem we assume that the function ƒ is uniformly continuous. to Throughout the proof of this theorem it is assumed that the function ƒ is uniformly continuous. for example. This doesn't seem like a problem to me. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:04, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, DES! Jackpaulryan (talk) 01:09, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Just to complicate things, I will ask a question, although I am reasonably sure that I know the answer. Did the Proto-Indo-European language have a passive voice? (I know. It isn't relevant. And I assume that the answer is yes, since the proto-Indo-European language is inferred to have been highly inflected and complex, like the classical Indo-European languages.) Robert McClenon (talk) 02:49, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

British versus American English

If a page mixes British and American (or other countries') spelling and punctuation, should one standardize it? If yes, how does one chose which country's spelling to use? Jackpaulryan (talk) 00:48, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello again, Jackpaulryan. MOS:ARTCON says While Wikipedia does not prefer any national variety of English, within a given article the conventions of one particular variety should be followed consistently. Just below that, MOS:TIES says An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the (formal, not colloquial) English of that nation. and just below that MOS:RETAIN says:

When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, maintain it in the absence of consensus to the contrary. With few exceptions (e.g., when a topic has strong national ties or a term/spelling carries less ambiguity), there is no valid reason for such a change.

When no English variety has been established and discussion does not resolve the issue, use the variety found in the first post-stub revision that introduced an identifiable variety. The established variety in a given article can be documented by placing the appropriate Varieties of English template on its talk page.

I hope this is helpful. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:14, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, DES! It is quite helpful! Jackpaulryan (talk) 01:26, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

???

Is there a way I can change my name? If so, I would like it to be IQ_m. 7 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Izaiah.morris (talk • contribs)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Please follow the directions at Wikipedia:Changing username. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 04:09, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Hussain Manawer

I reviewed Draft:Hussain Manawer and declined it as not having a neutral tone, and commented that the draft appeared to be written to praise its subject rather than describe him neutrally. User:Adzie asked me what parts I felt the page “failed on”. I said that the issue is the overall tone, not any one specific portion. Would other experienced editors please take a look and offer any comments to the author? Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:50, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I do see Robert McClenon's point, Adzie. Such phrases as his Youtube channel Hussain’s House which featured stars... The mention of the underground street group while the subject was in high school, The tracks see Manawer using his unique world play to explore everything from school days, politics and life in East London, and Manawer's final speech which lasted three minutes was given a standing ovation from an audience of 1300 delegates all have a rather promotional tone. They include adjectives and terms of praise that are uncited, and in Wikipedia's editorial voice, not attributed to any named person or entity. They are not neutral. I think these can all be fixed with editing, although there might be a notability issue here also -- i haven't reviewed the sources. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:05, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Creating New Articles

Hi! I would like to create an article about a local business. I just wanna know if I am aloud to create one.

Thank you so much! WarriorsFan30112335 (talk) 03:39, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, WarriorsFan30112335, you are allowed to, But that is a hard task, and often ends with the new article deleted. Please consider the following steps:

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

Congratulations, you have now created a valid Wikipedia article. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:43, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

@WarriorsFan30112335: DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:44, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Question on reliable sources and news opinion pieces

Hello, I have been reading up on policies and have a question regarding what constitutes reliable from news sources. Must they strictly be editorial pieces from or can opinion pieces be used as well? Within this, is there a litmus test to determine reliability? Should the author be considered an authority on some subject for his opinion to be given weight? What if said authority pushes a controversial opinion or one that is generally not accepted? Is there another policy that addresses this? Thank you for your time. Uhtregorn (talk) 10:59, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

To support factual statements, news reportage and not opinion pieces are preferred. Opnion piecs are often not considered to be reliable sources for factual statements, although it varies. When the issue is a statement such as "Many people think X" then an opinion piece saying X is relevant. In gerneal a reporter does not need to be a subject-matter expert for a news story to be a reliable source. If the issue is highly technical, and particularly in the medical field, expertise is sometimes needed. Specific cases can be discussed at the Reliable Source Noticeboard. But you must be specific there, not only what source but what statement(s) the source is being cited for, in what article. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:52, 8 July 2017 (UTC) @Uhtregorn: DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:54, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Intersting. So it seems best to avoid them if possible, but if they are included its best to mention that said statement was in fact the opinion of someone? Uhtregorn (talk) 15:58, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

It is often worth including interpretations and opinions, Uhtregorn, depending on the context. WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV is helpful in explaining what to do in these situations. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:49, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

That makes total sense! I think that policy perfectly addresses what I was thinking about. I will look through it additionally to get a better grasp.

I really appreciate how helpful and open this community is. Thanks for answering all my questions! Uhtregorn (talk) 09:07, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

why is this page a stub?

The page 'family tree of the Norse gods' has a stub tag on it, why? It has all the info it is supposed to, GrecoRomanNut (talk) 11:30, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Greetings GrecoRomanNut and Welcome to the Teahouse... To improve the Family tree of the Norse gods article a number of those gods and goddesses in the family tree are unreferenced. Each of the two major sections could use an introductory sentence or two describing the content that follows. This would be helpful to a Wikipedia reader not familiar with the subject. Lastly, I did add another entry to the "See also" section, and two norse navigation box templates. Thankyou for your question & I hope my remarks above are helpful. Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 12:49, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Ok JoeHebda I will try to add some sentences. Do you mean on top of the whole chart, just saying 'below is a family tree of the Norse gods, a line between two shows partnership, the row under is their offspring', or something like that? GrecoRomanNut (talk) 13:03, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes GrecoRomanNut, I realize it is like stating the obvious, but for those who are not familar with family trees, this is helpful. Part of WP encyclopedia style of writing, direct & to the point. Cheers! P.S. I took the liberty of correcting spelling on my username above. — JoeHebda • (talk) 18:54, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Very helpful. But afterword, should I remove the stub tag? JoeHebda, I am hopeless when it comes to that kind of signature stuff. Thanks again, GrecoRomanNut (talk) 19:16, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi GrecoRomanNut, the stub tag should not be removed until more content is added to the article. Even with more content the article still needs more work. As noted at WikiProject Norse history and culture, Assessment section, this is one of 740 stub articles. Once the article is improved, yes, the stub tag can be removed, and on the Talk page "class=stub" should be changed to "class=start". Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 13:08, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

JoeHebda, thanks, GrecoRomanNut (talk) 19:09, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

how do i write about commom sense in books?

