Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Stelea17 (talk | contribs) at 00:18, 30 July 2017 (→‎Article proposed for deletion: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


This is the teahouse
Welcome to the Teahouse...                        
Shortcuts
A friendly place to learn about editing Wikipedia.

Shantavira, a Teahouse host

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


Neutral point of view is difficult at some points

Neutral point of view is difficult at some points though it is one of basic principles of Wikipedia. As everyone can edit every article. So you can edit an article to which you are opponent. For example

  • Christian view of Bible and Quran
    • Bible: Christians believe Bible is a revealed book and a True word and Order of God.
    • Quran: Some Christian testaments declared Muhammad (Peace be upon him) is a false prophet so Quran is a man-written book (May God save me from this!)
  • Islamic view of Bible and Quran
    • Bible: Muslims believe Bible is a revealed book but it was changed from its original form so present Bible is not a True word and Order of God.
    • Quran: Muslims believe Quran is the final, true and unchangeable word and Order of God.

When here are so much trenchs in views, neutrality of view is perhaps very difficult. Sinner (talk) 12:01, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Sinner . Not to be rude, but... I'm not totally sure if there's a question in there. NPOV can very often be difficult, so much so that we have the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard for times when situations arise that need wider community discussion. In general, with regard to religion, we simply record what people believe as what they believe without really "taking a side". Determining the nature of absolute immutable epistemic Truth is more of a place for philosophers and theologians, and not really for an encyclopedia. TimothyJosephWood 12:27, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The word rude while referring me shows answerer does not agree with above content (even I ensure it is a truth). That is we can't agree on everything, so can't become so neutral as required by wikipedia. Sinner (talk) 15:31, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nazim Hussain Pak. He was not saying you were rude, he was hoping he would not be considered rude for saying what he said. Everyday English can be harder to understand than formal written English. StarryGrandma (talk) 16:50, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is not central point of question, neutrality is difficult at points where you do not agree with basic idea of a subject when you are opposite to it. Sinner (talk) 07:09, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty simple, really. If you find you are looking at a subject about which you cannot be neutral, it is recommended that you simply do not edit it. There is no requirement, no expectation, that you edit on every topic, but there is an expectation and requirement that, when you do edit something, you approach it with a neutral point of view. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 07:41, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, even subjects like bible and quran can have other points of view than christian and islamic. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:56, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And (which I hope is so obvious that it doesn't need to be said, really), the bullet points above are not universally representative or "true" regarding the points of view of Christian and Muslim people, either. For instance, most Christians in my part of the world do not believe that the Bible as a whole is a "revealed" book - it is commonly accepted that it was written by human hands, and interpreting the texts and contexts of the times when the Bible was written, in order to make it relevant for people today, is a major issue for theologians and Bible translators. But that's not the only point of view or belief, and it would be equally wrong to say that it is universally representative for Christians. --bonadea contributions talk 22:12, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I heartily agree with Gråbergs Gråa Sång, "If you find you are looking at a subject about which you cannot be neutral, it is recommended that you simply do not edit it." C. S. Lewis said much the same thing about reviewing books to which one has a personal antipathy.D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 00:49, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sinner -- Look at the bright side. Where there are differences between Christianity and Islam, they can be laid out in bullet points, as you have. Where there are differences between creationism and science, the two sides argue without even a common vocabulary. I am quite sure you will be able to edit Wikipedia successfully using the tact and wisdom you demonstrated in your post. Knowing your interlocutor and his views does not require that you agree with them. As salamu aleiykum. (Peace be upon you) Rhadow (talk) 22:57, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sinner! We're all the children of the Almighty Creator. This we have in common. As for Atheists and Idolators, they ideologically refuse to accept this commonality - yet even then they would have to agree that we're all human beings. Ultimately, beyond any differences, the fact is, we are all people, we all have ideas, we all have feelings. That's not blasphemy - it's just reality. Whatever goes beyond that is simply, up to us as a generation of folks, who are preparing this planet for who goes beyond this time in history. Hopefully that will be our descendants. Following in our footsteps.
To remain neutral, to many of us in Wikipedia, will mean ignoring what seems to be blasphemy. That's definitely a problem. It is absolutely forbidden (to ignore blasphemy). The biggest problem is within, though. We all are imperfect beings, doomed from the time we're born to make errors. That's how we can learn. From our errors.
So would we rather make the errors by choice, so we can bring enlightenment - or rather by blunder, not even recognizing we've made an error? To build ideological bridges is a positive thing. To further communication is a positive thing. To bring light to the future of humanity is a positive thing. Which means we have to wrestle with neutrality. Life is not a party. It's a wrestling match. B'H. MichaelAngelo7777 (talk) 15:56, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:2422889236x We are creatures, we are not children of God, I believe. Sinner (talk) 05:45, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The word "children" isn't meant literally, it's a colloquialism. It's a metaphor for "creature." Of course the Creator of all things created us, and we are only his humble creatures. Also I note that your original reply ... much more extensive and verbose, was accidentally reverted:

I agree with most of your opinion but everyone has his own beliefs and according to my belief, I am ardent opponent to your phrase, We are all children of Almighty Creator (ﻧﻌﻮﺫ ﺑﺎﻟﻠﮧ) . For me, sayings of Quran are precious than my life, Allah says:

Say Allah is One, He doesn't need anyone, He neither bore anyone, neither He was born by anyone, He has no spouse. (Quran:112)

He hasn't born anyone so He has no children, we are His creatures. For me, neutrality at this point is completely impossible. Sinner (talk) 05:10, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you accidentally deleted a block of entries when you replied, and this is what got reverted. Your reply was reverted along with everything else. B'H.
MichaelAngelo7777 (talk) 13:57, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On serious matters when your mind forces you to remove matter that offends you, you may forget rules and you can take a step that is surely harmful for wikipedia. Sinner (talk) 15:44, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. We're all fallible. Our minds "force" us to forget rules. We make mistakes. If anything, the fact that we forget rules and make mistakes is what makes it so important for us to have other people around us. Good people. People who can remind us what those rules are. I guess, that's why we have this Teahouse!. B'H. MichaelAngelo7777 (talk) 18:24, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All the information by reliable sources is not true. For example, In a clash between Pakistan and Afghanistan:
  • 50 Afghan troops killed (Pakistani claim)
  • Only 4 troops are killed (Afghani claim).

Both countries are hiding something. Pakistani claim may be too large and Afghan claim may be too small. What to do when sources aren't neutral like this. Sinner (talk) 05:05, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

About page

HOW CAN I CREATE MY OWN PAGE ?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhanush121 (talk • contribs) 07:20, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Dhanush121 and welcome to the Teahouse.
You already have a user page at User:Dhanush121 and a talk page at User talk:Dhanush121. If you are thinking about writing a Wikipedia article about yourself, though, you should first read WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. It explains why you probably should not attempt it. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 07:26, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
YOU CAN'T, Dhanush121 — no page at Wikipedia is your OWN.
There may exist pages associated with you (like your User page and your Talk page) or pages about you (if you are notable enough), but none of them is your own. Please see Wikipedia:Ownership of content for more detailed explanation. --CiaPan (talk) 11:30, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Dhanush121: Oh, I forgot to add there may also exist pages created or modified by you – but those are not 'your own', either, just per WP:OWN. --CiaPan (talk) 11:43, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How to insert an infobox to an article

Hi friends, I'm a new here. I'm writing my first article, and who can kindly tell me where could I insert an infobox on the right side? Many thanks Cheese Cup (talk) 07:28, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, even I am new here, I find this helpful... it may help you too. Wiki markup have a nice day :) Red Pen (talk) 10:21, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes, rather than creating an infobox from scratch, it can be easier to copy the code from the infobox of a similar article to your sandbox, edit it until it shows what you need, then insert your modified code into the article. Dbfirs 11:03, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, yes even I do that sometimes ;)Red Pen (talk) 11:15, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks to both of you. I've tried several times to insert an image to infobox person, but always failed. Should I firstly insert a photo file there?  :(

124.193.167.38 (talk) 07:53, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Any image you insert into a Wikipedia article must first exist on Wikimedia Commons. See this helpful article and Wikipedia:Uploading images.--Quisqualis (talk) 04:58, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It may be easier if you're not familiar with coding to use the visual editor. Once there, you can directly add an infobox using the insert option Wiki sandu (talk) 07:35, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is working with wikipedia considered as working age population if a particular user's age is even less than 15 years?

This is the doubt that I ask regarding Economics point of view.I know Volunteers work for wikipedia without expecting anything.If this question that I asked is completely wrong,I apologise for it.Abishe (talk) 10:34, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Abishe, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm not quite sure what you are asking. Wikipedia welcomes all editors, whatever their age, if they understand what we are trying to achieve here, and follow the policies. I advise you to read the essay guidance for younger editors.
When you talk about Economics, do you mean that you want to contribute to that article, or are you asking about the possibility of getting paid for editing? If the latter, then as you say, Wikipedia editors are not paid, but contribute because they want to help create this great project.
The other thing that occurs to me is to wonder if it might be more valuable for you to contribute in another language. Do you know that there are Wkipedias in 288 different languages? Perhaps there is one that you can write more clearly in than English? --ColinFine (talk) 11:49, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I know that wikipedians are volunteers that they won't work for money but to do great projects without hesitating and I will contribute to wikipedia as a volunteer only rather than expecting anything.Abishe (talk) 11:54, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand correctly, Abishe, what you are asking is whether Wikipedia editors under the age of 15 are considered part of the working-age population by economists. I presume the answer is no, as they are neither working for money nor old enough to meet the definition. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:39, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Cordless Larry, What is this working-age population in wikipedia? Sinner (talk) 06:30, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a Wikipedia thing, Nazim Hussain Pak, but a concept in economics and demography. See here. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:56, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

what is the minimum requirement to create a page?

I would like to create a wiki page on Co-living as it is an emerging trend. What kind of content would be required for it? Dev098 (talk) 08:20, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:N. Also please realize that Wikipedia is not a vehicle for the promotion of anything. John from Idegon (talk) 08:49, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@John - got it. As a wikipedia user I would always use Wiki pages about various brands to learn more about them. Now that I am looking to be an editor, I was curious about why some brands have wiki pages while some doesn't. Also apologies for repeating the question. For some reason I never got any notification that my previous question was answered, so I thought I'll ask again. Once I realised that the previous question was answered, I've edited this question to ask about something else. Dev098 (talk) 09:05, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You've never asked another question here. John from Idegon (talk) 09:16, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) As to brands, Dev098, in some cases it is simply that no one has chosen to create an article on a particular brand. In many cases, one brand may be notable while a competing brand may not. Or an article on a non-notable brand may sneak through when it should not have, but articles on similar non-notable brands are noticed and deleted. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 09:20, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Desisgel - thanks for taking the time and explaining it. Really appreciate it. Hopefully other members also learn the same way of answering.Dev098 (talk) 09:48, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@john - Please scroll above I've added my signature to my previous question.Dev098 (talk) 09:48, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Having once had an article marked for deletion, I would say the main requirement is that the article be of general interest or notability, backed up by several good cites. Happily, another editor rescued my article by adding appropriate cites to show the article was of importance.D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 00:56, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

what do points on contribution amount to?

