Wikipedia:Teahouse

Welcome to the Teahouse...                        

A friendly place to learn about editing Wikipedia.

Ask a question

jmcgnh, a Teahouse host

Question forum

Host profiles

Guest profiles

Experienced editor? Become a host!

Learn more about the Teahouse

Articles to improve

Question archive

Guest archive

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

Help Wikipedia

Russian speaking editor

Hi. My submission was declined by Bradv (talk). He was nice to talk about it, but we came to the conclusion that he doesn't have enough information to be able to accept the submission because it has Russian sources. Bradv suggested to find Russian speaking editor, so here I am. Are there any?

Antonzaitsev (talk) 08:18, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Antonzaitsev. I don't speak Russian, but I just wondered why the "retrieved" dates for some of your web references are from 2013 and 2015, when you only just wrote the draft. Have these references been copied from some other article? Cordless Larry (talk) 08:22, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Cordless Larry. Perhaps Antonzaitsev wisely re-used references from the Russian Wikipedia article for Topface. --TinkleBear (talk) 14:39, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like that is the case, TinkleBear. If you have translated the article from the Russian Wikipedia version Antonzaitsev, then you need to follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate to give proper attribution to the source article. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:42, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Cordless Larry and TinkleBear. Yes, they are re-used references from the Russian article. Should I go to Contributions, then Translation section (beta-feature) and start over? Or should I edit the current draft: 1) make another edit with the summary saying it's translation and linking to the original, 2) place the template on the talk page, 3) and then re-submit? --Antonzaitsev (talk) 21:15, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't think the beta content translation tool is operational at the moment, Antonzaitsev, but the second option with the edit summary and template will satisfy the requirements. Thanks. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:40, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Antonzaitsev (talk) 22:13, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

You could try looking at Category:Translators ru-en. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:24, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, David Biddulph! --Antonzaitsev (talk) 21:15, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Hey Antonzaitsev. I made a number of edits to your English Topface draft. A couple of them introduced new sources written in English, and I also found that a couple of your original Russian references had English versions.

By the way, the draft currently says that Filatov & Co started off by buying a VK app called "FaceRate", and then the draft goes on to say that the name of that app in Russian was «Лицемер». My understanding (please correct me if I'm confused) is that «Лицемер» means "Hypocrite"! So is "FaceRate" just a semantically unrelated English name, or something? Just curious whether you knew what's up with that.

On Topic: Just to be clear, I'm no ace Russian-English translator. Just a random struggler. Good luck finding what you seek! --TinkleBear (talk) 14:39, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

God, you're very helpful! Thank you, TinkleBear.

It's debatable. The literal meaning of the Russian word «Лицемер» is "the one who measures/tries on faces". This play of words, I assume, was the reason the app had its name in the first place. It's awful naming anyway, the more so as "Hypocrite" doesn't make any sense to English speaking person.

You did great job! --Antonzaitsev (talk) 21:15, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

How do I help with translations in Tamil and Hindi?

Hi,

I've been trying to figure out how and where I can help contribute content in other languages such as Hindi and Tamil on Wikipedia. But I only find myself chasing links. Can someone here help me with this?

Bhairavi25 (talk) 18:18, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Bhairavi25, Tamil Wikipedia and Hindi Wikipedia each have their own language versions of the site (as do the other Indian languages). The full list of every language which has its own version of Wikipedia is here. ‑ Iridescent 18:47, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Bhairavi25, welcome to the Teahouse. See also Wikipedia:Translation. It has a link to the Hindi hi:विकिपीडिया:अनुवाद अनुरोध but no Tamil page. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:04, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Iridescent Thanks for the help.

Bhairavi25 (talk) 16:44, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the help.

Bhairavi25 (talk) 16:46, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

WikEd blocks the keyboard shortcuts on Google Chrome and Firefox.

• WikEd blocks the keyboard shortcuts on Google Chrome and Firefox. Is there a work around? thank you very much in advance! Imaginelenin (talk) 05:50, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Imaginelenin. This might be a good question for Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) or even Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing since the Teahouse tends to focus more on general editing questions than specific technical issues. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:14, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Marchjuly thank you! Imaginelenin (talk) 19:25, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Creating a page from a blue link because the link gets redirected

I want to create a page that does not exist, but the topic is a blue link on the related site, not red. (It gets redirected to the home site.) Hints? The page would be about the Geological Society of America Bulletin. Thanks. Keagiles (talk) 18:22, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Hey Keagiles. When you get redirected, there should be a little link in the upper left that says "redirected from TITLE". If you click on that you will be taken to the redirect itself, and you can edit it to replace the redirect with an article. GMG^talk 18:27, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

This link will take you directly to the redirect. ~ GB fan 18:29, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I messed that up; someone already fixed the redirect. So I build the page first and then fix the redirect? But how do I build a page from scratch rather than by clicking on a red link in the article? I know you may not want to go into detail here, but I'm having trouble finding the answer on the help pages. This is my first time trying to build a page. Keagiles (talk) 18:34, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

You can create the article as a Draft and then when it is ready move it over, Draft:Geological Society of America Bulletin. ~ GB fan 18:37, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks GB fan! Keagiles (talk) 00:55, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Creating a new article is not easy, Keagiles, but I strongly recommend starting by reading your first article, and using the article wizard to create a draft. When you submit it for review, and a reviewer accepts it, they will handle the redirects.--ColinFine (talk) 19:34, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

How do I suggest that a page be created? Keagiles (talk) 22:53, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