I was editing 'tyet' and I added the fact that in the Kane chronicles, one of the main characters had a tyet amulet that she used to communicate with her mother. But there is not just one sentence that explains that. It is just kind of common knowledge for readers, so do I cite it or not, and if so, how?GrecoRomanNut (talk) 12:03, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikilink to Tyet for the convenience of other contributors. GrecoRomanNut, if this is "common knowledge" for the readers of these books, there must be a first passage mentioning that the character wears such an amulet, and a first passage mentioning this use. Cite the volume(s) and page(s) or at least chapter(s) where these occur. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.199.210.1 (talk) 07:40, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

You don't necessarily need to reference a single sentence, GrecoRomanNut. Giving the page number or page range where the information can be verified is perfectly acceptable. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:07, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Cordless Larry, thank you. As an owner of the whole trilogy, I can definitely do that. Thanks again,GrecoRomanNut (talk) 02:37, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Edit summaries

How detailed must edit summaries be? Should i thoroughly describe the change made or would a simple note suffice? Uhtregorn (talk) 13:05, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Uhtregorn. That depends on how complex and possibly controversial your changes are. If you go through and argiel and fix spelling, or do general copy-editing a summery of "spelling" or "c/e" will do. A summery such as "rm unsourced statement about ..." is common. If you are making a large and complex change a more detailed summery is helpful, or a a short summery ending in "see talk page", with a post on the article talk page explaining in more detail. The purpose of the summery is to help other editors, now and in future, to understand what you did and WHY. It should be detailed enough to serve that purpose. If a "simple note" will do that, it is enough. If your edits are challanged or revertred, please discuss the matter on the article talk page, sew Bold Revert, Discuss. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:45, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Very helpful! Thank you. I will take this opportunity to review BRD. Uhtregorn (talk) 15:49, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

News released and edit timing

If something comes out in the news, is it proper to add it onto an article when it comes out, or should we wait for a bit? Or does this depend on the nature of what the news is? Uhtregorn (talk) 15:05, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Uhtregorn. It depends on the nature of the news. Some celebrities are so famous that news outlets will report where they had dinner or what nightclub they attended. Such trivia is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. But if reliable sources (not random Twitter or Facebook posts) report that a notable person has died or a historic building has burned to the ground, then that kind of news should be added to the appropriate article immediately, along with a reference to the reliable source. In other words, exercise editorial judgment. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:56, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Intersting, and very helpful. But what if its a major news story that is still unfolding? Should editors wait until the full story has come out? Uhtregorn (talk) 09:36, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Request for Responsible and Knowledgable Editors and Monitoring

The article "Nader El-Bizri" has recently attracted the attention of some editors even though it exists since 2008 with many edits by diverse users over the years. The recent approach to the article by some users has not been done with patience and to properly look at sources.

For example since El-Bizri is an academic, the first official and reliable source would be his university formal website which is: https://www.aub.edu.lb/fas/cvsp/Pages/El-Bizri.aspx This website contains his university formal summary CV that is downloadable as PDF: https://www.aub.edu.lb/fas/cvsp/Documents/Nader%20El-Bizri%20Summary%20CV%20(Spring%202017).pdf These give the formal details as vetted by the university

Then, as an example of the prestigious awards he received, check the following Ordered Universe Project under the patronage of the AHRC in the UK: https://ordered-universe.com/2015/12/04/kuwait-honours-professor-nader-el-bizri-arabic-science-and-philosophy/ Also see this as noted on the university website: https://www.aub.edu.lb/news/2015/Pages/kfas-3.aspx

He was also ranked 59 amongst all Thought Leaders in the Arab world (and this groups not only philosophers but scientists, journalists, activists, religious authorities, poets) [http://www.thoughtleaders.world/en/arabic-2016/ If you search within the rankings and designate the subfield of philosophy, he is 3rd in the Arab world (and the Arabs have very rarely living philosophers nowadays!).

This is the tip of what you can find about him, if time is taken properly, and all the editing decisions are not made with haste or by users who have no knowledge of academia

Can anyone look into the article "Nader El-Bizri" after having searched properly and taken the time to read the sources? This is serious and if not handled properly can result in damage to the living person concerned (AcademeEditorial (talk) 15:23, 8 July 2017 (UTC)) (AcademeEditorial (talk) 15:26, 8 July 2017 (UTC))

This is apparently about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nader El-Bizri. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:35, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

User:AcademeEditorial - First, do you have a connection with the subject of the article? If so, you must declare it in accordance with the conflict of interest policy. Second, has anyone made statements about the subject of the article that are libelous? You refer to harm to a living person, but the question only appears to be whether to delete the biography of a living person, and that doesn't seem to be an argument about harm. Please explain, because your statement above is strange and unsettling. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:18, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Robert McClenon:

Thank you for your response. I am not connected with the subject of the article. I am a scholar myself and I have intellectual interests in some of his areas of expertise. i joined wikipedia to improve intellectual contents in my expertise, and in the process I got into exchanges with editors/users who seem to be knowledgable of wikipedia technicalities but have not expertise in intellectual issues. Judging academics is done by their peers, while wikipedia casual users make statements in the noticeboards or discussions that can be harmful. Nothing libelous was noted in the article itself, but the tone of the discussions around it has been aggressive and lacking in knowledge within the humanities; bordering on being judgmental of a complex sphere of academia. Some decisions made were done without proper research and in an arbitrary way. Including this call for deletion. This is why I traced some reliable websites to show the carelessness with which this article is being handled, and in a context that seems to be ill monitored and almost amateurish when dealing with philosophy, Islamic/Arabic studies, etc. I hope that you can have a look at this matter or flag it to other responsible editors, since this article that existed since 2008 with on average 35 visit per day and hundreds of edits can be soon deleted at the random decision of a couple of casual users. Thanks for your decent etiquette and proper protocol, which is very rare in wikipedia! (AcademeEditorial (talk) 18:42, 8 July 2017 (UTC))