Just curious how are points allocated on contribution? how does one benefit from accumulating such points?Dev098 (talk) 09:55, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dev098. I suspect you are asking about the + or - numbers shown by each edit in a history or contribution list. They are not points: they're simply the net number of characters added to or removed from the page. --ColinFine (talk) 10:11, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually bytes, not characters. You can see that when using non-latin text or letters with diacritics. Plain latin text uses only one byte per character but others can be two or even three bytes each. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:19, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Dev098 I don't know what points you refer to. So far as I know ther are no points for contributions. There is one's Edit count, but that is just the number of edits one has made, there ar no points involved. And there really aren't any significant benefits from an edit count anyway. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 10:22, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@ColinFine - thanks for explaining. Really appreciate it :) Dev098 (talk) 10:51, 25 July 2017 (UTC) @Roger - Thanks for replying. That makes sense. For some reason I thought that Wikipedia has gamified editing with points (similar to Quora). Dev098 (talk) 10:49, 25 July 2017 (UTC) @Desiegel - sorry I confused the the net number of characters added to or removed form the page to points. woops Dev098 (talk) 10:49, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dev098: It's a common assumption. Did you try hovering over the number before asking? Before your post the hover text for "(+65)" might say "14,046 bytes after change", but it still seemed hard to guess that (+65) is the size change. The hover text is controlled by MediaWiki:Rc-change-size-new. I have changed it to say "14,046 bytes after change of this size". Would that have helped you? The number in the hover text is the page size after the edit. The software doesn't currently make it possible to repeat the size change itself in the hover text. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:27, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

How do people warn others from persistent editing?Whatisurproblem (talk) 20:13, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whatisurproblem... "persistent editing" isn't a bad thing... so we don't. TimothyJosephWood 20:24, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the Teahouse, Whatisurproblem. Many conflicts can be resolved by talking calmly and politely abouy the problem. In a dispute over the content of an article, rather than warning them it's usually best to try to engage them in a conversation, at least to begin with. Use the talk page of the article in question to open a new discussion, and ping them to let them know you're talking about something they're involved with. In your discussion, it's best to focus on the edits, not the editor. If they won't discuss it and their edits are not merely "persistent" but disruptive and harmful to the article (such as edit warring or vandalism, there are measures that can be taken; please come back to the Teahouse and report it. RivertorchFIREWATER 20:32, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't recommend taking a content dispute to the Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard, but in severely problematic cases, like when an editor is making repeated copyright violations, you can go there. As I said though, that's only for serious problems and not for content disputes. It's best to discuss those on the article talk page, like Rivertorch noted above. White Arabian Filly Neigh 21:34, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm one of the editors he's complaining about. Since Rivertorch asked him to report it if someone's being disruptive: He is. He's been making low-quality edits under an IP address[1] and is frustrated that other editors have pushed back against them. When people try to engage with him, he just blanks his Talk page[2][3] or uses profanity.[4][5] Magic9Ball (talk) 22:51, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Magic9Ball. I've left a warning on the IP's page about personal attacks. Blanking one's own talk page is permitted, and is generally considered an acknowledgment that the warning has been read and understood. By the same token, there's really no requirement that anyone engage in discussion if they don't want to. However, consistently refusing to engage with editors who are acting in good faith, while making disruptive edits, is unacceptable, and so is making edits while logged out to avoid bringing attention to one's account. If that's what you're seeing, and it continues, it may be worth reporting at WP:ANI (that's shorthand for the Administrators' Noticeboard/Incidents). Be aware, however, that making a report at WP:ANI will lead to your own behavior being scrutinized, and edits such as this one don't put you in the best light. Your frustration is understandable, but it's better to just disengage when you're tempted to say something like that. RivertorchFIREWATER 05:27, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
He isn't operating by WP norms; he blanks his talk page as way to tell people to "fuck off"... like the belligerent name he chose for the account he just created. Magic9Ball (talk) 12:01, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How to let winkipedia know a lie is written about someone

Hello I was compelled to join winkipedia because someone brought to my attention a lie that has been added to my husbands info. I am outraged. Please tell me how to contact them— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cagnolino1994 (talk • contribs)

@Cagnolino1994: Hello and welcome. I'm sorry to hear that. I'm not sure what article you are referencing, but if there is incorrect information in the article, you should first post your comment on the article talk page(click "Talk" at the top of the article, then edit the page that comes up) and it will be seen by any other editors that follow that page who could act on your request. Wikipedia is a volunteer project editable by anyone, so things like this can happen unfortunately, but are easily corrected. If you wish, I would be willing to look at the issue if you state which page it is. You don't have to if you don't wish to, just a thought. 331dot (talk) 23:16, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Cagnolino1994. Wikipedia articles should always be based on what reliable published sources say, which isn't always that same as what the subject would like them to say. But concerns such as yours are taken seriously. Please look at WP:BIOSELF for how you can proceed. --ColinFine (talk) 13:13, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ColinFine The link to SELFPROB is red... I'd fix it but I'm not sure what page were you trying to link to (lol) –FlyingAce✈hello 14:48, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Probably WP:SELFPUB. I've corrected it. Alex ShihTalk 14:55, 26 July 2017 (UTC) [reply]
No, I meant WP:BIOSELF, and have now fixed it. Thanks, FlyingAce and Alex Shih. --ColinFine (talk) 15:34, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I assume the article is James Farentino, which you've edited to add some commentary which is itself not acceptable here. As was commented above, we're only interested in what published sources say and not your personal view of things. However this case is complicated by the fact that neither of the sources quoted in the article is currently active (one just defaults to a homepage while the other returns a page with no useful content). I've found an active source which reports the event, so I'll link to that and change the wording slightly to reflect what the available source says. Neiltonks (talk) 13:11, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest a page to edit

WHen I joined wikipedia, it suggested a page to edit. There were many grammer, spello and typo errors which I was happy to correct. Prior to the edit I knew nothing of the subject matter. Post-edit, I was interested and and glad to have read something of it.

IS there a way that I can have wikipedia suggest another page like that WITHOUT me having to select a subject area?

If so, could you provide a link?


Thank so very much! 


Animalrescue (talk) 02:21, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Animalrescue! You may want to install User:SuggestBot on your talk page with instructions here. It will, however, try to match you with articles you seem interested in. You can also try clicking the "Random article" link on the left-hand Wikipedia menu. Not all articles will need improvement, however. I hope this helps a little. Maybe some of the other Teahouse editors will have other suggestions! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 03:13, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Animalrescue! Let me suggest that you look at Find articles that need copyediting. In that section, you will find links to three pages that might provide you with possibilities for improving articles. Eddie Blick (talk) 03:38, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's also a "Random article" link in the navigation bar on the left side of every Wikipedia page. You can keep clicking it until you come to an article you'd like to edit. Please be very careful when correcting those "grammer, spello and typo errors", though. When in doubt, consult a good dictionary or usage guide. RivertorchFIREWATER 05:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Need information about how to find a page to edit in Pharmacy, Pharmacology and Medicine field

Hi. Friends. I am new to Wikipedia. I need information about how to find a page to edit in Pharmacy, Pharmacology and Medicine field. So, if it possible then please suggest what I need to do for searching which page needs editing and what to be done. Thanking you.!!

Welcome to the Teahouse, Wikiboywork. Please take a look at Category:Medical treatment stubs. You will find many articles to work on there. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:12, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

temperature

how can i make my edits stay?Jani5829 (talk) 05:55, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jani5829. If you are talking about Aholanvaara, the problem is that the article about a village is unreferenced. Please read Referencing for beginners. It is OK to use references in the Finnish language. You cannot add personal commentary such as the village's distance from your home. I removed the speedy deletion tag since there is a strong presumption that villages are notable. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jani5829: When you added new temperature record claims to a couple of articles, you did not include any sources for the claims. The new Finnish heat record was from yesterday, and maybe it has simply not been recorded properly yet, but until that happens, the claim cannot be added to Wikipedia articles. I hope that makes sense. --bonadea contributions talk 10:09, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nadir_Aziz_Hanfee

I am new and inexperience in this form and forum, in regards to summary this article was created so that people should be given more information about poet,author and broadcaster. i need help to make this page proper and then to be viewed in google.

Nadir Aziz Hanfee (talk) 06:23, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IMVHO you should not have created that page, as you seem closely related to the subject, thus being in WP:COI situation. You should ask someone else, someone not involved, to create the article.
Next, the article should not appear as your WP:User page, but rather in the draft space, as Draft:Abdul Aziz Hanfee for example.
Finally, the article must show the notability of the person – see WP:Notability, then WP:Notability (people) and finally WP:Biographies of living persons.
CiaPan (talk) 06:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved the draft to Draft:Nadir Aziz Hanfee. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:32, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Roger (Dodger67) Ok, but ...Nadir Aziz Hanfee is the author, the person described is Abdul Aziz Hanfee (or Hanafi?). --CiaPan (talk) 07:40, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
CiaPan Fixed my error. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:48, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The draft is now at Draft:Ameeq Hanfee/Hanafi (Poet) - the final name can be decided later per whatever spelling fits WP:COMMONNAME. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:57, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some help please

Was doing some recent changes patrolling and came across IPs trying to added hateful stuff to this page Suicide of Tyler Clementi. Managed to get the page protected but this was left on the talk page [[6]] and was thinking should the IP be blocked for this? Know how to report IPs for vandalism but wasn’t sure if same process for this? Since then, I've had another IP leave this message on my own talk page [[7]]. Is there someone to get someone to look into these IP address and maybe block/ban them? NZ Footballs Conscience(talk) 09:13, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@NZ Footballs Conscience: Hello and welcome. It looks like the inappropriate edits were addressed; all vandalism can be reported to WP:AIV regardless of where it occurs. 331dot (talk) 09:28, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If it's a more extensive issue than can be handled with a basic vandalism report, it can be reported to the administrator's incident board. 331dot (talk) 09:30, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot: Thank you, do see the other offensive stuff has been removed and wiped. Just not the last one on my own talk page but I have reverted that anyway. So hopefully it just stops now. NZ Footballs Conscience(talk) 09:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This has been going on for the past eight months, NZ Footballs Conscience. Both article and talk page are currently semi-protected, which is the best way to deal with it. If the problem recurs on your talk page, AIV is indeed the first place to go, although making a request to temporarily semi-protect your talk page may be a better option when dealing with dynamic IPs. After the fact, you can ask an administrator to suppress any edits to your talk page that are "purely disruptive". RivertorchFIREWATER 14:44, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request to edit the title of the page.