@Keagiles: You can request an article at WP:RA RudolfRed (talk) 20:44, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks RudolfRed Keagiles (talk) 21:20, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Finally (I think) — how do I get a draft approved? It's not in my sanbox but on a draft page created for me by ~ GB fan Keagiles (talk) 21:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

@Keagiles: Place {{subst:submit}} in the draft when you are ready to submit it for review. RudolfRed (talk) 02:55, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks all! Keagiles (talk) 15:50, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Other web archives

web.archive.org has been really wonky recently were I live, it fails to save pages often and claims it doesn't have several article in the archive despite the fact that I looked at them the previous day. It says "bad request" all the time. Is there any alternative I could use?★Trekker (talk) 15:53, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

@*Treker: From WP:LINKROT there is also WebCite or look at Web archiving. RudolfRed (talk) 20:01, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, I'm abit worried aboutgiving out my email adress but it's better than nothing.★Trekker (talk) 20:06, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

@*Treker: I suggest that you consider archive.is. I use it when Archive.org isn't working properly and on pages for which Archive.org will not create an archive. No email address is needed. It offers two options: 1) you can paste the URL of a page into a box on the page I linked in the first sentence or 2) you can add a bookmarklet to your browser window. Eddie Blick (talk) 01:55, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you!★Trekker (talk) 01:59, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Doc in the house?

The article Physiological functional capacity is a dead-end except for one link. It needs more outgoing links. It also has only one incoming link. I tried to fix it, but couldnt do much. Somebody familiar with the human anatomy, and/diseases would be familiar with the concepts/phrases. Regards, —usernamekiran(talk) 04:34, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Usernamekiran, and welcome to the Teahouse. I've added some outgoing links and removed the tag. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:12, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Finnusertop —usernamekiran(talk) 17:56, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

About a sentence in philosophy of science

Hello, folks. I'm basically asking the 2017 April question on Talk:philosophy of science again:

The current sentence reads:

However, there remain difficult questions about what precise probability any given evidence justifies putting on the general statement.

I tried hard to comprehend what it's saying, and here's what I got:

for any given evidence, you put it on the general statement, and it will justify a certain probability; and "what precise probability we can get" still remain as difficult questions.

I'm finishing up translation of this into Chinese (zh.wiki), so I really want to hope what is this tongue-twister supposed to mean. Thank you everyone! -- SzMithrandir ❈ Ered Luin ❈ 07:51, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree, it's a problematic sentence; the sentence I would put in its place is more like No satisfactory approach has been proposed for converting the evidence from repeated observations into a probability that the general statement is true. That is, the problem of induction is still an unsolved problem.

I'll confess that I don't understand everything in the SEP article being referenced in this section, either, so I may be getting it wrong myself. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:53, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for that bold paraphrase! Your paraphrase does clarify this sentence for me quite a bit; now I suddenly realize what the word "general statement" is referring to; rings a bell of a long article by Nancy Cartwright (philosopher) about analogy between physical laws and fable morals, from a first-year seminar course. It basically means, laws and correlations (so-called "general statements") in science are often evidence-based, so it is fundamentally agnostic how much probability these general statements can be causally "true" (realism), and that is quite a headache for people. Anyways, I'll go ahead and clean that up! -- SzMithrandir ❈ Ered Luin ❈ 16:22, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

why are my articles not approved?

why are my articles not approved yetOnyinyechiNwankwo234 (talk) 09:12, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

OnyinyechiNwankwo234, Draft:Uche Modum was rejected because, as it says in the rejection notice at the top, "This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability." Since it was rejected, you have done nothing to improve the referencing, and have resubmitted it for approval; that is a waste of everyone's time, as it will be rejected again. No wonder the Articles for Creation process is severely backlogged. Maproom (talk) 09:26, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

My article was declined by BRADV, because he did not deem it relevant.

I am writing about a surgeon who is specialised in transgender operations and actually able to create penises that are good looking and sensitive and he can make the whole transformation woman-man in 9 hours. I think this is a relevant skill that should be mentionned on wikipedia. The article is the translation I made of the same article in German. How can it be improved to fit the English speaking wikipedia demands? Drakegreune (talk) 09:53, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

In the feedback box at the top of your draft, and in the message on your user talk page, there is an explanation as to why the draft was declined. The words in blue in the explanation are wikilinks to places where you can find more detail. One obvious problem is that all your references are written by the subject, whereas what is required is coverage in published reliable sources independent of the subject. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:00, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Please be aware, Drakegreune, that the word "notable", in its special sense as a minimum requirement for an article on English Wikipedia, does not mean any of "important, influential, famous, virtuous or popular". It simply means that enough material about the subject by people unconnected with the subject to make it possible to write a neutral article about the subject. --ColinFine (talk) 21:25, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Creating articles, categories, etc.

I notice that i am unable to create an article. I wonder why. 185.43.229.5 (talk) 11:10, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

You have to create an account and log in to create an article. The account also needs to be at least four days old and you need to have made at least ten edits to other pages. – Joe (talk) 11:14, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

@Joe Roe:, is this a new or revised policy? Because, if i am not mistaken, i remember that i was able to create articles as an anonymous. 185.43.229.5 (talk) 11:19, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

See WP:Wikipedia Signpost/2005-12-05/Page creation restrictions restricting to registered accounts, and then WP:Autoconfirmed article creation trial restricting to auto-confirmed. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:35, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

@David Biddulph:, thank you. So i should request the article there? 185.43.229.118 (talk) 12:51, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

You can write a draft version of the article at Wikipedia:Articles for creation. You don't need a user account to do that. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:02, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

@Finnusertop:, thank you. The link is really helpful. 185.43.229.129 (talk) 21:10, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I want to update of my company picsoam on wikipedia How?