User:AcademeEditorial – Maybe I don’t understand something yet, or maybe you don’t understand something. You still seem to be saying something about harm to a living person. Perhaps you think that some living persons have a right to Wikipedia articles, and that therefore, if the article is deleted, a wrong will be done to its subject. No one has a right to a Wikipedia article. At least, I haven’t seen either a Wikipedia policy or a law that grants anyone such a right (and if there were such a law, it would violate Wikipedia’s freedom of the press). Perhaps you simply overstated your case and are using divisive and inflammatory language to make your case for keeping the article. You say that decisions have been made without proper research and in an arbitrary way. What decisions? The deletion discussion is still in progress, and you have as much right as any other editor to state the case for keeping the article. Maybe I don’t understand something yet; it appears to me that ‘’you’’ are loosely alleging carelessness. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:24, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Robert McClenon: I am not implying that people are entitled to have a wikipedia biography at all. This article existed since 2008 with numerous edits, visits, and references, and perhaps I am very new to how issues are handled via wikipedia when such discussions about deletion take place. I am just seeking fairness and anything that can result in careless or hasty decisions. If you from your experience you think that decisions cannot be arbitrary then at least this is reassuring in the sense that such practices are collectively monitored and not left for the whims of a small number of users. In any case thank you (AcademeEditorial (talk) 20:54, 8 July 2017 (UTC))

Semi protected ranges

Hi I'm new here! Just got wikipedia yesterday. There are pages that say I need to make 10 edits so they can trust me to edit them, they say they are 'semi-protected ranges'... I've made 40 edits and I still can't edit them. Miles.mu (talk) 15:47, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Miles.mu and welcome to the Teahouse. Such pages require editors to be confirmed which normally means at least 10 edits and an account at least 4 days old. You will qualify in another 2 days, more or less. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:57, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Miles.mu. Because after looking it appears to me that all your edits are good faith attempts at improvement, I have granted you confirmed status early. However, please do not make any more "corrections" of "double spacing errors" as you have termed them. They are not errors (placing a double space after a period was an extremely common convention, though it has fallen out of favor among many over the past thirty years or so), but also such edits have no affect whatsoever on the display of articles, and edits that make inconsequential changes for no real purpose, but clutter people's watchlists, are highly frowned upon. Best regards.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:09, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! Miles.mu (talk) 23:04, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Miles.mu. I hope you find articles that really need editing, and best wishes for your work in Wikipedia, but please remember to give accurate edit summaries. Adding commas is a punctuation correction (or a matter of style), not a spelling correction. In general, style "corrections" are not needed in Wikipedia unless they are for consistency within an article, or if they improve the readability. We allow a variety of styles here (though they should all be encyclopaedic). Dbfirs 06:52, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

3RR and disruptive editors?

Hello again. I have been reviewing the Bold Delete & Discuss policy and saw the 3RR policy regarding edit reversions. I am curious if this applies when an editor is participating in "vandalizing" behavior, or if it is waved for such. Uhtregorn (talk) 16:39, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Uhtregorn Reverting clear unambiguous vandalism is indeed exempted from the 3RR rule. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:15, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. Just wanted to be certain. Uhtregorn (talk) 18:17, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Uhtregorn. See WP:NOT3RR for a list of the exemptions from the rule. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:49, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

A compiled list of article tags?

Is there a place that has a complete list of tags with which to tag articles for improvement? I see them across several pages, so I'm wondering if there is a convenient place one could go to find what they are looking for. Uhtregorn (talk) 16:51, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Uhtregorn. See Wikipedia:Template messages (shortcut: WP:TM). Please be aware of {{Multiple issues}}. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:46, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! Uhtregorn (talk) 09:34, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Categories in Draft Articles

What is the poicy on placing categories on Draft: articles? Does it make a difference with indexing?  — Myk Streja ^(what?) 20:29, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, article categories are intended for full articles, not drafts. Wikipedia:Drafts#Publishing a draft recommends what's called "commenting out" categories, formatting them with an initial colon like so: [[:Category:Hats]]. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 22:28, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

How to take a picture from another language wiki and add it to English language wiki?

Hello. There is a page on English Wikipedia. Arabic-language version of this page has a good picture. English version doesn't have any pictures at all. I think it'd be great to take this picture on Arabic wiki page and add it to English wiki page, but how do I do that?

I also know that there are some problems with copy-right or whatever. And it's like different wiki's have different copy-right laws. I don't understand anything about that.

(I hope this question is understandable - but if now ask away! I'll try to explain better)

Nigario.sss (talk) 20:31, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

State the Arabian file name and the English Wikipedia article name please.  — Myk Streja ^(what?) 20:34, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello. I am so sorry I did not reply in time. This is the picture on Arab Wikipedia: https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/ملف:Moulay_mouhamed_ben_abde_arahman.jpg And this is this page google-translated to english: https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ar&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=https%3A%2F%2Far.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2Fملف%3AMoulay_mouhamed_ben_abde_arahman.jpg&edit-text= And this is the English wikipedia page that needs this picture Muhammad IV of Morocco — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nigario.sss (talk • contribs) 21:23, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

@Nigario.sss: although I don’t understand Arabic, I gather that this image is copyrighted and is hosted on ARWP under a claim of fair use. The same can be done here on ENWP, but a detailed fair-use rationale will be required, explaining how the image meets several criteria; please see that page and the guideline on non-free content.—Odysseus1479 05:09, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

How does one make a general disclaimer about accepting pay for writing articles?

I have never accepted pay for writing articles and never will. There seem to be plenty of suggestions in Wikipedia instructions about how to insinuate that a writer/editor has been paid for their volunteer contributions, but no standard way to refute the accusations.Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 20:45, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

We generally give people the benefit of the doubt, and presume that they are not being paid. Unless of course, there is good evidence to the contrary, when we would encourage them to read our conflict of interest policies and make a clear statement about any COI and/or paid editing. As I start quite a lot of business articles, my userpage includes the statement, "I receive no payment for anything I write on Wikipedia." Edwardx (talk) 22:39, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Edwardx (talk). I will do the same.Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 20:23, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Mitzi.humphrey. See the standard template for paid editing disclosure {{Paid}}. See also the warning template series {{uw-paid1}}, {{uw-paid2}}, {{uw-paid3}} and {{uw-paid4}}--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:01, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, Fuhghettaboutit (talk) I'll look at the template series to see how they vary from one another.Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 20:23, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

The text is correct?

First of all, my name is Joe Pastrana and i'm a new editor, i'd like to know about his opinions about the text is well-written and structured.

Here, I leave the text:

La Bolefuego or Candileja is a legendary character belonging to the folklores Colombian and Venezuelan, this is an apparition similar to a lamp which appears in the dark nights of the plains. It is said that this turn and sound with violence in addition to turn on and off constantly.

The legend

It is claimed which is the spirit of a woman they burned her alive in his own house with his two sons. She attacks travellers, which should not pray in his presence, because unlike of other evil beings, she is attracted to prayers that make her annoy.