Hello, I have a request to edit the title of one of your page. The page is Adam's Bridge. I request to change the title of this page from "Adam's Bridge" to "Rama Setu" as the bridge made by Lord Rama and the real name of the bridge(setu) is "Rama Setu" not "Adam's Bridge". Waiting for yours positive response. Dattanidhyey (talk) 10:51, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The question has been asked and answered (repeatedly) elsewhere. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:53, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My article on Mercia Deane-Johns is showing as a draft.

Hello, I have just posted an article on actress Mercia Deane-Johns which is now showing as just a draft. There were issues with disambiguation as it contains over 100 links to other Wikipedia articles but this is now resolved. Can the article which took weeks to write now stand?Novak123 (talk) 11:50, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Novak123. Looks like it was moved to a draft by User:Jennica, and at this point I think it was probably the right move. First off, the draft currently does not meet our minimum requirement for inline citations on articles which are biographies of living persons. You probably want to check out our tutorial on referencing for beginners for a guide on how to do this.
Secondly, basically all of the images that were in the draft (I have removed them) appear to be copyright violations. Taking a picture or screen shot of a motion picture doesn't make it "yours" since it is a faithful recreation of someone else's original creative work, and therefore the original copyright extends to these recreations (see also Commons:Screenshots). To include images you will need to find ones that are appropriately licensed, so you may want to check out our tutorial on finding images for more information. TimothyJosephWood 12:16, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Novak123: The article contains puffery ("A slender, energetic woman") and other stuff that doesn't fit the manual of style. I can try to clean it up but at this juncture isn't ready for be in the main space. Moving it into draft space isn't anything bad. It just means it can be worked on by others.
Here are some links you can see to improve: MOS:BIO (Manual of style for biographies); WP:REFB (Referencing for beginners); WP:PUFF (Puffery essay); and an article that was deemed a "good article" so you can get an idea how a biography article is supposed to look: Rachel McAdams. --Jennica✿ / talk 12:26, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the `puffery` and added 8 citations and 8 external references. It is my first article in nearly 5 years. Is it taking shape and could it now go in to the main encyclopaedia?Novak123 (talk) 17:32, 26 July 2017 (UTC) Novak123Novak123 (talk) 16:20, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet. You have a lot more work to do. "She says ..." needs an indication of which reliable source reported the quote, and you need many other in-line citations for statements made in the article. IMDb and YouTube are not reliable sources. Dbfirs 17:41, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I feel a bit disheartened having put so many hours in to writing the article and then seeing it published and then unpublished. I remember writing a short piece on peace campaigner Barbara Grace Tucker in 2012 - it was refused four times on grounds of lack of `notability`. There were very few references to the campaign which had a media blackout on it. That particular article is still on Wikipedia. Maybe the answer is to just write a stub. Novak123Novak123 (talk) 18:12, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm burning the midnight oil again! - for the umpteenth time in a row. I added on some citations and deleted the "She says..." stuff. Am I getting there with this article? Novak123Novak123 (talk) 00:01, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For reference: Draft:Mercia Deane-Johns (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, Novak123. This looks significantly improved, but still in need of work. Here are some points, in no particular order. Some are only my opinion:
  • After the initial sentence which gives her full name, always refer to the subject by her last name, never by her first name (except inside a marked quote).
  • Minor roles should generally be omitted. Only list her more significant roles, and use words like "including" "among other parts" to indicate that the list is selected, not complete.
  • If there is a link to an article about a TV series, film, or other work, you don't need to included such details as the company that produced it -- people can find that in the article about the show. Simialrly a plot summery is not needed beyond a general indication of genre ("police drama", "romantic comedy", or the like), again the details should be in the linked article.
  • Omit adjectives and phrases that express a judgement, such as:
    • constant presence on Australian screens (who says it is constant?)
    • vast array of characters (who says it is vast?}
    • minor gem of Australian cinema (who says it is a gem?)
    • much-loved police drama Blue Heelers (how many people loved it, and who says so?)
    • late and much missed John Hargreaves, (who misses him?)
    • memorable productions like Picnic at Hanging Rock (who says it is memorable?)
Such phrases can only be included if they are quoted directly or indirectly, and supported by an inline citation.
  • The IMDB is not a reliable source. Please find a better one. Even the subject's own web site would be better, but any review that lists her as an actress would do for the purpose you have cited IMDB.
  • Please correct the format of the external links. I did the first three as examples.
  • Also, please read WP:ELNO and remove those external links which do not significantly help the reader, or are primarily promotional. Wikipedia is not a web directory.
  • Please provide more detailed bibliographic data for your cited sources. The title of the article or page being cited is always required. When available, also give the date of publication, the work in which the source appeared (name of newspaper, magazine, or website), the author's name, the date of publication, and for online sources, the accessdate (the date you read the source and certify that it was as described. This helps in tracking links that go dead).
  • Use a somewhat more formal tone, please: terms or phrases such as bikie chicks, Her most recent film role sees her playing, a crime comedy flick
  • The paragraph which starts The administrations of Australian Prime Ministers John Gorton (1968 – 1971) and Gough Whitlam... seems to have a lot of name dropping, and many mentions of films that Deane-Johns was not in. It should be trimmed or better removed entirely
  • Why is it significant to this article where Guinevere Jones was filmed?
  • Titles of plays, TV series, and films should be in italics. Titles of songs and TV Episodes should be in "quotes".
  • Where there is an article about a play or film, link to it as I did with The Playboy of the Western World.
I hope thes points will be helpful. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 02:02, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]


It's 5 in the morning and I have made several more amendments as suggested including extra citations and making the tone more `neutral` or objective. Overall I have reduced the text from 2,200 words to about 1,500 words though reducing it much more might made it look like a `stub`. Am I close to getting the article in the main Wikipedia? Novak123Novak123 (talk) 04:47, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article I created Mercia Deane-Johns was moved to drafts because of problems with puffery, disambiguation, lack of citations and lack of neutrality. I have corrected all of this and directed the article in to the main encyclopaedia. The disambiguations – dabs – have all been corrected. The article is titled Wikipedia:Mercia Deane-Johns – can this be simply named `Mercia Deane-Johns`? Novak123Novak123 (talk) 20:08, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article Promis_(musician) - multiple issues

Hello, thank you very much for the invitation to the Teahouse.

I wrote an article about Promis_(musician). It seems there some issues which I want to resolve. Actually, I cannot, because I am too confused by the information given by "the editors" and bots. So, I have several questions regarding the article mentioned above:

  1. 1 I have used reliable sources. Those sources come mostly from blogs that have reviewed the albums of Promis. Although this issue was solved, I like to get information, what I can do else regarding citations.
  1. 2 It was said (or written), that a major contributor has written the article, but the information given has to be proved. I though the citations I gave were enough for a proof. On the other hand I accept the issue of conflict interest when I write articles with an account that is named after the artist's music label. I understand that Wikipedia does not accept this and that the article has to be written out of a neutral point of view (which I did).
  1. 3 The first issue given by users has been that I need to built up more categories in the article. I did it, but they have gotten deleted when editors have reversed the text because of another issue. Should I built up the new categories first?
  1. 4 I wanted to write other articles regarding Promis' music label and the album "Electric Cabaret". The text for the album is ready to get published, but I am too afraid now to load it up now, as the other issues are not resolved.

Thank you for any help I can get from you here.Dirk Lankow (talk) 12:21, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Dirk Lankow. A couple of notes overall: First, while reviews in industry publications are prefectly find, and often some of the best sources for musical artists, online reviews by pseudonymous contributors on places like Amazon, or reviews on individual blogs with no reputation for editorial oversight and fact checking, do not meet our minimum standards for reliable sources, and should not be used to support article content generally, and definitely not used to support content on biographies of living persons, which are held to a much higher standard on Wikipedia than many other types of articles.
You need to replace these unreliable sources with better quality ones, and I would probably recommend looking at online news searches rather than online web searches. Although this may be difficult, since the artist seems to share their mononym with at least one medical company as well as being apparently a very common word in French. This may be a good candidate to move to a draft in the meantime, to give you more time to work on it. TimothyJosephWood 12:30, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) To answer your point 1 first, blogs are not usually reliable sources, see WP:BLOGS. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:34, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I am Akila, a friend of K.J.Dileep for hwom I am creating a wiki page. I have copy pasted information from his website onto the page hence wiki says it may delete this page. I have the full permission of K.J.Dileep to use the information. How do I get wiki to accept the page? Akilavenkat09 (talk) 13:51, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For reference: K.j.dileep (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello. First you need to review the conflict of interest policy before further edits. Second, your friend needs to be the one to donate the material as instructed here. Third, it is best to write in your own words. Lastly, you should make sure that your friend is notable as Wikipedia defines it. 331dot (talk) 14:13, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Akilavenkat09, and welcome to the Teahouse. Basically, you don't. You could, in theory, follow the procedures at Donating Copyrighted Materials. But the content now on the page is not suitable for an article in any case, so you need to re-create after this is deleted. Please read Your First Article. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 14:18, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a test. I cannot see the Left Side of the box on My Browser. B'H.

Hello. I cannot see what I am typing, the user box will not display fully on my browser. The dialogue box for entering questions appears to the far left of my screen, with the entire left side of the box outside of the screen. When I try to maximize the screen, the box is still hidden. When I try to zoom out, the box is still hidden. I am a new user. This is a test 2422889236x (talk) 15:39, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are email addresses listed on wikipedia kept private?

Hello, I am a recent member of wikipedia, and I am wondering about email address privacy on wikipedia. If I add an email address to my account, is the address itself kept private, or is it listed publicly? Thanks! KENW-Mike (talk) 15:42, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@KENW-Mike: Hi, welcome to Wikipedia If you enter an email address in your preferences it is kept private and is not listed anywhere publicly -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 15:46, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Great news, thanks for that Time! KENW-Mike (talk) 15:47, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
However, KENW-Mike, the "email a user" function allows other editors to send emails to you. This does not in itself disclose your address, but (1) it allows people to send mail to you and (2) if you answer to such mail you will disclose your address to the recipient. So while your address is not publicly accessible, it may not qualify as "kept private" depending on how you understand that. TigraanClick here to contact me 07:48, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Tigraan, I appreciate the clarification. My concern is not so much for other wikipedia users, I just don't want my email address to be available to the crawlers. 198.59.190.202 (talk) 14:15, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Editor Made a Mistake Reverting My Edit - Will Not Undo & Will Not Discuss? B'H.