how to update my articles on wikipedia? 42.107.21.143 (talk) 11:18, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi anonymous IP address, and welcome to the Teahouse. You don't have any articles on Wikipedia under that IP address, and your company doesn't own any wikipedia article, though there might be an article about your company. Since you appear to have a WP:Conflict of interest, it would be best to tell us which article needs updating, and what update is required, then an independent editor can make the edit for you. Dbfirs 11:31, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

how to create an article

Hi I'm new here and I'm really eager to create my first article! But I need some help. Can you help pretty please😚. Thanks a bunch 💋 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiqueenie (talk • contribs) 12:46, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

@Wikiqueenie: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Your eagerness is appreciated. I would caution you that successfully creating a new article is actually one of the hardest things to do on Wikipedia. It takes time, practice, and effort. New users that dive right in to article creation often edit up disappointed and with hurt feelings after something they spent a lot of time on is mercilessly edited and even deleted by others, because of a lack of knowledge by the creator of what is being looked for in articles in terms of style and sourcing. It is possible for a new user diving right in to article creation to be successful, but it is uncommon. I don't say this to discourage you, just to give you an honest assessment of what sometimes happens.

New users who are most successful at creating articles started small by making minor edits to existing articles and working their way up to more substantive edits, which helped them learn how to use Wikipedia and learn what is being looked for in articles. I would suggest that you take this road; find existing articles in areas that interest you and see if they need to be fixed or improved in some way.

Whenever you feel you are ready, you may wish to read Your First Article which describes what is being looked for in new articles; then, I would suggest visiting Articles for Creation where you can create and submit a draft for review by another editor before it is formally placed in the encyclopedia. This will let you get feedback before the article is created instead of after. You may also wish to use The Wikipedia Adventure, a tutorial of sorts for using Wikipedia. Good luck, and if you have any other questions, please ask. 331dot (talk) 12:56, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Looking for advice about writing a page about a recurring software feature

Greetings, I was advised to look at this essay on software notability however it appears to be oriented towards programs not features of programs; features are only mentioned in the footnotes.

I have added a prototype of my work-in-progress on this page and I would appreciate feedback.

Thanks, Phedrence (talk) 14:23, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Phedrence, and welcome to the Teahouse. If you can't find a specialized notability guideline for the topic you had in mind, see the general notability guideline which is applicable to all topics. By the way, article's shouldn't use "you". – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:56, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello Phedrence and welcome to the Teahouse.

To me, this looks a lot like an assemblage of facts from primary resources in a way that makes it original research rather than a report on facts that are covered by independent sources. I predict an uphill struggle to get an article like this accepted on Wikipedia. There are other venues where this kind of report would be welcome (unfortunately not as many as there used to be in the heyday of personal computing magazines). If several different people wrote about this topic and published their coverage in suitable places, we might then have some basis for a WP article. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:39, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Phedrence. At the moment, my view is that the article violates guidelines such as WP:OR and WP:NOTGUIDE. Unless you can find discussion of status keys as a generic topic in reliable sources and base the article on what these say, cutting back on the amount of technical detail of how individual implementations work, you're not going to get the article accepted. Sorry if that's not what you want to hear, but it is very difficult to produce acceptable articles for Wikipedia. Neiltonks (talk) 17:06, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

What are sources to almost never, or never at all cite on articles about video games and video game conventions?

I am searching for sources to cite on an article about a video game convetion in the USA, and am wondering what sources about video game conventions should almost never be cited, or should absoultely never be cited. On Nintendo articles, you should almost never cite Nintendo Life, and I was wondering if there is any sources like that, that should almost never, or never at all be cited on pages relating to video game convetions. I was also wondering if the specific sources Comicbook.com (a.k.a WWG a division of Comicbook) and Playstation LifeStyle are good sources and if there information can be trusted most of the time, or if either of them should be avoided most of the time, or all of the time as sources for information. Greshthegreat (talk) 17:31, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

@Greshthegreat: Hello and thanks for asking this question here, but Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games might be a better place to get help for this question. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:38, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Alright, I'll ask there instead. Thanks. Greshthegreat (talk) 17:41, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)See Identifying reliable sources and simply apply that to video games sources. It's difficult to answer this question because there are many more sources which are not reliable than sources which are. The basic rule of thumb is; if it's a large, professional publication with a reputation for fact checking (an example of this would be IGN), it's probably good to cite them. If it's a blog, self-published book, corporate publication or anything of the sort, it's probably not okay.

With all of that being said, the most important question here is what claims are you citing to that source? If you're claiming that RipoffThePlayer Studios, which is known for frivolous lawsuits against people who give negative reviews of their games and for making wildly inaccurate claims in public publishes a flyer claiming their new game will follow an always-connected model because NPC AI is handled by a Watson-esque remote server, you could cite that flyer for claims that they said that, but you couldn't cite it for claims that their new game will actually have a Watson-esque supercomputer handling NPC AI. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:42, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I'll check the article Identifiying reliable sourcs from now on, and only ask questions about sources if that doesn't help me, or if some editors have said things that go agains what that pages information says. Thanks for the information about the sources, and I'll try to remember some of that information in the future.

Greshthegreat (talk) 17:46, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Greshthegreat, you shouldn't ever be afraid of asking questions. If you get a snippy response, just ask somewhere else. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:52, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I didn't feel like that was a snippy responce, I just don't ask questions on Wikipedia very much, so I assumed that would truly be a better place to ask, full of users who knew alout about video games. I'll always ask questions where I feel they should be asked, and ask someone else, if no one is of any help Also, don't worry, I am not afraid of asking questions, I just don't ask questions on Wikipedia very often.