I appreciate all of your opinions.

Joe Pastrana (talk) 20:55, 8 July 2017 (UTC)Thank you.Joe Pastrana (talk) 20:55, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Joe Pastrana - If you are asking whether the text in well-written in English, the answer is no. I have tagged La Bolefuego as needing copy-edit. I see that the citation that you provided is the original legend in Spanish. Can someone please improve the English? (I could improve the English, but it wouldn't help to improve the English if it wasn't consistent with the Spanish.) Robert McClenon (talk) 22:14, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Joe Pastrana. It appears to me that you have translated La Bolefuego from the Spanish Wikipedia article es:Bolefuego. Is that correct? If so, then you need to credit the original Spanish article in an edit summary and to leave a note on the article's talk page, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:03, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Joe Pastrana, Robert McClenon and Cordless Larry – I have done some copy editing and added the attribution from the Spanish article. I believe it's properly written now, but am happy to hear further suggestions. –FlyingAce^✈hello 14:55, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I've removed the copy-edit tag. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:53, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Make good edits for admin privileges

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I have difficulty making good edits to Wikipedia, to become an admin. I wanna become an admin. I wanna know if the source is "questionable" or "reliable", so edits will not be reverted. Bemahewal (talk) 22:09, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

How much edits to become an admin? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bemahewal (talk • contribs) 22:10, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Bemahewal. There is no hard and fast rule as to quantity of edits in order to become an admin. Displaying competence in a variety of areas including those that demonstrate a need for admin tools and facile knowledge about the project and its policies and guidelines through good edits and discussion (and a lack of bad edits) are much more important. That being said, a certain minimum number of edits is required for anyone to achieve the level of experience necessary to meet such goals, as well as to have a track record so that people can verify any candidate meets these expectations. So, without any number being the important part, I would say 5,000 (non-automated) edits would be a bare minimum, but again, simply having that minimum number of edits would be the least of what would be considered. I'm sorry but I think I have to bring up another [disqualifying] issue that is a simple reality here. Communication skills are very important for an administrator to have. Unless you become much more fluent in English, I do not believe there is any way you could ever become an administrator on this Wikipedia. You could instead concentrate on the Wikipedia in your native language. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:30, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Something I want to add to Fuhgettaboutit's answer, Bemahewal: in order to become an administrator, you need to have a good answer to the question "Why do you want to be an Admin?" A good answer will always be of the form "Because I want to serve Wikipedia in ... way, and I need the privileges to do this effectively". If you are looking to be an administrator for reasons of status or power, you almost certainly won't get granted the privileges. I have been an editor for over ten years, have made well over 10 000 edits, and have helped hundreds of people (I hope!) here and on the Help Desk. But I have never even requested to become an Admin, because I don't need to be for the way I want to contributed to Wikipedia, and conversely, I do not want to serve in the ways that would require me to be an Admin. --ColinFine (talk) 10:48, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

I wanna become an admin because I would like to experiment with the functions that only admins can do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bemahewal (talk • contribs) 16:26, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Until you already know what at least most of the admin functions do, and how and more important why to use them, Bemahewal, you are not likely to be accepted as an admin. Edit steadily and productively, and ask again in 2-3 years. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:49, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Bemahewal - That is one of the worst arguments for becoming an admin that I have ever read. With power comes responsibility. Admins do not experiment with the functions that only admins have. An admin who experiments with the administrative functions is an admin who will result in demands for desysopping. If you think that you want to experiment with admin tools, you are a very long way away from being an admin. That is one of the worst arguments for being an admin that I have ever read. Learn better English so that you can contribute positively as an editor, or consider contributing to another Wikipedia in another language. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:49, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Flag Icon for old countries

On Azerbaijan in World War II, there's a table of counties. All the countries have a flag icon for their respective country. To maintain consistency, I want to add the flag icon for two [former] nations. The Crimean ASSR and Byelorussian SSR, however there are no ISO codes for these two (for the {flagicon} template). How would I go about adding these two flags while maintaining the 25px x 15px size?

Thanks, Toreightyone (talk) 00:38, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Toreightyone. You might be best asking for advice on this matter on the talk pages of Wikipedia:WikiProject Flag Template and/or Wikipedia:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:59, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Finding things that actually NEED to be edited

I have had Wikipedia for 24 hours (more or less) and I've made over 100 edits already, but other users always criticize me on my edits... it's not very encouraging, considering the fact that I'm a new user here. I feel that I'm doing the wrong thing. If I stop editing, I suppose the other users would be satisfied, but I still want to contribute to this society... I have come across several articles that say 'needs citation' 'needs cleanup' or something. I feel that if I edit those articles, other users won't pick on me as much. Is there a certain way to find those articles? Thanks. Miles.mu (talk) 03:21, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Miles.mu. Welcome to the Teahouse. One place to start is at Category:Articles needing attention. You can find a lot of cleanup work to do there. About the criticism, try not to take it personally. Like you, we're all volunteers with limited time (and sometimes limited patience!), and sometimes we aren't quite as cordial as we could be. Do take any constructive criticism seriously—Wikipedia is a complex place with a steep learning curve, and the lessons we learn when we're new here will stand us in good stead a little further down the road. Good luck! Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 05:16, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Miles.mu: I don't believe that other editors are "picking on" you. But if you add a grammatical error to an article, it's likely that another editor will remove it. They don't criticise you, they criticise the edit you made. Maproom (talk) 06:58, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

@Miles.mu: It's an exaggeration to say that other users always criticize you. Your changes of double spaces to single spaces were against Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Spaces following terminal punctuation. It's unlucky you made so many before an editor told you we don't make such changes. You may want to study Wikipedia:Manual of Style, or ask before making the same change a lot of times. I agree with the user saying this was an error. A conflict does not wage. It is waged by the participants. Your edit would have been correct if "waged" worked like "lasted" but it works like "fought". Maybe you can hear your version is wrong with "fought" instead of "waged". Please don't be discouraged by a few problems. You stopped the double space changes after being told. That's good. We all have to learn and respect rules. Some editors refuse to do that. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:44, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Template problems

I've been trying to make a template on the 2nd AP All-pro team. However, after I made some of it, it seems that the template called the 2016 AP All-pro team became for the 2nd team, and vice-versa for the other template. I've been trying to fix the two but it seems impossible, and I think I might have to delete both of them. Is there a way to fix the two templates by any means, or should I delete it. Can you help? Vinnylospo (talk) 03:31, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Vinnylospo. Click the "View history" tab to see the edits: [2][3]. I have restored Template:2016 All-Pro Team to before your edits. You changed it to be about the 2nd team. I have copied that version to Template:2016 2nd All-Pro Team. I haven't checked the content beyond that. PrimeHunter (talk) 08:40, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

What's a rellable source for an article on a comic book?