So I want to see what I need to resolve this? Whether a WP:Third Opinion is advisable or should I attempt to obtain an WP:Rfc? 2422889236x (talk) 15:54, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Which edit are you referring to? 331dot (talk) 15:56, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your gracious inquiry. I made the edit under an IP. Here is the link: Sweet Sweetback. I attempted to discuss, several times. The person who reverted me, only responded once, but in an unconstructive, cursory manner. Reverting editor is User:JesseRafe. You can review the discussions on his and my talk pages. B'H. 24.228.89.236 (talk) 16:59, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(Direct link to the diff.)
Hello, 2422889236x. The revert edit summary of "huh?" is not extremely precise in explaining the revert, for sure. However, in such cases, you should not escalate the matter to third opinion / RfC yet, but discuss it on the article talk page first, in that case Talk:Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song. If after discussion there is no way to come to a consensus, then you can consider other dispute resolution options.
On the merits, I must agree with your edit being reverted.
  1. Adding "it is often stipulated" before a claim is something you should in general never do on Wikipedia - if the assertion is backed by reliable sources, say it in Wikipedia voice, if no reliable source backs it, the claim should be deleted altogether, and if some reliable sources claim so but other disagree, the good way to treat it is "X claims (stuff) (ref to what X said) but Y claims (other stuff) (ref to what Y said), not using weasel words like "some people say...", "rumors are that...".
  2. You used IMBD to source a film release date, but IMDB is not a reliable source since it is user-generated.
  3. Finally, the last part of the edit is a textbook example of WP:SYNTH: comparing what is found in two sources in order to generate a new claim that is not itself cited (in that case, that it would have been impossible that the film was copied by Shaft, since the latter was released soon afterwards).
TigraanClick here to contact me 16:30, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can I just move (or copy over) the three discussions from the respective talk pages to Talk:Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song? Also, in the foregoing, I have mentioned over five sources, stemming from three Wikipedia pages (which can easily be repeated anywhere), which support my contention that the current state of the Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song contains an anachronism. I'm only trying to correct this one anachronism. The word "stipulate" was only in reference to the anachronism - not to the sourced correction. The three pages with the sources are all Wikipedia pages: Shaft (1971 film), Ernest Tidyman, and Shaft (novel). All these either are, or contain sources which expose the anachronism. This is not, as you're saying, a "new claim." It is even referred to elsewhere in Wikipedia - one place is here: Shaft_(1971_film)#Production. I am not "claiming" anything. I am simply carrying over what is already on Wikipedia elsewhere, and sourced. B'H. 24.228.89.236 (talk) 16:59, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I made a notation - and a new category - on the 'Sweet Sweetback ... ' talk page. Thanks 331dot and Tigraan for your wonderful, gracious advice. Thank you so very, very much for your help. B'H. 24.228.89.236 (talk) 18:00, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Adventure Hangs Up on Mission 7

I am on the Mission 7 section of the Wikipedia Adventure and it will not advance past the point of having successfully added Level 2 section headings. Instead, the prompt keeps advising to save the changes -- and once this has repeatedly been done -- no further advancements in the interactive mission are possible. I have tried several times to redo Mission 7. It keeps sticking at the same aforementioned point. I do not want to have to redo the entire Adventure again. Would appreciate a remedy on how to complete the Adventure's Mission 7. Web browser is Safari. Dcb2012 (talk) 16:43, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Creating an article for a business

I recently tried to post an article for a business and it was deleted on the grounds that it is promotional. I'd like some help getting it edited and ready for publication. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:TRI_Pointe_Group,_Inc.&action=edit&redlink=1 2600:8802:5500:610:59A8:CCA5:3C46:52F7 (talk) 17:36, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! It's hard to answer your question specifically without being able to see the article itself. But here are two things I know: To write an article on wikipedia, you need to find reliable, independent sources, which explain your subject. For instance, the company's own website wouldn't work because it isn't an independent source. If you can't find enough information in the sources, chances are the company isn't notable enough for an article. Additionally, I noticed you had said "We are trying to create an article for our client, a business." I don't know the specifics of your agreement with that business, but on Wikipedia we prefer that you aren't affiliated with the subject you're writing about.
Let me know if you have any questions. Margalob (talk) 17:51, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! One problem with the article I can already see based on your explanation is that I did cite one bit of info using the company's news section on their website. I'll switch this to the website that published the article. 2600:8802:5500:610:50F8:6431:849F:7957 (talk) 17:55, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would add that if this business is your client, Wikipedia's Terms of Use require you to comply with the paid editing policy. That means that in order to use Wikipedia you must declare any paid relationship you have that is related to your editing. I'd suggest doing so on your user talk page. You will also need to review the conflict of interest policy. 331dot (talk) 18:55, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello IP Editor. It is not forbidden to source any information about a company to its web site or other publications. Basic non-controversial information, such as a company's official name, history of name changes if any, HQ location, date of founding, current CEO, revenue or sales figures, and the like can be and probably should be sourced to a company publication, such as a history section of a company web site or an annual report. But that is not enough to demonstrate Notability. You need independent, published reliable sources that discuss the company in some detail. Published analyst reports are good, as are news stories about the company that are not just reworked press releases. Directory entries and passing mentions are not useful. Neither are most blogs or other one-person sites, or anything from anyone with a significant financial association with the company, or employed by the company. Strictly local sources are of at best limited value. See our guideline for the notability of companies and WP:CORPDEPTH. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:50, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh do note that while some information may be sourced to the company web site, none of it may be directly copied from that site, or from any outside source, except for short quotes marked as such, attributed to a named person or entity, and supported by an inline citation. See Referencing for Beginners to learn how to provide the inline citation.
Also, you might want to consider creating and using a free account here. it has several benefits. See Wikipedia:Why create an account? for details. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:58, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To change username

Suratnadas → Frangipani

Status:     In progress

18:10, 26 July 2017 (UTC)Frangipani

Hello. I believe there are two possible choices you might be interested in:

1) You can delete your current account and create an entirely new account with your desired new name. All your original posts and entries in your old name will remain.

2) You can go to the top menu of every screen in Wikipedia. Select 'Preferences' (There will be your username; talk; sandbox; preferences; ... etc. .). Under "preferences," there will be your "username." Scroll down to the second half of the screen, to where it says Signature. Below this it will list your current username (or current signature). Below this will be an entry box in which you can edit your signature. Cut and paste this into that box: [[User:Suratnadas| Frangipani ]][[User_talk:Suratnadas| (talk)]]. Now below this will be a checkbox - "Treat the above as wiki markup." You must select the box for this to work. This will make all your subsequent signatures (~~~~) seen as 'Frangipani (talk)'. All your original posts will remain under the original signature. All your following posts will be under the new signature. Hope this helps. Have a wonderful day. B'H. 24.228.89.236 (talk) 19:09, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suratnadas, if you want your edit history to remain with you on your new user account, just go to WP:CHU and follow the steps there to change your username. Or you can just change your signature as per above, however your username will still be accessible to all. At this point, the only user rights flag you have is AUTOCONFIRMED, so if you start a new account, you will have to go through the waiting period and make the minimum number of edits (I believe it is 4 days and 10 edits) to regain Autoconfirmed status. You will also lose your current watchlist by starting over, something that will not happen if you change your name or your signature. Also, the username you want to switch to has never been registered (surprisingly!), so you will not need to "Usurp". John from Idegon (talk) 19:45, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is not possible to delete a user account as 2422889236x suggests it is, Suratnadas, so I recommend that you follow John from Idegon's advice here. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:58, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
John from Idegon Thanks for help, now I have switched to new username. But there's another problem. I created the page Palash Baran Pal, where I have uploaded the photo of the author. If one clicks the photo there my old user name "Suratnadas" is still visible. Is it possible to change that too with my new user id?

Help with Reviewing/Re-Submitting an Article

Hi there, I have had an article rejected previously having submitted it. I have made some edits and I would like your help on how to improve/resubmit the article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Andersen_(sailing) Many thanksCameronAngus089 (talk) 13:52, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CameronAngus089 the article has already been accepted into mainspace, the review process is over and done with. Improvements are done through "normal" editing withot reviews. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:24, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like CameronAngus089 bypassed the review process by moving the draft into mainspace himself, Dodger67. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:30, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, additional sources are badly needed, CameronAngus089. See Talk:Kim Andersen (sailing)#Sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by DESiegel (talk • contribs) 11:13, 26 July 2017 (UTC)‎[reply]
Thanks all, I will seek to make sure the neccessary amendments are made.CameronAngus089 (talk) 08:07, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Accidentally published two pages

Hi there,

I accidentally published two pages for the same company. It says one of the pages is being redirected to the new one, however, both pages still show up in a google search. What's the easiest way to delete one of the pages? WDorceus (talk) 21:13, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WDorceus No further action is needed, Google will catch up to the change in due course, it may take a day or two. It's entirely out of our control, we have no influence over Google's webcrawlers. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:21, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How do i just write a new article?

I have read a lot on the subject but have not really figured it out, how do I just write a new article and then submit/publish it for review? B Lloyd Reese (talk) 22:43, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, B Lloyd Reese, and Welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia. Creating new articles from a blank start is one of the harder tasks on Wikipedia. You might want to work on fixing small errors in existing articles first, to get a feel for how articles are writtne here When you do try to create articles I urge you to use the Article Wizard to create a draft under the Articles for Creation project. There, an experienced editor will review your draft once you think it is ready. Only when a reviewer approves will the draft be moved to the main article space. This avoids the situation where a deletion is requested soon after the initial version of an article is posted.
Also, please read Wikipedia's Golden Rule and Your First Article, if you have not already done so. The advice there can be very helpful, in my view.
If you still want to go ahead, pick a topic you have some interest in. Then follow these steps
  • 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 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. Wikipedia does not consider as independent sources such as 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 here or at the 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 22:54, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please investigate all the edits that Bender the Bot made from March 12th/13th to the 15th here and fix all the online.wsj.com links by changing the "https://online.wsj.com" links from "https" to "http" (The S was shoehorned into "HTTP" by him) and the the rest of the links them back from "https://www.wsj.com" to "http://online.wsj.com"? They're currently dead links that redirect to nothing but "login" or "unavailable" pages instead of articles. 1.165.123.152 (talk) 02:04, 27 July 2017 (UTC) (edit conflict) Can you please... 1.165.123.152 (talk) 02:04, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hello IP editor. What links in what articles, please? The English-language Wikipedia has over 5 million articles and many of them cite the WSJ. See Preventing and repairing dead links and Wikipedia:Link rot for advice on how to deal with this. You can help, you don't need to wait for others. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 02:12, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm tired of having to see one dead link and change it back, so I'm just asking you to investigate this guy's edits from March here and change the links back. 1.170.246.9 (talk) 02:16, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Bender the Bot is an automated script, or bot. Those edits were authorized by This bot approval. The general intent is to change every outgoing http link to https if the destination supports https: as WSJ normally does. I am not sure why those particular links are not working properly. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 02:24, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, they redirect to nothing but "login/sign up" or "page unavailable" pages instead of the articles themselves. Look at some examples in this discussion. 1.170.246.9 (talk) 02:26, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I confirmed a couple of examples and fixed one, just to see if the fix worked. I suspect a temporary glitch at wsj.com. i have raised the issue at WP:VPT#Problem with https links to wsj which is the best place for technical issues. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 02:43, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have found an example. https://online.wsj.com/articles/SB119764674563829575 gives PAGE UNAVAILABLE but http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB119764674563829575 redirects to https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB119764674563829575, so does work. Mduvekot (talk) 02:46, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Mduvekot. Please post any examples in the VPT thread WP:VPT#Problem with https links to wsj so that the more technically inclined editors will see them and this will perhaps be resolved sooner. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 02:52, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What about a bot investigation? There's also links that are changed to "https://www.wsj.com/articles/?????????.html" and turned into unavailable pages too. 1.170.246.9 (talk) 02:55, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing to investigate about the bot. We know what the bot was doing -- I linked to its task approval above. At the time it was doing it, those links worked. The remaining question is why the links don't work now, and what, if anything, we need to do about it. I suspect a temporary, or perhaps permanent, change at the wsj site is involved. I posted at the Technical pump, the place for such issues. The link to that posting is above. Feel free to comment there. This is not a malicious change, it is some sort of glitch, almost surely on the wsj end. We may need to adapt to it, but there is no point in making mass changes until we learn what is truly needed. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 03:15, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How about getting a bot like InternetArchiveBot to undo all of Bender the Bot's edits from March 12/13th to 15th? That needs to work out. 175.193.247.64 (talk) 03:57, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why my bot is being mentioned here. It's not a bot to revert other edits.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 14:14, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Boer War Poem By John Gilmartin