Greshthegreat (talk) 17:56, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Ntwaetsile

What Is All About This Page I'm A First User — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nwaetsile (talk • contribs) 18:02, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Hey Nwaetsile. This is the teahouse, a forum for new editors to ask questions and seek feedback. If you want to start getting better acquainted with the way Wikipedia works as a whole, a good place to start would be our interactive tutorial at The Wikipedia Adventure. GMG^talk 20:04, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

How to remove an orphan tag?

Hello, I recently created an article and it has been flagged with an orphan tag. I have now linked the article from other pages, and it is no longer an orphan, but the tag still remains. How can I remove it? Airgum (talk) 19:44, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Hey Airgum. It looks like you've pretty well figured it out. Sorry we were a little late in responding, but as you might already know, the orphan tag just adds the article to a category of article that need cleanup to better integrate them into the encyclopedia. Once there are links added there's no need for the template and you can just take it off with no problems. Thanks for helping up build an encyclopedia! GMG^talk 20:12, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Airgum. If you have translated this article from the German Wikipedia, as it looks like you have, then you need to credit the source article by following the instructions at Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate (it's too late to make a statement in your first edit summary, but you can make an edit to the article and note in your summary that the first revision was translated from the German Wikipedia). Cordless Larry (talk) 20:27, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Could you please help me find a mentor?

I have checked the list of available mentors and most of them are busy or are not qualified to help me. I would like to learn about counter-vandalism. Please could someone help me. Pablothepenguin (talk) 20:00, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

@Pablothepenguin: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I think you may be able to find assistance in learning about counter-vandalism at WP:CVUA. 331dot (talk) 21:48, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Pablothepenguin. I am willing to help you with the basics, if you wish, having found it personally quite rewarding to help out in addressing issues of vandalism here. You say that you've found some mentors are not qualified to help you, so perhaps I might also not meet your specific needs. Whilst I have not had any mentor training, do feel free to drop me a line on my talk page and discuss any issues, question or concerns you have. I will try to help or guide you in any way I can. If I can't help you, I will tell you. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:24, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Archiving bot

Hello all. How can we add or request archive bot for talk pages? 185.43.229.129 (talk) 21:03, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Look at WP:ARCHIVE for different methods of archiving, including instructions for configuring automatic archiving via the bot. RudolfRed (talk) 21:21, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, RudolfRed. How can i see the list of all bots, by the way? 185.43.229.129 (talk) 21:31, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

You'll find them listed at Category:All Wikipedia bots. --David Biddulph (talk) 21:33, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you all. 185.43.229.129 (talk) 21:35, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I need an assistance from expert like you

Hi Good day! This is Karen Divinagracia, Author, Editor and Marketing Coordinator, Auxlem Philippines. Our Page was rejected to Review (for publish) by user:Kostas20142. We have understood that our page "Auxlem Corporation" was rejected at this moment. Our Company is new in the Field of Digital Marketing and does not have many sources so far that is on (web). Only our Corporate Book and guidelines is our major source to publish our Page in Wikipedia. May I ask where should we get our sources if our company is NEW.

Best Regards Auxlem PhilippinesACTLD Karen (talk) 00:06, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

@ACTLD Karen: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Unfortunately, if there are few or no independent reliable sources that have in depth coverage of your company, it will not be possible for there to be an article about it here at this time. It is too soon for an article about your company, please read WP:TOOSOON. Not every company merits an article here, even within the same field. Only those that have third party sources about it that indicate how it is notable per WP:ORG merit articles.

Also note that Wikipedia has articles about companies, and not pages for companies. Your company has no more right to edit an article about it than any other user, please see WP:OWN; nor is Wikipedia social media for you to publicize your company. I'm sorry that this probably is not what you want to hear, but it doesn't seem that Wikipedia fits with your purposes. 331dot (talk) 00:31, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse, ACTLD Karen. You seem to have a misunderstanding about Wikipedia's purpose. This is not a directory website where every company in the world can create its own page. This is an encyclopedia that contains articles about notable companies which have received significant coverage in reliable sources which are completely independent of the company. If no such coverage in reliable sources exist, then there can be no Wikipedia article about your company. In addition, your draft contains highly promotional language that is completely inappropriate for an encyclopedia. The next thing that you should do is read and comply with our mandatory requirements for paid editors. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:34, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Updated file not showing up on page?

I updated a file with a better version, but on the article that it's on, it doesn't change to the correct version. The article is Takoba The Verified Cactus 100% 00:28, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello, VerifiedCactus. When I look at that article and the image, I see a version that was updated at 22:50 on 21 December 2017. If you see the earlier version. you may need to purge your cache. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:27, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

How do I purge my cache? The Verified Cactus 100% 01:47, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

@The Verified Cactus that's a feature of your browser, not of Wikipedia. How to do it depends on which browser you're using, and in some cases which version. Try googling "how to clear the cache in" followed by the name of your browser and (if you know it) the version. That ought to find you some instructions. Neiltonks (talk) 09:16, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I see, thanks! The Verified Cactus 100% 20:21, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

@VerifiedCactus and Neiltonks: There is one more cache: the cache at Wikipedia servers. You can simply just wait a few hours for it to update automatically, or you can invoke it manually. To do that, go to the file page at File:Samata ténue touareg.jpg and click the * tab. This should refresh the image cached by enwiki. If that doesn't help, go to Commons: c:File:Samata ténue touareg.jpg and click the purge tab – this should refresh the Commons' cache, which is the source for each of Wikipedias. --CiaPan (talk) 09:26, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Editors with COI adding List of Accolades for Brands

What can we do if we come across editors who are doing PR for brands and adding promotional content to Wikipedia?