The article on the comic book Tales of Beatrix is being proposed for deletion on the grounds that it doesn't exist. I know perfectly well that it does because I've read it, but what counts as a reliable source to prove that? For instance, would its inclusion on Amazon or Grand Comic Database (under alternative forms of the given title) be sufficient? If not, what? Lee M (talk) 05:18, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

The Amazon entry proves that the comic exists, but doesn't prove its notability. The GCD entry does neither, as it appears to be editable by anyone, with no editorial control. What you need is to provide multiple reliable sources that talk about the comic in some length. It's up to you to find and use those sources. If you can't then the article won't survive. Rojomoke (talk) 05:32, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Editing at college/university

I'm not exactly new anymore but figured this would be the best place to ask. If I log into my Wikipedia account from school, and my IP address appears to be the same as a vandal or disruptive editor (IP or not), what are the chances I will be accused of being connected to them in some way? If this happens, how can I remedy this? My account was made at home and I've made a significant amount of edits away from school. Aspening (talk) 05:24, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Aspening, and welcome to the teahouse. One of the big advantages of creating an account is that you will not be blamed for any edits from an anonymous IP address, and you will not receive warning messages directed at vandals from your school. In the unlikely event of an investigation, it will be clear that you are an innocent party. Just make sure that you do not allow anyone else to use your account, so you might need to log out of Wikipedia at the end of your session on a public computer (though this will be automatic when you log off on some systems). Dbfirs 06:37, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Boško Todorović

Hello. I did a major copyedit on about the first third of Boško Todorović. It was reverted in full and sadly, a rather unflattering comment was added. I am looking for a quick opinion on whether the copy edit was indeed so bad or have I simply struck a difficult article. I am happy to move on to other work but only if I am actually being helpful. Kind regards and my thanks, Myrtle. Myrtlegroggins (talk) 07:43, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Myrtlegroggins: when you delete hundreds of characters of content, but describe it in your edit summary as a copyedit, some editors may form the view that deliberate dishonesty is involved. Maproom (talk) 11:12, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Maproom. on reflection, I can see from the comments made to me today that I need to be more mindful of the way that I describe changes made in the edit summary. I can assure you I was editing in good faith but I can see now how I could have upset the other editor. I am understanding that my main error was a lack of care and consideration in the copyediting process rather than the changes I made in the syntax in the main part of the article per se. I will leave well alone but I hope a good copyedit of the article can be completed at some point. Myrtlegroggins (talk) 11:52, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

MyrtlegrogginsWhile far from a copy edit expert, I will throw out two additional suggestions. The first is based upon my observation that while a copy added in theory is supposed to be something that is noncontroversial, there are many examples of proposed edits that may seem noncontroversial to one editor but not so convincing to another. A problem will arise if you do 20 changes in a single edit and 18 are exceedingly straightforward, but some other editor disagrees with two of them, they may prefer to revert the entire edit rather than simply override the two they disagree with. This might be especially true if they start looking at your edits and find the one or two they disagree with early in the list. One solution is to make smaller edits. Make two or three or four changes in one edit, rinse and repeat. Then if someone finds one they disagree with, the reversion only affects two or three or four rather than 20.

A second observation is there are times you might want to do a large-scale change the tone, and it may not work well to do a sentence or two at a time. When you are planning to do something like this, it may be a good idea to write down the revised version in an external editor, then post a note on the talk page with a before and after and asked for feedback. Maybe somebody will quibble with one or two words and you can reach a consensus and then make the large edit. Or they may be simply happy that you asked before making it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:38, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Sphilbrick I appreciate your suggestions very much and I will do them. I have also made a heartfelt apology to the other editor involved. My enthusiasm got ahead of my care to others which is never what I would wish to have happen. Thank you for taking the time to comment, Myrtle. Myrtlegroggins (talk) 01:06, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

How to open article wizard

Hello,i want to ask that if i have to open article wizard, then what i have to do.If i open the article wizard page on Wikipedia then it first page shows introduction and second,third,fourth,fifth and sixth page shows subject, notability, sources, content and end respectively.I don't know what to do now?Md.Yahiya Kamal (talk) 10:24, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Md.Yahiya Kamal. The article wizard starts at Wikipedia:Article wizard and has clickable boxes to navigate it, for example "Write an article now (for new users)" on the first page. What do you want to do? When you get to the "End" page there should be an option to create a draft or article if that's what you want. If you get stuck then post a link to the page where you are stuck. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:41, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Is this sites claims valid?

This site claims Wikipedia has an anti-conservitive Christianity bias. This is of course a site with worse bias then us, however I'm not confident that its claims are untrue. If you cannot answer it, could you dirrect me to someone who will. Thank you for your time and consideration.22mikpau (talk) 13:21, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

User:22mikpau - That site, as you recognize, has a deliberate bias, and it sees differing views as biased. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:33, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello 22mikpau. Wikipedia does not have any bias as a matter of policy: on the contrary, the policy is for articles to be neutral. However, it is inevitable that there will be biases for various reasons, most obviously from the self-selection of its editors and the things that they choose to write about. Some people may regard policies such as WP:FRINGE as inherently biased. You may find some useful information in the essay WP:systemic bias. --ColinFine (talk) 18:21, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

"Wikipedia does not have any bias as a matter of policy". Having read some wikipedia articles, I highly doubt this. Notralphwaite5 (talk) 23:26, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Notralphwaite5 - Wikipedia does not have any bias as a matter of policy. Wikipedia does not have any bias as a matter of policy. If you think that we have biases as a matter of policy, please find the policy that specifies the bias and call it to our attention. If you mean that some articles have biases, that is unfortunately true, and is against policy, and we have procedures for addressing those biases. However, individual editors not only have biases, but see presentation that differs from their own views as biased. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:32, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

What to do about a new editor who is listing everything for deletion?