How do I insert a pictureMarcaini (talk) 04:46, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Marcaini and welcome to the Teahouse. Before you think about pictures, you need to establish that the subject has been written about in WP:Reliable sources, and you need to cite those sources to establish WP:Notability. If you are unable to do this, then it would be better to find somewhere else to publish the poem. By the way, the spelling is "Boer" not "Boar", and it is better not to add entries to the disambiguation page until the article is published. In general, pictures should be uploaded to WP:Commons with the appropriate copyright licence. Dbfirs 06:03, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
... later ... Thank you for correcting the spelling. You need to read WP:Referencing for beginners for details of how to add in-line citations. A giant image of a newspaper article is not appropriate, but the newspaper can be used as a reliable source to establish notability. Dbfirs 12:12, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Protecting a page i usually edit

Hi, i would like to know how can i protect a page i have been updating. I have noticed that anonymous users have been editing the page with wrong info. Some adds wrong codes and ends up ruining the output. Page title goes by the name of Kerala Blasters. I am not the creator of the page, but have been adding accurate info to the page. It will be great if someone let me know how can i protect that page from vandalism. :)Koko Koizumi (redgoodkid) (talk) 09:18, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Koko Koizumi (redgoodkid): I have protected the article for one week; requests for protection can be filed at requests for page protection. Cheers. Lectonar (talk) 09:39, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What does protected against vandalism mean?

Some pages when i try to edit it says "This page is protected against vandalism". Can anyone help?— Preceding unsigned comment added by CoolSkittle (talk • contribs)

@CoolSkittle: Hello and welcome. That means that due to other users vandalizing the page or otherwise editing it disruptively, that it has been protected from editing to stop the disruption/vandalism. If you wish to make an edit to a page and cannot, you should post a request explaining the change you want to make on the article talk page; click the "Talk" tab at the top of the article, then edit the page that follows. 331dot (talk) 10:25, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You can also click the "View source" tab and follow the instructions. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:33, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What I can do with Yandex-translated article?

Kees Andrea it's translated with Yandex I used GoogleTrans at both articles Builder8360 (talk) 10:48, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What should be added as references if not news articles, interviews, etc. what exactly are the acceptable references?

In our submission, the article is said to have unreliable references. the references we submitted were a newspaper article, Lok Sabha TV presentation, a documentary,interview, a few more news coverage articles and facebook page. please suggest what is wrong with these references, and what should be omitted.

a few links of references that were attached are shared.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/delhi-news/several-trees-across-delhi-and-counting/story-6AHmKWM63kaRUdnLaVkzgJ.html https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jT-Cktz-GN8&feature=youtu.be https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lNz2HHL-5M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68EnP_h26TU Treesforlife132 (talk) 14:47, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Treesforlife132. Depending on what article and content you're talking about, there may be additional requirements for sources beyond simply having a reputation for fact-checking and integrity. Also, Youtube videos are often highly suspect in general. Finally, given your username, you seem very likely to have aconflict of interest with regards to Trees for Life (the apparent subject of the edits you're discussing). I strongly suggest you read that link, as well as WP:UNAME, as usernames representing a group or organization are a violation of our policies. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:54, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Treesforlife132. The issue with Draft:Give Me Trees Trust is not only that some of the sources cited are unreliable. The review states that the coverage in most of those sources consists of brief mentions, which doesn't meet the significant coverage requirement to demonstrate notability. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:07, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Selecting 'notable' references

What are some approaches to finding and documenting 'notable references'. Any help is appreciated, and thanks for your time. ESCNNET (talk) 15:32, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ESCNNET and welcome to the Teahouse. Your question confuses a few things. It's not the references that are notable. The topic of the article that you are writing is (or is not) notable. But a topic is notable because of references. Specifically, the references need to have two things: First, they need to discuss the topic of the article in significant detail (ie. a short news item is less than ideal, whereas a book with hundreds of pages that discusses mainly the topic you are writing on is better). Second, the references need to be reliable (ie. personal blogs by non-experts are very bad sources, while peer reviewed academic journals are extremely reliable). In sum, find many sources that actually discuss the topic in detail instead of just brief mentions. Find these sources among reputable publishers (professional newspapers or magazines, academic publications). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:01, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]


thanks for your contribution - very clear & helpful. ESCNNET (talk) 16:16, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

how to add a photo to an article?

Hi, I would like to add a photo to an article I'm working on. How do I do that?Dstampley (talk) 16:19, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dstampley. If you mean how to add an existing, free photo to a page (e.g., one already uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons), then the mechanics of placing it for display can be read at the Wikipedia:Picture tutorial, but the most basic markup is [[File:Name of image.extension|thumb|Caption to display below image]].

If you mean how to upload a photo for use here, that is exquisitely context-dependent. What photo?; of a living or deceased person?; taken by whom and under what circumstances?; when?; was it published or unpublished and if published in what, when?; in what country?; with any explicit details of copyright status?; and on and on. However, I have in the past posted here a sort of primer, covering some of the ground rules, that I'll post below in the hope it might be informative, but if you provide contextual details a much more tailored answer can likely be provided. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:38, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright rules of thumb
  1. Any image you find you must assume to be fully non-free copyrighted, and cannot be used here unless you have affirmative and verifiable evidence of copyright status that makes it usable here. This excludes a vast cross section of images you find on the Internet, and through a Google image search.
  2. Usable images are those which are either in the public domain, or bear a suitably-free copyright license (meaning the image is copyrighted, but is permitted to used on a very unrestricted basis, that is as free or freer than the licenses borne by most of Wikipedia's content). A list of suitably-free copyright licenses can be viewed here.
  3. "Public domain" is often misunderstood as meaning publicly posted or publicly used, which have little bearing. It means that the copyright of the image has been affirmatively released by its owner into the public domain (e.g., the owner so states in relation to the image), or it has passed into the public domain because of some situational status, such as that it was not subject to copyright in the first place (e.g., an image created by a U.S. federal employee during the scope of his or her duties), or because of timing, coupled with publication status—which can be summarized as the image being:
    • Created/photographed prior to 1897 (whether published or not) = PD.
    • Published before 1923 = PD — but only in the U.S. Wikimedia Commons images must be suitably-free also in the country of origin, so for foreign images, you must check its source country's copyright rules, and if not PD there, it can be uploaded to Wikipedia, but not to the Commons.
    • Published after 1923 and up to 1977 without a copyright symbol = PD
    • Published between 1978 and March 1, 1989 without a copyright symbol and not registered since = PD
    • Published from 1923 to 1963 with a copyright symbol and copyright not renewed = PD
    • Unpublished and created/taken before 1923 = PD 70 years after author's death (so the author's identity must be known).
    • Unpublished and created/taken after 1923 = too complicated to get into.
  4. Images that meet the above standards should be uploaded to our sister site, the Wikimedia Commons, and not locally, so all Wikimedia projects have access to the image. Images at the Commons can be displayed here natively.
  5. There is a strict and limited exception to the above, which is that non-free images can be used under a claim of fair use, but they must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria. Such images cannot be uploaded to the Commons, but only locally (to Wikipedia). Rules of thumb for that are also complex and I don't think it would be useful to go into them unless you respond with specifics of what image you are looking to use, and it seems a fair use exception might be applicable. Just note one exclusion that covers a lot of terrain: For the most part, non-free photographs of anyone who is alive cannot meet fair use standards at all.
  6. You can use an advanced Google search to try to locate suitably-free images. Go to Settings → Advanced → usage rights → Free to use, share or modify, even commercially. Flickr is also a ripe place to search for free images, but please be aware of "license laundering".
  7. You might try the "FIST", Free Image Search Tool.

"See Also" Guidelines

Can anyone point me in the direction of a guide about creating/contributing to a "See Also" section in an article? I'm sure there's some info about that around here somewhere, but I can't seem to find anything. Thanks!
CeraWithaC (talk) 16:57, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CeraWithaC. You can usually find guidelines and policies by typing "WP:" followed by the name of what you're looking for into the search box, and you will be redirected to the right place. Try WP:SEEALSO in this case. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:03, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a suggestion tool?

Hi again. I want to find a page that has loads of things to edit. Is there a tool to find pages in need of repair? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CoolSkittle (talk • contribs) 19:17, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. See Wikipedia:Backlogs. You will find articles with plenty of issues, like no links, typos, no categories and just about anything you might like to fix. You can also click on the random article button in the upper left corner of your screen. Chances are many of them will have issues that need fixing. White Arabian Filly Neigh 21:10, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Update: here is the backlog feed I use with links to all categories of articles in need of attention. I'm glad you are interested in helping out in that area; as you will see, it needs a lot of attention. White Arabian Filly Neigh 21:15, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Upendra Niraula उपेन्द्र निरौला

why my name is not visible or appear on wiki search ?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Upendra Niraula (talk • contribs)

Upendra Niraula, your user page is visible at User:Upendra Niraula. If you look at it you will notice that I have nominated it for speedy deletion. Wikipedia is not a place to advertise yourself. If you are notable, someone will create an article on you at Upendra Niraula. However, in what you have on your userpage, I see nothing to indicate you are notable. John from Idegon (talk) 22:42, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have speedied the page based on your nomination, as well as on the basis of it appearing to be a copyright violation. Upendra Niraula, even if this was suitable for posting here, you can't post copyrighted content here without verifiably releasing the material into the public domain or under a free copyright license compatible with the free copyright licenses borne by most of Wikipedia's content. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:50, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if what this user is doing is helpful?

I am doing some recent changes patrol and this user keeps popping up as he is added information to a lot of tv series about picture formats. Wasn't sure if this is helpful information or not [[8]] NZ Footballs Conscience(talk) 22:57, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NZ Footballs Conscience. I'm not sure that adding the format makes a huge difference, but it doesn't appear to be vandalism or bad faith editing either. I would be inclined to leave the edits, but if you want further guidance you might ask WP:WikiProject Television and see if they have any guidelines about it. White Arabian Filly Neigh 21:38, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Text in italics

I saw on one page text unnecessarily in italics. Should this be fixed? Also I would like to know how to add text in italics on mobile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CoolSkittle (talk • contribs) 23:30, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How do I revert an edit?