I came across User:Sarah J Y Wong and noticed the user (and her colleagues) and had been editing several Singaporean brands over the years under IP and other usernames such as user:SuSan NLBS50 and user:FirstToaPayohSecondarySchool NLBS50. I have no issues if the content is non-promotional, but she is insisting on adding a list of local achievements and accolades of On Cheong Jewellery to Wikipedia. Are such lists allowed on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.161.196.133 (talk) 04:16, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello, WP:COIN would be the right place to report conflict of interest and promotional editing. I couldn't find a specific guideline, but I do believe that a list of awards and accolades is promotional and shouldn't be added in most cases. Thanks! Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 09:50, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Ethics?

Hi, I suspect my question will come across as whinging, and it is, actually, but here it is: I posted a query here regarding writing my first entry, and no sooner had I done so than someone else wrote and published an entry on the same subject. Me thinks twas not a coincidence. Is there no honour among Wiki authors? P. Tobie B. (talk) 05:09, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi P. Tobie B., and welcome to the Teahouse again. It does seem a bit unfair that another user creates an article the day after you ask about writing one, but Wikipedia is a collaboration, and there is no ownership of articles. Perhaps Damian Vo took your question as a request for an article, or perhaps he was already working on the text. I don't know. You are very welcome to add the information that you have found to improve the article. Most editors here try to work together to improve the encyclopaedia. Editing here shouldn't be a competition (though I admit that occasionally it degenerates into argument). Dbfirs 08:46, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

@P. Tobie B.: Josh O'Connor had his biggest role in God's Own Country (2017 film). It opened 25 October 2017 in the US which has the most editors. Damian Vo edited the film 26 October.[1] You mentioned Josh O'Connor here 15 November. Damian Vo has never edited this page and created Josh O'Connor 21 November. Wikipedia has thousands of discussion pages and only a small part of editors read this one. A coincidence seems very likely to me, and I would call it a minor coincidence. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:15, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, Dbfirs. One day only. Like a shark tank! Well, I've learned my lesson. I do think the entry that I wrote is much better :-), so perhaps I'll insert a sentence or two. I've been doing that here and there and find it quite enjoyable. Happy Christmas!2604:2000:E0D3:3500:8090:12F0:AEAD:7DBF (talk) 16:16, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Death dagger

Hello, folks. I'm hoping you can shed some light on a question that doesn't seem to covered by our Manual of Style. I've been noticing that some articles that contains lists of people are starting to get those "death dagger" symbols placed next to some of the names to indicate that the people are deceased. But there's never any sourcing for that fact and, in many cases, the person doesn't have an article here (so there's no opportunity for double checking at the article). I'm of the opinion that these should all be removed, but I haven't been able to find anything in the MoS that I can cite.

Just to be clear, I'm not talking about the birth/death dates that usually appear in the first sentence of an article about a person. Nor am I talking about special cases, such as indicating killed-in-action in the infobox for a military article. And I'm not so sure that I'm talking about situations contemplated by WP:MOSBD, which seems to limit itself to cases where the year of death is given for the person in some other article's list.

Any thoughts you have on this will be greatly appreciated. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:55, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

• @NewYorkActuary: I would say that in the situation you describe the relevant policy is WP:V. Whatever the manual of style says, we certainly should not include nontrivial unsourced information. Sourcing the status for a large list of people could be done by the source for the list, or by individual articles, but if there is no source out there, we should not indicate such status, IMO. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 10:51, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Museum boards attendance of finances

almost the museum articles with management sections are years if not decades out of date can the Wikipedia community delete them as they are completely Irelevant the management sections need to be updated yearly or deleted Flamingoflorida (talk) 07:13, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

@Flamingoflorida: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If there are specific articles you have concerns about, feel free to comment on the talk pages of those articles about any information that is not correct. You don't mention any specific articles in your comment, so I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "management sections", but if you are referring to the staff of museums or budget, I would think that it would be easy to update that information from museum websites. Please understand that Wikipedia is a volunteer project, and people do what they can when they can do it. 331dot (talk) 10:14, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Flamingoflorida. Welcome to the Teahouse. Before answering your question I must declare an interest, in that I have a professional background in museum work. Firstly, raising concerns here over general issues about content in a whole genre of articles isn't really something that the Teahouse can address. It's best raised on the Talk Page of the individual museum articles themselves. Obviously, if content is a little out if date it's helpful to raise it there so other editors are aware of deficiencies to be addressed.

I have had a quick skim through some of your recent edits to a few museum articles, and I do not think some of the edits you have made have been at all constructive. In fact, some seem quite damaging. Whilst you are right to point out that some content is not up to date, removing properly cited statements about museum governance and major funding sources because it uses sources that are five or more years old is unhelpful. In the main, you should leave such well-sourced statements in place, but you could contribute positively by simply ensuring they're all put in the past tense. As an example, this removal of 2013 visitor figures from the Infobox of the Museum of Modern Art and the statement that it ranked 13th in the world for visitors is not acceptable. Had you taken the trouble to research and replace them with more up to date stats then that would have been fine. But you didn't.