Hi, so a new editor is aggressively listing articles for deletion and voting for deletion on things - at times so quickly between actions they couldn't possibly have done proper due diligence (e.g. basic internet search) to check whether the subject is notable before claiming they are not - and not following wikipedia policy WP:BEFORE. Basically, the editor is creating work for others who then have to come and defend pages to stop them from being deleted. While the articles often have flaws in them, tagging them for cleanup, starting a discussion, or improving the articles prior to listing for deletion would I believe be the correct thing to do. In defending the pages people have suggested to the editor s/he has an incorrect perspective on when something should be deleted, or what is notable, WP:RS or how to address neutrality issues (as these are the main arguments the editor uses for deletion) however the editor continues to argue even when others have stepped in and improved the articles. This seems to be very troll-like behaviour, and it is destructive, time-consuming, stressful. I myself am only fairly new on wikipedia, so don't really know what to do. Powertothepeople (talk) 15:05, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Can you point us to some examples?--Moxy (talk) 15:21, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Think Powertothepeople is talking about this article Muslim Women's National Network Australia and its deletion request Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muslim Women's National Network Australia. Appears DGG goes through and finds articles to nominated for deletion. NZ Footballs Conscience^(talk) 21:45, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

DGG has been editing since 2006, NZ Footballs Conscience, so isn't new and therefore presumably isn't the editor Powertothepeople refers to. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:56, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Oops sorry you are right, missed the bit about it being a new editor. NZ Footballs Conscience^(talk) 21:57, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

fwiw, I have for many years been challenging articles I think borderline in some respect, not just to express my own perceptions but to help clarify the guidelines for others. it is just as satisfying to me if a questionable article I challenge is resolved as keep as if it is resolved as delete, as longas it is resolved as a guide to others. DGG ( talk ) 06:23, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry DGG I wasn't implying in anyway what you do is wrong, I just thought that was who OP was talking about but had missed the bit where they said new editor. Just the article was one OP worked on and you had nominated which is how I came across it NZ Footballs Conscience^(talk) 06:30, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I didn't want to name the person in case that was considered 'shaming' or create friction etc. Not DGG in this case. GretLomborg was who I was writing about, but please delete his name if it is not a good idea to claim publicly. On my radar due to this page he listed for deletion [4] and when someone mentioned towards the end of the discussion that he a new editor focussed on Afd I had a look at his contributions and thought it odd that some of his listings and votes for deletion and were so close together without time imho to properly assess whether the article should be deleted. I looked at a couple of them, and to my mind he was acting prematurely without really checking before listing. However I don't pretend to have done a thorough analysis of his activities (another reason I don't feel great about naming him), and I didn't want to stalk him and contest all his listings that I disagree with as that is poor form. So I kind of wanted advice about how this sort of thing should be approached. Thanks Powertothepeople (talk) 11:43, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

badges from wikipedia for my editing work?

I have been an active wiki editor since 2013. please tell me if earning badges for your work from wiki is important? how can we earn those badges? Sachsach (talk) 16:12, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Sachsach. I suppose it depends on what motivates you. I have been editing for more than 10 years and can't remember receiving many badges (or barnstars, as they are known), but that doesn't bother me because I find instrinsic reward in editing. Others may feel differently. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:16, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your response Larry.. You truly are an inspiration! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sachsach (talk • contribs) 16:54, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Editors may display Service awards if thy choose, Sachsach. I do. Some find them motivating. Some find them useful to indicate roughly their level of experience. But no one should take them too seriously. barnstars are basically thank yous, and any editor may "award" them to another, when s/he thinks them appropriate. But please don't take actions primarily in hope of getting a barnstar. You may be disappointed. Also, take a look at Wikipedia:Awards. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:27, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Was act of administrator right?

Once I was gathering information about female anatomy in my sandbox. A administrator deleted the page when I was editing it. The administrator notified me We are not here so that you can develop your porn gallery. I discussed this matter on this teahouse. First read it. In light of this, I ask was act of that administrator right?

Sinner (talk) 17:20, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

I had previously noticed that you had been maintaining a page of images of female nudity, Nazim Hussain Pak, and wondered why when you were also asking here at the Teahouse how you could prevent such images from displaying. It is confusing to me why you were complaining about "porn" on Wikipedia, and at the same time building a page of it. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:40, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

@Nazim Hussain Pak: The full deletion rationale was: "U5: Misuse of Wikipedia as a web host: also: no non-free content, and we're not here so you can make your porn gallery".[5] Blue text is links. Some of the images like File:Destiny's Child – Nasty Girl.png are non-free and were uploaded with a fair use rationale for a specific article. Non-free images are disallowed in userspace per point 9 at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria#Policy. If you want to view images of the female anatomy then please watch them where they are or download them to your own computer. Don't use Wikipedia to make a publicly visible gallery with them. All Wikipedia pages are publicly visible. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:28, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Notability and references

I have been working on an entry that was declined first for references and now notability. My question is does the Title make the instances be acceptable. I am writing about a former member of Pretty Ricky but the title is his real name, should I title it different?

Thull2011 Thull2011 (talk) 18:56, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Thull2011 and welcome to the Teahouse. It's the references that matter because good references establish WP:Notability. You should use whatever name the independent references use. The existing references are very weak. See WP:Reliable sources. Dbfirs 19:54, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Is this... normal?

Normal or bug?

Robertgombos (talk) 19:16, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

@Robertgombos: it's normal. When you created your account, you are creating an account on every WMF Wikipedia for all languages. I am willing to bet that all those messages are "welcome to Wikipedia" in various languages. If you don't want to see notifications from other wikis then go to Preferences -> Notifications and uncheck the box towards the bottom labelled "Show notifications from other wikis". Nthep (talk) 19:35, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Nthep, my account is 5 year old, but only today made it to the 100th edit. :) It was just a bit strange coming all notifications at once. Thank you! Robertgombos (talk) 19:40, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

I've never had a slew of notifications like that, but I do get them from versions of Wikipedia that I've never edited before from time to time. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:27, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Cordless Larry, I understand. I just thought that is advisable to post the printscreen because I wanted to make sure there isn;t an error of some kind. Robertgombos (talk) 01:47, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

@Robertgombos: Accounts work at hundreds of wikis run by the Wikimedia Foundation. If you (or your browser via some feature?) visit a wiki for the first time while logged in then your account is automatically created there. Special:CentralAuth/Robertgombos shows 50 such account creations today within 2 minutes. In many of them you got a welcome message on your talk page. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:05, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

PrimeHunter, I see, thank you for the heads up. Robertgombos (talk) 01:47, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Question from Truthandseek