I'm wondering how to revert a vandalistic edit on a page. How and where can I do it. I'm on mobile.Bugg Bulborb (talk) 23:46, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are wikilinks appropriate in extended quotations, particularly from scholarly sources? For e.g., see my change of even date to article Kava General observations. After I had made my change, I realized that a dozen or more technical terms could have had wikilinks. So, should we put in wikilinks to help the non-technical, or assume that if you're reading a technical discussion you are familiar with the terms?D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 00:40, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. In general you should never put a wiki-link inside a quote, long or short, D Anthony Patriarche. See WP:QUOTE, and MOS:LWQ which says: As much as possible, avoid linking from within quotes, which may clutter the quotation, violate the principle of leaving quotations unchanged, and mislead or confuse the reader. If you think a reader might need a term explained via a linbk, then include it in prose near the quote, before the quote if possible, and link it there. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:34, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

sandbox review

Mctplt (talk) 01:02, 28 July 2017 (UTC)I am new and have an article in my sandbox. Is anyone available to give it a review?Mctplt (talk) 01:02, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For reference: User:Mctplt/sandbox
Hello, Mctplt and welcome to the Teahouse. Not a bad start, but there is much work yet to do before this would be ready to be an article.
  • First of all, I am not sure that it yet demonstrates notability. That is vital. See our guideline of the notability of biographies and our specific guideline on the notability of authors. You want multiple, Independent published reliable sources that discuss the subject in some depth.
  • When relating past events, write in the past tense, please. This should be a prose article, not a timeline.
  • Sources must be published. A source such as letter received from Louise Botko is not acceptable.
  • Use proper sections I have converted several of your headers to section headers as examples.
  • After the opening sentence where the full name is given, always refer to the subject by last name, never by first name or nickname.
  • As per WP:DOB, do not give an exact birth date unless it is sourced, and has been already widely published outside of wikipedia, or published by or with the consent of the subject. Even then, the year is all that is really needed to put the subject in context.
  • Do not list all the author's published books, much less all editions. It is excessive and unbalances the draft. List only the more well known ones, perhaps with an external link to a bibliography page on the author's web site or elsewhere.
  • When listing ISBNs, use {{ISBN}}
  • Quote and cite some reviews of the subjects work, published by reliable sources. If such reviews can be found, of course.
  • Do not use online searches as sources, the search results may change without notice, or even be different for different users. Use the pages to which the searches lead.
  • Read Referencing for Beginners.
  • Do not use trademark or registered trademark symbols.
  • Links to sites outside Wikipedia should go only in source citations, or in an "External links" section near the end, not in the body of the draft.
  • Never use another Wikipedia article as a cited source. It can lead to circular citation, and in any case Wikipedia is not considered to be a reliable source. You can wiki-link to other articles where they are relevant, but they are not sources.
There is more, but that will do for a start.
I take it this nis an autobiography. Those are discouraged. if you do chose to move ahead with this, be extra careful with notability, neutrality, avoiding puffery, and proper sourcing. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 12:58, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Comedy:

The Teahouse has a link to 'Articles to Improve' and 'Suggestions'. So I joined {{WikiProject Comedy}}, where one of the ways to participate is to place a project banner on the talk pages of all articles within the scope of the project. I wanted to get involved in this project, and added my name to the participants' list. I've updated about 50 pages so far.

Question. Can I find someone to oversee what I have been doing? Although it's mundane and simple, I don't know if I'm doing this properly. Thanks in advance. B'H. MichaelAngelo7777 (talk) 03:47, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 2422889236x! I've went over these edits, your positive approach looks really good. I think it'd be better if you can be more specific about which areas of comedy articles you would like to involve yourself in. The tagging looks fine so far, although appears to be slightly random. Be careful to not over tag too many articles. Regards, Alex ShihTalk 04:05, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so very much Alex Shih! I would like to let you know, your experience and alacrity are much appreciated. Also I seem to be quite confused. Apparently, I am under the impression that the very first item on the task list here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comedy#Things_you_can_do is implying that every talk page in Wikipedia that has anything to do with the topic of "comedy" are to be tagged. This is obviously wrong. How do we tell which talk pages may be tagged, and which to avoid?? Here is the first task: Place the {{WikiProject Comedy}} project banner on the talk pages of all articles within the scope of the project. I didn't know I was tagging too many articles! Sorry! B'H.
MichaelAngelo7777 (talk) 13:01, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How can I make a new page?

I have noticed this there was a link to "Googolhedron". However, there isn't a page called "Googolhedron". Basically, a googolhedron is a regular solid with a googol sides. When I tried to make a page about it, it got deleted immediately. Please either make the page called "Googolhedron" or answer me why the page should not be made. Thank you. Xu Zijun (talk) 05:31, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Xu Zijun, welcome to the Teahouse. You can make a draft and submit it to articles for creation, so that an experienced editor can determine if a standalone page should be created, or maybe information should be proposed to merge with polyhedron. Regards, Alex ShihTalk 06:34, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Xu Zijun, and thank you for wanting to help improve Wikipedia. Creating a new article is one of the harder tasks on Wikipedia, and I always advise new editors to get experience with smaller edits before they attempt it. Please see your first article. --ColinFine (talk) 09:21, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How to search for "meta" pages ?

Hi, I have some trouble finding information on how to search for "meta" pages (those starting with help:, wikipedia:, and maybe others [are there other kind of X:Y pages ?]), and while I'm sure there is a help page describing how to search for help pages, I have found myself in some kind of predicament. So, is there a way to easily find these pages and search through them rather than through content pages ? Thank you very much. 37.166.255.56 (talk) 05:43, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Click on the magnifying glass in thee Search box at the top of any Wikipedia page. This will take you to the Search page. Under the main search box there you'll see three links: Multimedia, Everything and Advanced. Click on Advanced to see a set of tick boxes for all the Wikipedia namespaces. HTH Rojomoke (talk) 06:24, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, IP editor. Wikipedia is made up of many namespaces. These are denoted by a prefix (except mainspace, the actual encyclopedia. It has no prefix.) Help can be found by placing Help in front of your topic. For example, if you want help with templates, search "Help: Templates". That will lead you to Help: Template. Policies (and many other things) are in the "Wikipedia" namespace. So to find the guideline on reliable sources, search "Wikipedia: Reliable sources" which will lead you to Wikipedia:Reliable sources. If you wish to discuss that guideline, Wikipedia talk: Reliable sources would be where you want to go. I hope I understood your question and this was helpful. John from Idegon (talk) 06:23, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Publishing my first article

Please some one help me. each time I submit my article I found it rejected. someone help what exactly should I do to get my article published. every time I modify it and publish it again but no success Cesilia Mambile (talk) 06:16, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cesilia Mambile, this post here is the only edit your account has made. Can you provide us a link to the article in question? If it has been deleted, perhaps you could ask the administrator who deleted to put it back as a draft so you can work on it and you can get help with it. It's impossible to tell you where you are going wrong without some idea of what you've done. John from Idegon (talk) 06:29, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Cesilia Mambile, please submit your article through the articles for creation process. Your deleted contribution appears to be a personal essay and covers an article that already exists. Regards, Alex ShihTalk 06:44, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation of page as referred to published topics (although published by same author)

Hie I'm writing here to request for help in my created webpage (Jerejak Island) or (木寇山). It is found that the content created is similar with the e-newspaper articles, although the author of the article is same as the author of the wikipage created. Currently the content have been locked and nominated for deletion. May I know how to recover the content and how to cite that the article is under the agreement of author for publishing purposes?Jjaction2017 (talk) 10:22, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Jjaction2017: please be aware that en.wikipedia.org is the English Wikipedia, where there already was an article about Jerejak Island. Your article 木寇山 was written in Chinese and should therefore go to zh.wikipedia.org. --HyperGaruda (talk) 10:57, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

replace old page with "wrong" name with new one

Hello Teahouse Members, thank you for the invite, I really appreciate it! Here to my story. I wrote an article (Muntean/Rosenblum), which is about an artist duo, it is still tagged as draft, but I guess that will change after a while after someone checked it. Anyway. So now there is already an old article about Muntean/Rosenblum, but for one is not as extended and updated as the new one, and second, and that's why I started a new one it is called "Muntean and Rosenblum". I know that's maybe a little thing but it is just not quite correct. So my question now is how can I replace the old one with the new one (maybe after it is not longer tagged as draft )? Just #REDIRECT it? Can I just do this? MieNie (talk) 10:36, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello MieNie, welcome to Teahouse! If Muntean/Rosenblum is the common name, you can redirect Muntean and Rosenblum to Muntean/Rosenblum, if it's an uncontroversial move. However! It appears that you have incorporated some texts from the original article, in this case a simple redirect wouldn't be appropriate due to copyrights. To make sure revision history from both pages appear together, place {{Histmerge}} on top of the new page so that an administrator can combine the page history for two pages together. Alex ShihTalk 11:15, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article Muntean/Rosenblum doesn't exist; there is a draft at Draft:Muntean/Rosenblum. In such a situation the correct action is to make (or propose) edits to the existing article at Muntean and Rosenblum. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:34, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Alex for your good advice! I think I will make a Histmerge with an reason for the administrator.

Hello David, I will also thank you for your advice. But as I explained earlier the title Muntean and Rosenblum isn't quite correct. That's why I stared a new article in the first place.MieNie (talk) 09:32, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is deleting out of date content from a page possible?