Blanking valid content because it doesn't meet your idea of being up to date is, put frankly, liable to be interpreted as disruptive, although I think you made them all in good faith. Equally, this edit to the same article has removed perfectly good and apparently well-referenced content on the history of the museum's structure and funding which is perfectly relevant to the article. So, please take this as a polite warning to be a little more careful, and less gung-ho in your approach to wanting to see slightly out of date articles improved in future. Add to them, don't just delete stuff you don't like. I applauded you desire to see articles brought up to date, but not the way you appear to have gone about it in some cases. I'm sorry to come across so critical here, and don't be surprised if you see quite a few of these edits being reverted. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 11:09, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Further to the comments from Nick and 331dot above, I would suggest that if you have suggestions applicable to museum articles in general, rather than any specific article, the place to discuss them is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Museums. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:19, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

two different works, both referenced separately, same author--getting conflated

I am having difficulty referencing two separate works by the same author--the software keeps getting confused. I attempted to differentiate the name itself in the 'name equals in quotes', but it doesn't seem to have worked. How is this properly done? Jenhawk777 (talk) 08:46, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

@Jenhawk777: What are the symptoms of 'the software getting confused'? Can you give a link to the problematic page, or even better: to the problematic change? The latter can be obtained from the page history as a prev link at appropriate edit. --CiaPan (talk) 09:17, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Good morning from here where it's morning! Thank you for responding. Basically the second reference is blank. The number and space for it is there in the reflist--but there's nothing in the space. What code would I put in to provide a link and where will I find that code? Do you know if there is a Wiki page that explains how to reference two works/one author?Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:22, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

As CiaPan said: "Can you give a link to the problematic page, or even better: to the problematic change?" --David Biddulph (talk) 16:26, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

If, by any chance, you were referring to Special:Contributions/Jenhawk777, did you intend ref name = "Jerome F.D Creach-1"/ to read ref name = "Jerome F.D. Creach-1"/? Slightly worrying that the software didn't report an undefined ref. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:34, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

@Jenhawk777: If you're talking about User:Jenhawk777/sandbox and the end of the first sentence in the section Human violence and hamas, then I second David – add the dot after 'D' in 'F.D Creach'. --CiaPan (talk) 21:49, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? All of this because I can't type worth a crap? I am laughing so hard I will pee myself if I don't get off the computer! Oy vey! Thank you everyone! I'm apparently an idiot who should not be allowed out alone!  :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Am I an editor now?

Am I an editor now?Balawiki12 (talk) 08:52, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Balawiki12 and welcome to the Teahouse. Yes, you have been an editor since your first edit, and you will become WP:Autoconfirmed after two more edits. This status mean that you can create articles, move pages, edit semi-protected pages, and upload files or upload a new version of an existing file. Please be careful, when you make edits, to avoid adding unnecessary links that we call WP:Spam. This project is an encyclopaedia, so does not allow advertising or promotion. Do ask again here if you need help with editing. Dbfirs 09:17, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

An article needing attention

Hi, going through random articles while solving DAB, I came across this article AnonCoders. It has several issues including MOS, footnotes, wikilinks and many unreliable sources. The article history has been quite disruptive with many reversions and maintenance tag deletions, while those adding actual content have been IP users/accounts with few edits, several of them (including the creator) blocked. What would be the best course of action to proceed? Would an extendedconfirmed page protection be approved? Thanks, MT Train^Discuss 09:09, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I've reverted to before the recent edit by the now-blocked IP 185.112.82.43, the edit having been grossly malformatted (capitals on every word) & with no footnotes & no explanation of the removal of the previous content. The article had been stable for some time, but if it suffers from repeated vandalism in future it can be protected via a request at WP:RFPP. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:10, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello, May I know? That How to publish my first article on Wikipedia? Because my submission have cancelled.

{Hello, May I know? That How to publish my first article on Wikipedia? Because my submission have cancelled. } SURENDRA LEGHA (talk) 11:43, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, SURENDRA LEGHA. You appear to have been trying to create an article at User:SURENDRA LEGHA, but that is your user page and not the place for an article. Wikipedia:User pages explains what user pages are for. For more information on creating new articles, see Wikipedia:Your first article. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:15, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

YOU MUST ACCEPT MY ARTICLE!!!!!!!!!

Why did my article(Al Marar Tribe) get canceled and my cousins made an article about there tribe ( Al Bu Muhair Tribe) and you guys accepted it?

Then you must accept my article BaniYas (talk) 14:01, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

We don't have to accept any article. ~ GB fan 14:05, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Hey BaniYas. First, please don't shout. It's generally considered rude. Second, your article was declined because it includes no sources whatsoever. Content on Wikipedia needs to include references to sources that meet our standards for reliability so that content may be verifiable for readers. You may want to review our tutorial on referencing for beginners, which can help explain this in more detail. GMG^talk 14:07, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

BaniYas please read Other stuff exists; the existence of one article doesn't automatically mean any other article needs to be accepted. This is a volunteer project, where people do what they can when they can, and sometimes inappropriate articles get through, even for years. 331dot (talk) 14:12, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

• For what it is worth, the article Al Bu Muhair existed since 2006. The first versions were full of WP:PUFFERY and were eventually trimmed down to a stub, and I just decided to redirect the whole thing to the confederation of tribes, since I found no indication of "notability" (i.e. no reliable source has described at length this tribe). (Should I get reverted without the addition of a reliable source, I will take the article to WP:AFD.) Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 14:44, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Again - Bani Yas exists as an article. In it, Al Marar is listed as one of the branches. I recommend that rather than try to create Al Marar as a new article, you add content WITH CITATIONS (yes, I am speaking loudly, to get your full attention) to that article. The citations do not have to be in English, but they do have to exist as credible, independent, PUBLISHED sources of information about Al Marar. You and your family being members of the tribe is not enough. In time, if there is enough content about Al Marar Tribe, it can be used to create a separate article. Note that per T's action, the separate article about Al Bu Muhair Tribe no longer exists. David notMD (talk) 20:24, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Note that BaniYas was blocked a couple of hours after posting this question. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:41, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Creating an Article for a reknowned retired women's college basketball coach

Hello. I am a fan of the University of South Carolina. Their women's basketball team won the national championship last season. This season, their head coach Dawn Staley just became the program's #1 coach in history for career wins by her team beating Temple yesterday. She passed a former coach named Nancy Wilson, and due to the achievement, I searched for Wilson's wiki page, but found nothing about her.