Thank you for the invite, I have several articles ready for submission, but as of right now my main concern is having an admin that's abused his power over a subject that needs to comply with the rules and guidelines to release his hold on the subject.Truthandseek 20:13, 9 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthandseek (talk • contribs)

This user has received an indefinite CheckUser block. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:31, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

how to upload

How to upload https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Margaret_Handwerker ?Isabella Zuralski (talk) 20:26, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Isabella Zuralski and welcome to the Teahouse. The draft is already uploaded, so I think you want to know how to submit it for review. The draft needs a lot of work before it is ready for submission. Wikipedia has no interest in what an artist has to say about herself, but only in what WP:Reliable sources say about her. You need to find independent publications in which the subject has been discussed at length to establish WP:Notability, and add these references to the draft, otherwise it can never become part of Wikipedia. There are also some problems with the layout and formatting of the draft, but these can easily be fixed if the subject proves notable in the Wikipedia sense. Dbfirs 20:35, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for this information. I will work on proper references. Isabella Zuralski (talk) 20:51, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

I want to contribute some articles about technology and gadgets.

I want to contribute some articles on tech-related topics or if any edition to any tech article if needed how can I do so please give me some suggestions.

Thank you very much.

Shashankgizmos (talk) 22:09, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Do you want to write about any specific technology, any you have in mind? Did you search for technology articles in your area of interest and look to see if you could contribute to those? Notralphwaite5 (talk) 23:23, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Greetings Shashankgizmos, You may find WikiProject Technology helpful to see existing technology articles. From there, you might identify articles that can be added and existing articles for you to improve. Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 13:34, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

new member editing suggested articles

When I first joined, there was a banner that brought me to articles that needed editing. How do I get there again? Or how do I find articles that need editing? Notralphwaite5 (talk) 23:19, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Hey Notralphwaite5. If you want to access that same page, copy this code: ?gettingStartedReturn=true → navigate to any random article → place your cursor in your browser's address bar after the existing URL → paste the copied code → hit enter. See also the Wikipedia:Community Portal, which contains a list of various tasks you can help out with. You can transclude its list of open tasks into your user talk page or user page by adding the code {{Wikipedia:Community portal/Opentask}} to the one or the other. You can also sign up for delivery of suggested articles to edit at User:SuggestBot/Getting Recommendations Regularly. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:31, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Fuhg.... Thanks for the response. Where exactly do I copy that code to? I tried putting it on my user talk page but it doesn't seem to do anything. Any help appreciated. Notralphwaite5 (talk) 01:42, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

However, through the community portal, I found this list of articles that need editing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:All_articles_needing_copy_edit

so thanks.

Notralphwaite5 (talk) 01:50, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

AfD reminders

What do you do if you have a page (you) nominated for deletion, but still, after more than a week, still hasn't received significant attention from either admins to close the discussion or editors contributing to an outcome? How would one (an editor,) raise the amount of discussion on and attract more attention for a stalling, if not completely stalled, AfD discussion, and draw it to a conclusion? alphalfalfa^(talk) 23:29, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, alphalfalfa. It is always helpful to provide a link to the discussion in question. Based on your edit history, I am assuming that you are referring to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alumni Chapel (The Hill School). If so, I suggest that you do nothing further. Two editors support deleting the article and none yet support keeping it. You do not want to be perceived as canvassing for deletion. Wait for an administrator to close the debate. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:30, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Article with several issues

I've made a number of edits to an article (Isidro A. T. Savillo) that I think has a lot of problems, which I have tried to correct in my edits. Often another editor (usually an IP address) will revert my changes and/or make a snarky comment in the article's talk page and I've tried to respond to these comments by referring to wikipedia's guidelines, but it's very difficult to actually have any sort of discussion about the article. I've tried to avoid nominating the article for deletion, but as I've learned more about wikipedia's standards, the more I think it would be appropriate in this case. Is there anywhere I could have more experienced editors look over the article to see if it has the same issues I've identified? For this page, I think the main issue if that the subject doesn't meet the notability criteria for an academic and that a lot of the article contains trivial information. madambaster (talk) 06:46, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

You're right. It is a long and superficially impressive article, but I am struggling to see how he passes WP:NACADEMIC or WP:GNG. Have nominated it, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isidro A. T. Savillo. Edwardx (talk) 10:21, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

my profile was deleted

dear, why my profile was deleted Apkidunya (talk) 09:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not host profiles. Maproom (talk) 10:04, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Apkidunya - You made the mistake of asking about a "profile". Don't use that term in Wikipedia discussions. Wikipedia is not a directory or a social medium. Wikipedia has encyclopedic articles that must be justified by notability. User:Maproom was abrupt in answering your question, but was correct. Referring to Wikipedia articles as "profiles" can lead to incorrect assumptions, and to deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:28, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Apkidunya The use of the word "profile" discussed above, and what it implied about the use of Wikipedia for am inimical purpose is borne out. The entry very much read as a "profile" for, say, linkedIn or Facebook, and very much did not read like an encyclopedia article, nor is its subject likely to meet the standards for an one, as referred to above, and was properly deleted as "blatant advertising" under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. The notice left on your talk page referred to this basis for the deletion, and provided links to a number of other standards and guidelines to explain the deletion. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:07, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

username

I signed up today. Forgot to capitalize my surname's first letter. How can I edit that?? Please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by an unknown user Koushik ghar.

Koushik ghar, you can ask for a name change following the directions at Wikipedia:Changing username. ~ GB fan 10:38, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

How to open Draft

Hello, i have to ask that how to open a draft which was created by another person.Means that, for example if a person has created a draft on a project then how to open it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Md.Yahiya Kamal (talk • contribs) 12:45, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello Md.Yahiya Kamal. If you know the name of the draft, you can just type it in the search box, preceded by Draft: (eg "Draft:Rolls Royce Cullinan" in the next question). If you know the user name of the person who created it, you can look at their contributions by typing "Special:Contributions/User name" in the search box (eg Special:Contributions/Md.Yahiya Kamal), and then picking a link to the page. You have to get the name exactly right. --ColinFine (talk) 14:08, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you sir.Md.Yahiya Kamal (talk) 18:00, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Moving draft when redirect exists

I wanted to accept Draft:Rolls Royce Cullinan. However a redirect page Rolls Royce Cullinan already exists. How can this be moved Jupitus Smart 13:09, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

You'll need to request it, Jupitus Smart. See WP:MOR. --ColinFine (talk) 14:12, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Jupitus Smart tag the redirect with {{db-move}}, but this time I'll just do it for you. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:19, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Deliberately misleading information

I found a deliberately misleading and biased info in a page. I fixed the info but the author of the misleading reverted my editing back to the original misleading info. In addition, he sent me in a notice that I am in an editing war and that I could be blocked when all I did was to fix the misleading info. In fact the question is about an internationally recognized country border versus the political view of a secessionist movement that has no legal and international bases. All I am asking is that Wikipedia should not serve a particular political propaganda of a mouvement, region or country and should stick to the facts. My intention is not to go for or against something or anything but just to stick to the facts and the only guidance being: are the borders reflecting the reality and the legality of the international law as defined by the United Nations ( country being a member of the United Nation).