Hi all. I would like to edit the article page for Farrer & Co as it includes a paragraph regarding an out of date case about the Rupert Murdoch phone hacking case. As it stands, the paragraph is not resolved with that happened (it doesn't appear to have been updated since 2012) and paints a living individual (Julian Pike) in a damaging light, despite the fact that he was later cleared at a tribunal. I think explaining the whole situation to a standard that doesn't unfairly affect his reputation then becomes so long that the article is more about that specific case and individual rather than the firm itself. Is the best option here to just delete it, with the above explanation? EHicks93 (talk) 11:21, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, EHicks93, and welcome to the Teahouse. I think it would be better to offer sourced closure than to remove sourced and appropriate content. But this is something that should really be discussed at Talk:Farrer & Co, or perhaps at the BLP Noticeboard. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 11:29, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh do please provide an actual link to the article or page under discussion in future. Thanks. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 11:35, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello EHicks93, another welcome to Teahouse! It looks like you may have conflict of interest with the article based on your edit history, but correct me if I am wrong. Since that claim is properly sourced, it should not be deleted as long it is a neutral summary of what has happened (I have re-arranged the sections to improve readability). Rather, please post the update in your own words, and provide a link to reliable source that backs up the updated information. Regards, Alex ShihTalk 11:41, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello DES -- Sourced closure is a difficult task. When the topic falls from the interest of the press, there may be no closure. EHicks93 makes a good point. Perhaps a test flight of this sentence on the Talk:Farrer & Co, "Since 2012, the matter has fallen from public interest, without further news." Isn't there any published news about the result of the tribunal?
I face the same conundrum with a company that makes lots of promises (Forward-looking statements), few of which are ever followed up. The news of the announcement makes the press; failure to follow through never does. Rhadow (talk) 11:48, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Alex Shih -- It appears EHicks93 has disappeared from the editor rolls in the last half hour. Hmm. Rhadow (talk) 11:52, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi both, thanks for your help so far. This is the page I'm referring to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farrer_%26_Co Would it be acceptable to move it to the specific case page? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_International_phone_hacking_scandal EHicks93 (talk) 11:54, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Rhadow - sorry, I'm not sure what that means? EHicks93 (talk) 11:55, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rhadow, what do you mean by disappeared from the editor rolls? EHicks93 is a registered user, since last October, never blocked. S/he doesn't yet have a user page, but there is no requirement that any editor have one?
You are correct that followups to well-publicized incidents can be hard to source. But that is the nature of the world and of Wikipedia. There is probably some source out there, although possibly not. I would be reluctant to include text like "Since 2012, the matter has fallen from public interest, without further news." without doing as full a news search as i could online at least. But again, this sort of discussion really belongs on the article talk page(s). DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 12:11, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DESiegel -- the links to EHicks93 turned red on my screen. I took that to mean there was no user of that name. If I am wrong, I beg pardon. As to followups, it was only my suggestion. I shan't complain further. Not here anyway. Regards Rhadow (talk) 13:07, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rhadow A red link for a user name, such as User:EHicks93, only means that there is no user page of that name. It could mean that no such page has ever existed, or that it was deleted. Many editors, mostly but not all newer editors, do not have a user page. Some very experienced editors prefer not to have one. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:46, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question

How many articles do you have?2602:30A:2E00:83C0:E0FB:947:70A0:EF3A (talk) 11:37, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The en Wikipedia currently has 6,867,014 articles. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 11:42, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ISSUES WITH INFOBOX BASKETBALL BIOGRAPHY TEMPLATE

Dear all,

can somebody help me out with the issue / Infobox basketball biography template. I can't figure out how to put correct format for "Teams and Years".

Thanks in advance,

Alex AlexBossP305 (talk) 12:28, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AlexBossP305. Have you read the documentation for {{Infobox basketball biography}}, and looked at the formatting instructions for dates in the parameters section? Much more important than any formatting issue like that is adding citations to reliable sources, and removing every single external link in the draft's body and/or converting them into citations. I have done one for you, as an example.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:06, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

i'm looking for a template that i saw on a user page. i can't remember the name of the page, or the name of a template. it said "if this user does not respond in a timely manner, remember, we are all volunteers." or something like that. The garmine (talk) 17:10, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The page WP:VOLUNTEER expresses this thought, but it sounds like you were looking at someone's own expression of this sentiment, perhaps as a userbox or using {{ombox}} or one of its relatives. Something like:
or perhaps you want something fancier? — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 17:54, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following article had been rejected

The following article had been rejected under the review, "Too suggestive of an advertised business profile". i've attached a paragraph from the article, please suggest the changes in language or sentence formation as an example of what should be correct?

"Give Me Trees has voluntary unit teams in several towns and villages across India. The teams put in all their energy and resources in preservation of the peepal tree saplings till such time that it becomes an independent tree. Give Me Trees has worked on the planting, education, promotion, propagation and preservation of the peepal tree ( Ficus Religiosa ). Give Me Trees has planted the largest number of peepal trees in the world, out of which, 12 million are still surviving. It has been working on the survival of peepal trees for the past 40 years. Give Me Trees grows its own nurseries of peepal trees and plants them on government and public land all across the countryside, villages and urban spaces. Give Me Trees was registered as a charitable trust on October 13, 2011. "

- this is a part of the passage. please suggest changes or give an idea about what kind of language would be most appropriate.

Thanks!

Treesforlife132 (talk) 17:17, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Treesforlife132 and welcome to the Teahouse.
It looks like you are referring to Draft:Give Me Trees Trust.
Your draft has many problems, only one of which is the promotional tone. As a specific example of promotional language, let me suggest that "all their energy and resources" is not encyclopedic.
Before your article is likely to be accepted, you need to incorporate in-line reference citations that specifically support each substantive statement you write. References are needed from independent, reliable sources so that the notability of the organization can be established. References to social media sites with self-generated content, items written by or on behalf of the organization, and mere mentions of the organization in the press do not help support notability.
Once the promotional tone and references have been addressed, we can begin to work on the less critical issues such as incoming and outgoing links from the article.
I realize that it can be very frustrating to have your hard work rejected. Please understand that the task you've chosen, to create a new WP article from scratch, is quite a difficult task, since there are many policies and guidelines that must be followed for an article to be accepted. A bit of advice that we often give in the Teahouse is that new editors should spend some time improving existing articles and learning the ropes before attempting to create a new article. After you've made 100 successful edits, things start to make more sense.
I see that the issue of conflict of interest has already been raised on your talk page. If you are motivated to create this article because you are connected with the organization you are writing about, you face additional challenges in being able to write neutral language. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 17:39, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Treesforlife132. Before editing further, please comply with mandatory paid editing disclosure if you are compensated by the Give Me Trees Trust in any capacity—as a principal of it, trustee, employee, or otherwise. This is not difficult. You can fill out and post to your userpage the template {{Paid}} ← (please visit that link for an explanation).

Sorry, but the draft is an utter panegyric. Almost all of the content needs to be rewritten, and much of it needs to go entirely. It is filled with evaluative and glowing praise of the subject that has no place in an encyclopedia article. It is also a copyright violation (e.g. of here). Even if you own the previously written text, you cannot use it here, and maintain the non-free copyright it automatically bears by having been previously published, without an explicit release into the public domain or under a suitably free copyright license, compatible with the free copyright licenses borne by most Wikipedia content.

Those parts of the copyrighted content in the draft that could be suitable as the text of an article (precious little in my view) would have to be released through a verifiable process, to be used here. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Until that occurs, they must be removed from the draft. I am running, and almost never would leave the draft untouched after finding this, but do not have time to address the copyright issue in the draft right now. I will later today, if no one else does. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:28, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Review waiting of Sandbox

Hey guys!

I just submitted my sandbox for review because I think it is ready to be published but it says "Warning: This page should probably be moved to the Draft namespace." So I am not sure if I should move it to the Draft namespace, just wait until somebody takes a look at it or do something else. Any advice will be appreciated. Thank you so much.

Saravazq (talk) 22:22, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Saravazq. I have moved it to Draft:Ken Light. As in an initial review, please remove all external links from the body of the draft (e.g., the two external links in the lead section: one for "Mother Jones International Fund for Documentary Photography" and the other for "Reva and David Logan Gallery"). If they are functioning as references, you can convert them to citations, which you are already using. There should be none at all in the text, only in the external links section. The external links that are in the external links section should be converted from raw URLs, e.g., replace "http://www.kenlight.com" with [http://www.kenlight.com Ken Light's official website] and so forth. As to the citations, I have not looked in depth at whether they provide substantive coverage of him in reliable, secondary, independent sources (i.e., what is needed to demonstrate notability), but you could work on providing fuller attribution details. I have converted one existing citation, the one for the New Yorker article, as an example of what I mean, adding the author's first and last name and the date of the article. I suggest getting rid of the Artistic Influences and Techniques section, as unencyclopedic detail. Section titles take sentences case: == Awards and Grants == == Awards and grants ==. The draft is a bit heavy on lists, in comparison to the prose, and especially when that is of awards and the like, it gives a bit of a promotional tinge. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:47, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for your help. That sounds good, I'll work on all that.

Best,

Saravazq (talk) 23:54, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

citation doesn't appear

this citation won't show up can someone explain to me why?

Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:41, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply] 

Okay--I went and checked and I guess the problem is because the author's last name is Van Drunen so it says there are too many names--how do I fix that?

Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:44, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jenhawk777 and welcome to the Teahouse.
Yes, you were close to the solution. Inside the citation template, there is no problem with an author name that contains spaces. But in the <ref name=Van Drunen> tag, you have to put quotes around ref names that contain spaces, like <ref name="Van Drunen">. I've already done this at User:Jenhawk777/sandbox, since I needed to check that there weren't any other problems associated with this citation. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 06:10, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, just before the Van Drunen cite, you have one where you want the ref name to be "John Barton". There may be others, I don't have an easy way to find them, so you'll need to look over your references carefully. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 06:17, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I solved it --I thought--by putting the "Van" in the first name category--"Peter Van"-- is that acceptable or do I need to go back and change it using the quotes? And can you explain why John Barton's reference name needs to be his whole name instead of just his last name? Is there something particular I should know about that name or do I need to change all of them? Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:30, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again, Jenhawk777. The ref name has nothing to do with the content of the citation, it is merely a string used to identify the reference for re-use. It is good practice to have it be the author's name, or the name of the publication, possibly combined with the year or date, just to make it clearer for the editor, but the reader never sees it. You can use quotes like this <ref name="Jones"> or omit them, like this <ref name=Smith>. But if the name contains any spaces, you must use the quotes, like this: <ref name="Van Doren 1986">. Inside the cite, where you are using |first= and |last= Van, de, ten, Von, and similar prefixes are usually considered part of the surname, and should be part of the text after last=, although this varied by the source language. There is no need for quotes in that location. If you do use quotes in the ref name= construct, they must be straight quotes, not curled or slanted quotes. Otherwise the cite will not be displayed properly. Take a look at these edits, please. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:00, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I prefer to always use the quotes in the ref name construct, as then I don;'t have to remember if they are needed in a particular case or not. It is also cleaner HTML, but no one who is not a coder will care about that. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:04, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an automated solution? Hundreds of vandal edits by IP

I have just uncovered a [IP vandal]who has been altering charts of data in articles about international airports since April (hundreds of edits). The edits are done consecutively, removing information from the charts, and I find it is too much work to chase them all down, let alone correct them. The person was warned and blocked in early June. Is there an automated way to get rid of all this person's edits? And I hope it is an admin, rather than the unfortunate editor who tried to undo some of the damage, who accomplishes this.--Quisqualis (talk) 06:24, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

why my article has been deleted ?