Wilson not only was SC's winning-est coach (until yesterday), but she was also head coach for the College of Charleston, and is their winning-est coach as well. So she's had a fairly notable career as a collegiate head coach of 30 years (she was also asst. HC of the ABL's Seattle Reign, a professional team).

Anyhow, I decided to create a Wiki page for her. I have never tried to do this before, but I think I've mostly gotten it fleshed out on my sandbox page. My question is, what do I need to do now in order to publish it? Should I have someone review it, or just go ahead and publish it? Thanks for your help.

CLEaddy CLEaddy (talk) 15:40, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

We already have an article on her here Dawn Staley. Theroadislong (talk) 15:46, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Theroadislong. I see that you chose not to read my question. You linked the article for Dawn Staley. I'm referring about creating an article for Nancy Wilson.

CLEaddy (talk) 15:48, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Whoops my apologies! You can create an article here WP:AFC if there are sufficient reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 16:01, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Invited Me On Teahouse

Hello, sir i want to moved a draft with a article. Draft Name: Draft: Aap Ke Aa Jane Se Article Name : Aap Ke Aa Jane Se please invited on Teahouse Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Http002 (talk • contribs) 15:45, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. You will need to find published reliable sources independent of the subject. At present the sources in your draft seem to be one from the subject's publisher and one from a forum. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:10, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Template

May I know if there are good templates for wishing Christmar and/or New Year? :P Thank you very much in advance! :D Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:23, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Adityavagarwal. If you consider posting to the talk pages of others then see Category:WikiLove templates. Note that editors have different religions or no religion. For something you could display in your own user or talk page, see {{Merry Christmas Banner}}, {{Happy Holidays}}, Category:Holiday user templates. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:56, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Ah, thanks a ton, PrimeHunter! :D Have a great day! :D Adityavagarwal (talk) 17:13, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

What do the bar and the VTE at the bottom of the page mean?

Keagiles (talk) 16:47, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

@Keagiles: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The "V" is a link to the page for the template that appears on the page you are viewing. The "T" is a link to the template's talk page, and the "E" is a link that opens up the edit window for that template. 331dot (talk) 16:50, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. And what how do you add links in that bottom area, or are they related to links in the text? I hope I am making sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keagiles (talk • contribs)

@Keagiles: The usual way to add links to such navigation templates is to click "E" for edit and follow the format of the existing links. We can say more if you say which links you want added to which box. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:59, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take a look at that. Keagiles (talk) 17:02, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

How to take a page I am making in the page creation editor/window and put it in my sandbox instead?

I created a page, and created a large part of it, but I don't think I want to share it just yet, until more info is out and it better fits Wikipedia policies for a page exisiting on this site. How can I take a page created in the page creation editor/window that the page being created has yet to actually be created, how can I put that in my sandbox so I can save it without sharing it as a page on Wikipedia just yet? Greshthegreat (talk) 16:53, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello Greshthegreat and welcome to the Teahouse.

Your sandbox would also be visible to other users. If you want to save a copy of your page offline, you would need to copy the edit window contents to a text editor on your own computer.

The same approach would work for saving your draft to a sandbox, though. Start by creating your sandbox in a separate window and simply copy the draft edit window contents into the sandbox edit window. Be sure to leave the {{user sandbox}} template at the top. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:59, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

It's alright that the sandbox is visibile to others, I don't mind that at all. I just want to save the page without having to create it and make it an official page on Wikipedia since I am not finished making it just yet. I'll do as the two of you have suggested, and save it in a sandbox, and then a page later on when I am ready to make it an actual page, unless someone has beat me to it, since the pages topic is a fairly popular event happening next summer.

Greshthegreat (talk) 19:52, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Actually only one person responded to my question, not two people Greshthegreat (talk) 19:53, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

How long does it take to get a re-review done?

Hi,

I have resubmitted an article for review and my submission is still pending for 23 days. Is it normal for a review to take these many number of days or have I missed any steps before submitting it which is causing the delay? How can I confirm?

Thank you for help!

Huma.hamid (talk) 17:42, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

@Huma.hamid: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. It appears that you properly submitted your draft. There are over 2700 drafts awaiting review, so please be patient. Reviews are done by volunteers who (like all of us) do what they can when they can do it. 331dot (talk) 17:45, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

While you are waiting for it to be reviewed, it would be wise for you to remove the numerous misplaced external links from the body of the text. Where relevant you may wish to replace them by references. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:52, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much for a prompt response and a very helpful advice!

Huma.hamid (talk) 18:27, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I can't get any answers or suggestions at the Idea Lab.

Two times I have proposed something on the idea lab and got a response from the same user which pointed me to a link that wasn't helpful as I brought up ideas and arguments that weren't mentioned. Also I couldn't say anything there because the discussion was saved and you weren't supposed to edit it. (it was translation ideas). What am I supposed to do? YuriGagrin12 (talk) 17:48, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

@YuriGagrin12: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I don't think there's much you can do. You cannot force people to respond to your posts, and if you find the responses you have been given insufficient, the only thing you can do is wait for another. If the discussion is closed, it is best to try to move on. 331dot (talk) 20:15, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

How do I make my own Wikipedia article?