Thus my question: What are the best option to fix misleading information deliberately added to a Wikipedia page? Axmedi (talk) 18:04, 10 July 2017 (UTC) Axmedi (talk) 14:38, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Axmedi - Read the dispute resolution policy. Discuss the issue on the article talk page. If that fails, the dispute resolution policy lists several ways to try to resolve the dispute. If you have any specific questions about any of these methods of dispute resolution, you may ask here. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:43, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

There are other cities in this region. How about using the phrasing from Hargeisa: "the self-declared but internationally unrecognised Republic of Somaliland in the Horn of Africa"? A discussion was started three months ago on the talk page of the article in question. Dbfirs 16:03, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

My article was deleted based on conformity to wikipedia guidelines.

Hello,

I'll be needing a clear-cut assistance on how my article can meet Wikipedia standards. Though i have gone through the necessary guidelines but i feel i'll be needing the assistance of a professional who is conversant with how information are posted as a guide. Thank you Olusegun Ajakaiye (talk) 14:41, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Olusegun Ajakaiye - You won't like this advice, but experienced editors will agree with it. First, do not try to use Wikipedia to host your autobiography, and do not try to get it to "meet Wikipedia standards"; it probably won't, and you will be wasting your time. Second, I very strongly advise you not to try to get the assistance of a "professional", that is, a paid Wikipedia writer. Wikipedia very strongly disapproves of paid editing, and many paid editors make grandiose claims about their editing ability that are not true. Most articles by paid editors are deleted, and paid editors are banned as quickly as we can ban them. Don't waste your time and money hiring a paid editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:40, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Help Needed Regarding a Historical article

Hi Guys, i have been recently working on an athlete page from USA who was active in the years 1928-1930. He won a silver medal in Olympics. I researched a lot but very little information is available about him. Nevertheless, i found a website where historical images were stored and the preview of that image contains watermark of the website since the pictures are paid.

My Question is that in order to link that rare image(only 1 found so far) to the article. Can we copy that image directly from the site(with the watermark)? and upload it to Wikimedia?(Since, CC license holds there) or we leave it simply? Rafiq Marbaros (talk) 14:41, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

@Rafiqmarbaros: if you have found a site (Getty Images?) where images can be purchased and the preview image contains a watermark then it is very unlikely that the image is covered by a Creative Commons licence so no do not upload the image to Commons either with or without the watermark. Annoying as it is, we just have to accept there are subjects where finding a suitable illustration isn't possible. Nthep (talk) 15:18, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

@Nthep: thank you for clearing my doubts, i wont. However, the image source is Historical Images and the page is Ben Hedges

I assume that you refer to <http://www.historicimages.com/1929-press-photo-ben-hedges-of-princeton-wins-high-jump-at-penn-relays>, Rafiqmarbaros. I don't see any indication that that image, or any image at www.historicimages.com is available under a Creative Commons license or any free license, and I don't think this would qualify as fair use. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:29, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Why does Wikipedia exist?

If you've already got Brittanica and Oracle and Americana and whatnot, doesn't Wikipedia seem pretty redundant? The other one (talk) 16:41, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Based on your previous edits, I doubt that you're looking for an actual, substantial response here, but I'll provide one as best I can: If you go to the 'About' page, there is a section labeled "Wikipedia vs paper encyclopedias", (*here*), which gives a fairly decent explanation. Hope this helps. - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 16:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Promotional v. non-promotional articles.

What makes an article promotional in nature and how do I avoid that? Mariaabalu (talk) 17:56, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

If an article promotes or praises someone or something, it is promotional, Mariaabalu. This does not mean just commercial advertising, although that is surely promotional. Advocacy for a cause is promotional. Admiration for a person is promotional. An attempt to "raise awareness" about an organization, a concept, a trend, a meme, or anything else is promotional. Proper Wikipedia articles should be neutral. They should state facts, largely supported by sources. Any opnions or judgements should be be attributed to a named person or entity, preferably in a direct quotation, and should be cited to a source inline.

To avoid promotion, avoid adjectives of praise, avoid expressing judgements, stick closely to what the reliable sources say. Use independent sources as much as possible. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:18, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you @DESiegel!

I tried to edit this page, Pamela Abalu, but people kept saying it was promotional in nature. If you don't mind, would you look at it (view the history too lol) and tell me how I could have edited it better? I used tried to use as many sources as I could. Would appreciate your input, but also ok if not! Mariaabalu (talk) 18:26, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Consider your most recent addition to Pamela Abalu. Itt makes claims, in Wikipedia's voice, that sound like something from a web site or brochure written to persuade potential clients to hire the subject. One specific claim it makes is abstract and not objectively verifiable even if it were reliably sourced. And it isn't reliably sourced; the source (which is incorrectly placed as an inline external link instead of a reference) is an fluff piece containing an interview in which the subject makes claims about her own work. So you're using the subject's own claims about herself to construct ostensibly factual, highly positive statements about her in an encyclopedia article. Please read again the advice DES wrote to you above. That last edit you made basically contravenes every part of it. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 18:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

A secondary point is that though "Pamela is an architect whose work has evolved beyond physical structures to digital infrastructure" is meant well, it may make the reader suspect that she is a bullshitter rather than a real architect who designs real buildings. Maproom (talk) 19:00, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

is this relevant

is a passing mention that someone has a ratemyprofessor score of 3.2 of 5 in violation of BLP (or perhaps OR)? I don't see how it's germane to anything. Asmrulz (talk) 19:18, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Asmrulz. The only time I might consider including that in a biography of an academic would be if it had been reported in a secondary source such as a newspaper article. Otherwise, I would delete it. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:21, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

thanks, so I did Asmrulz (talk) 19:33, 10 July 2017 (UTC)