My article has been requested to delete. Please let me know the solution how can I keep my article on wikipedia. Hemani360bm (talk) 06:26, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See User talk:Hemani360bm and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ravi Tripathi. Maproom (talk) 07:10, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Hemani360bm. There is not solution at this time. You cannot because the subject is not yet sufficiently notable and does not warrant an encyclopedia article, as is true of the vast majority of people.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:30, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Akshay Kumar

Hi, Can edited akshay kumar indian-born Canadian actor.... He is not Canadian... So please its a humble request... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:B28D:6530:72FB:7B71:6BC8:9F67 (talk)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. Please do not post the same request on multiple forums. You already added your question at Talk:Akshay Kumar, where an editor will respond (these questions are usually backlogged, give it some time). However, without an independent reliable source to verify your suggested change, it is likely to get rejected again. All content and suggestions should be based on independent reliable sources. The article talkpage's archive contains several previous discussions, if you want to read more about this disputed question. GermanJoe (talk) 09:53, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stub templates

Can anyone tell me where the code for stub templates are ?Is there any way to automate the process of adding these template like we add maintenance tags to an articleRADICAL SODA(FORCE) 09:32, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Forceradical, and welcome to the Teahouse. You can find all the stub templates here: Category:Stub message templates. You can semi-automatically add them to articles by using this script. See Wikipedia:User scripts for information about how to use scripts. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:02, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@FinnusertopThanks for your prompt answer .Another question I have is What is defaultsort?RADICAL SODA(FORCE) 10:10, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Forceradical: In categories, articles are sorted alphabetically by title. {{DEFAULTSORT}} is used when you want to override this. The most common case is articles on people. We want them to be sorted by surname, not given name. So, {{DEFAULTSORT:Smith, John}} makes John Smith appear in S instead of J in Category:People and all other categories.
Because on Wikipedia, articles and article talk pages are separate, you need to do this on the article talk page as well. On talk pages, this is done by adding a "list as" (e.g. |listas=Smith, John) parameter to a WikiProject template, such as {{WikiProject Biography}}. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:19, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Colorful signature

Reading links to Wikipedia:Signatures, WP:SIGAPP and WP:CUSTOMSIG, I want to know where to put text suggested in these pages. The text is not working for me at box above Treat the above as markup in my preferences. Sinner (talk) 11:59, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the Signature tutorial, Nazim Hussain Pak. You can find complete instructions there. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:55, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio query

While copy editing, I came across the article Bijaya Jena. Large parts of the article (dating from its creation in 2006) use exactly the same text as http://www.encorefilms.net/2_profile.html. The website doesn't seem to have any dates (or copy right messages either), so I cant check which came first..what should an editor do under those circumstances? Curdle (talk) 14:33, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Curdle:, and welcome to the Teahouse. Briefly checking the source and the article's history it's indeed difficult to tell which came first (the initial article dates from 2006 and may even have been a COI creation from someone connected to the actress). For the handling of copyvios (both obvious copyvios and suspected unclear cases) see WP:Copyright violations. In this specific unclear case, I have simply removed and rephrased some of the problematic content (non-encyclopedic PR fluff, personal thoughts, and tangential information). If you have time, you should rephrase remaining problematic sentences in a more neutral encyclopedic tone in your own words and trim non-encyclopedic unsourced details - that should also reduce eventual remaining similarities with the Encorefilms bio. Hope that helps. GermanJoe (talk) 15:20, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Curdle and GermanJoe: My guess is that the Wikipedia article came first and the website ripped us off. The earliest archived version of the website is from 2012 (although this does not mean it wasn't there before). To me the text also strikes as written in the idiomatic Wikipedia lingo: "X Y (born nnnn) is ... ", complete with all the awkward history writing formulae ("In 1992 Bijaya" ... "In 1997, she scripted"). If you look at the history of that article, the initial 2006 edits were made by the first major contributor as a series of gradual additions across several hours. That's not how you copy paste content from elsewhere; it's how you organically write it (on the other hand, those might have been COI edits given the username: Robbiejena). On top of those telltale signs, you are missing the smoking gun: a specific publication that precedes this one with the same content. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:02, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ohh article creator was probably connected to the subject,if not the subject herself- edit summary on the pic says "taken by my brother in law" and the only edits that account made were to this article and articles based on films by the subject. I assumed the same person was responsible for both texts, just not sure which came first. Thank you both for the help and suggestions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Curdle (talk • contribs) 16:35, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I want to quote some material from books that are still copyrighted. Is it possible to get permission to do this? And how? Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:23, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jenhawk777. You can use relatively short quotation of non-free copyrighted material under fair use, so long as you clearly indicate you are quoting by use quote marks (or more rarely, set off, such as in a blockquotes) and you cite the source of the quote immediately following it using an inline citation. Permission is irrelevant; having it would not help. Unlike other sites, where a one-time license like that allows use of copyrighted material just there, while the non-free copyright is retained, outside of quotations, text content here must be released to the world irrevocably, into the public domain or under certain suitably free copyright licenses. If you provide the particulars we may be able to provide more tailored advice. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:49, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How to report offensive moderator/editor

I tried to correct a few errors on a page, which misspelt my name as an author, quoted the wrong page numbers of my book and, worst of all, incorrectly attributed an opinion to me which I in fact believe the very opposite of. The moderator/editor removed the edits immediately (within seconds), making it clear that he had not read the nature of the edits. I didn't understand what had happened at first so tried to undo his edits but he did it again within seconds. I tried to go to the talk page to clarify the issue, but he simply quoted the conflict of interest page at me and has subsequently ignored me.

It is clear that, because he has not read my edits, he believes that I was writing the entire erroneous sentence and claiming this theory as mine, when I was in fact trying to make it clear that I believe the very opposite of what had been written by someone else in the article and attributed to me in error: he incorrectly accused me of "publicising a self-published theory" when I in fact agree with the widely held view on the matter that has been the case for many years. Furthermore he wrote even more insulting and slanderous things about me, saying: "It appears that an author has put forth a theory and that theory had made its way into this article. We don't publish WP:OR or poorly documented theories and WP:COI certainly applies. I believe including this theory requires exceptional third-party sources and that should not be editing Wikipedia articles where she has a WP:COI. This is not the place to promote your own theories." This is an entirely incorrect and slanderous comment in the public domain, which is potentially damaging to my professional reputation, when all I was trying to do was maintain the integrity of both Wikipedia and my reputation. Instead the very opposite has happened and I don't know how I can have this person reported for their offensive behaviour. I have also seen that he is rude and inappropriate to others (using offensive language), so he clearly needs removing from Wikipedia altogether, so can anyone please help me find the correct channels for reporting him and having him removed from his role on Wikipedia? Many thanks.khc 21:28, 29 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khc79 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit, but unreferenced material can be removed by anyone, and this is what the editor correctly did. I appreciate that you were correcting an error, but in the absence of a reliable source for the original claim, it would not be appropriate to restore the theory and your counter to it. Wikipedia discourages edits by those with a WP:Conflict of interest, but if you wish to discuss restoring the claim and can cite an independent source, then please continue to discuss this on the talk page of the article. I haven't investigated your claim of rudeness elsewhere, but Wikipedia has a principle of assuming good faith, and this should apply on both sides. Dbfirs 21:52, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Khc79 -- I have observed behavior that is not so much collegial, but very strict and sometime combative. I went back to the Five Pillars and concluded that what started as suggestions have hardened, for some, into bats wielded by zealous editors. A startup that gets $40 million in financing, that's notable in my personal view. A startup that gets international coverage in the first couple of months, that's special too. When someone pops up and says "A7 speedy delete on that one, you failed to explain why the company is notable," well, that's just frustrating. You, as the subject are supposed to post your proposed changes on the talk page and let someone else do it. Sometimes, it gets stupid. Philip Roth, the author, wasn't allowed to correct something about himself. "No published references", was the verdict. He was unqualified to speak about himself. So he had to go to the New Yorker to get them to print something so he could get his WP page fixed. In case you are interested [9] and [10]. I wish you the best. If you want to commiserate, you know where to find me. Rhadow (talk) 22:06, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of the content is now open at Talk:Et tu, Brute?#Kirsty Corrigan's theory, which is the proper venue. As for the behavioral aspects, it seems to me that Toddst1 misunderstood the intent of an edit which was, honestly, not as clear as it might have been. I don't see any intent to insult not any significant incivility. The comment was on the work, not the person, which is proper. Further discussion should be on the article talk page. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:16, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

suggestions on how to improve talk/user page

thanks for inviting me! I was wondering if anyone could give me suggestions to improve my user and talk page! Thanks for being here to help!!!FIGHTER KD 23:03, 29 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FIGHTER KD (talk • contribs)

Hello, FIGHTER KD, welcome to the Teahouse and welcome back to Wikipedia.
First of all, if you want to use (rather than mention) {{adoptme}}, you need to take it out of the <nowiki>...</nowiki> tags. Those prevent it from being treated as markup, instead it is just displayed. However, if you are interested in adoption, i am a rather experienced editor, and would be willing to try to help you on a regular basis.
As for the rest of your user page, it depends on what you want. A simple basic user page is not a bad thing. Mine has more stuff on it than yours does, but rather less than some people's does. See User:DESiegel. One thing you might mention is areas that you are interested in, or have knowledge of and would be willing to help out in. Mention of any languages that you know could also be helpful.
I choose to include an intro section at the top of my talk page where I explain how to communicate with me most easily. Many users have some version of such a think on their user talk pages.
But honestly, your user and user talk pages should be the least important thing about your presence here. The most important thing is the edits you make. I hope this is helpful, FIGHTER KD DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:26, 29 July 2017 (UTC) !Thank you it did help as for some reason my userpage was put on patrolled. I would like to find some articles that would be good ones to pratice on. any ideas is great[reply]

FIGHTER KD 23:50, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Article proposed for deletion

Hallo

My article has been proposed for deletion. I have references for my article. How can I put references in to the artickle?

Thanks Stefan Stelea17 (talk) 23:42, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Stelea17, and welcome to the Teahouse. I am afraid i can't tell what article you refer to. Was it Matić Ivan? You blanked that page (removed all content from it) which is usually taken as a request to delete the page. Was it some other page?
When you post at the Teahouse or the help desk (or an another user's talk page) please provide a link to the article you are discussing, to make things easier for others to reply.
Oh and by the way, please don't say "my articles". No one on Wikipedia owns any article -- anyone may edit any article constructively, with intent to improve it. Do say "the article I created" or "the article i have contributed to many times". DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:56, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Page reviewed?

Recently I got a notification saying my page has been reviewed? Has it been modified in any way? Thanks in advance, User:CoolSkittle

Hello, CoolSkittle, and welcome to the Teahouse. I am afraid I can't determine from your contribution history what page you re referring to. When you post at the Teahouse or the help desk (or an another user's talk page) please provide a link to the article you are discussing, to make things easier for others to reply. If you can't manage a link, at least give the name of the page. Wikipedia has over 5 million articles, and many pages that are not articles. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:00, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:DESiegel I was talking about my user page at User:CoolSkittle. —Preceding undated comment added 00:05, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article proposed for deletion

Hello again. I would like to create artickle of football player named Sredojević Stefan, and Wikipedia, somehow, won't let my to create it. This is a real football player, and this is the best source that I can find:

http://www.ffsrb.rs/sr/klub/2016-2017_4/prvi-tim_4/druga-liga-(kragujevac)_8/zastava_38/

Stelea17 (talk) 00:18, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse&oldid=792991063"