I want to make my own articles. Jtarvin (talk) 13:58, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

@Jtarvin: Welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for wanting to contribute. Creating a new article is not an easy task for a newcomer. The usual advice is to get some experience by working to improve existing articles. If you want to proceed on creating an new article, then read the guidance at WP:YFA and use the article wizard there to create a draft for review. RudolfRed (talk) 20:08, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

@Jtarvin: (edit conflict) Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Your interest in creating articles is appreciated, but I would caution you that successfully doing so is probably the hardest thing to do on Wikipedia. It takes time, practice, and effort. New users who are most successful at creating articles first started small by spending time finding existing articles in areas that interest them and making small, needed edits to them. This helps them to learn how Wikipedia works and what is being looked for in articles. New users who dive right into creating articles often end up disappointed and hurt after their work is mercilessly edited and possibly deleted by other users, due to being unfamiliar with how Wikipedia works. I don't want to see you or anyone disappointed. I would strongly suggest that you work in existing articles first before attempting to create new ones.

However, if you still want to attempt it, you should definitely first read Your First Article. Then, you should visit Articles for Creation where you can create and submit a draft for review by another editor before it is formally placed in the encyclopedia. This way, you get feedback while the article is in draft form, as opposed to a full fledged Wikipedia article. I hope this helps you. 331dot (talk) 20:12, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

why Did my Article being declined

What i was Trying to do was to help the people who are poor but if my article was not the part of Wikipedia its Fine — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sphesihle Luthuli G (talk • contribs) 20:02, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

@Sphesihle Luthuli G: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Helping poor people is a worthy cause, however, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not social media or other forum to connect with people in need. If you go to WP:OUT you may find a more appropriate forum to do what you wish to do. 331dot (talk) 20:06, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

So tell me can You give me some suggestions how to write the article that are the part for Wikipedia because I'm truly lost now— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sphesihle Luthuli G (talk • contribs)

@Sphesihle Luthuli G: Please understand that creating an article is very hard. You can read Your First Article to learn more about it, but I would strongly suggest that you first find existing articles in areas that interest you and make small edits to them, which will help you learn how Wikipedia works and what is being looked for in articles. 331dot (talk) 20:23, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Can someone give feedback about my article please?

Hello, I've written an article but an editor thought it was autobiographical, so I did some reading at Wikipedia, reedited it and added independent sources as citations. Could someone please review it for me to see if it works now please?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Alper_Tuzcu

[User:Alpertuzcu] (talk) 20:27, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

@Alpertuzcu: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You state "an editor thought it was autobiographical" but your username is that of the person you wrote the draft about. Are you Alper Tuzcu? As to the draft, it is in the review pipeline, please be patient as there are over 2600 drafts waiting for review. 331dot (talk) 20:44, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello, thanks so much for writing back! So the content itself is solely made of facts and doesn't have any subjective statements after my latest edits. Yet, I might have missed out, which is why I wanted to double check with you guys. If there is anything that I would need to fix, could you please let me know? It's been in the review for 58 days, so I wouldn't want it to get rejected to wait another 2 months! I appreciate you help and thank you.

[[User:Alpertuzcu] (talk) 22:49, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Hey, Alpertuzcu, it was lovely to look through you article whilst listening to your music on Soundcloud. Thank you for that. I relaxed to it and checked all your references, and you'll be pleased to know that you do actually exist, according to Wikipedia's criteria, anyway! The question you have to ask is, do you meet our notability criteria for musicians? (Read it here: WP:NMUSIC) If you can't show evidence that you can meet these criteria today, then console yourself that you're a good musician and that you may well win awards or attract sufficient media attention that you may do later. There are plenty of other platforms for creative people to promote themselves online without trying to get a page on Wikipedia. Of course, if you can meet them today, do put them into your draft, as there's nothing there to show this at the moment . You also need to declare your Conflict of Interest if, as seems apparent, you are the artist trying to write about yourself. This, I'm afraid, is the hardest of all task for anyone trying to create a new article,  and if you're that notable, it's best left for other independent editors to write about you instead. Hope this helps a bit. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:37, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello and thank you for your feedback! Also I'm glad you enjoyed the music. To answer your question, yes I do fulfill Wikipedia's criteria for notable musicians, specifically:

'Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.'

I have cited articles and interviews in the article featuring national newspapers Agos and Radikal (Turkey) and Sunday Times (Sri Lanka) in my references, and I have more that I can provide to you if you wish (they don't have online links but I can provide the scans of newspaper articles). I kindly invite you to check these newspapers and their reliability, because just because you might not have heard of them, or that you live in a different country would not make them less reliable.

To reiterate, the information in my article can be verified from these independent publications and if an editor were to write an article, there would be nothing different because the article I wrote just has facts and no subjective lines as to my knowledge. But, again, we are all humans and I might have missed out something so I would appreciate if you could let me know if there is any part in the article that needs to be fixed.

I would be happy to declare a conflict of interest if you can please guide me how to do so.

Thank you for your help and have a nice weekend!

Alpertuzcu (talk) 04:04, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

@Alpertuzcu: To declare a conflict of interest, simply make a statement about it on your user page. Details about this can be found at WP:COI. I would again ask you if you are Alper Tuzcu. If you are only a representative of Alper Tuzcu, you will need to change your username by following the instructions at WP:CHU. If you are a representative you will also need to declare as a paid editor per WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 05:13, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

How do I discuss revisions with another editor?

I unintentionally entered into an edit war. It would have been much better had we been able to converse via Wikipedia about the article. How can I do this? Thanks, Seek Of Truth Seeker of truth 2015 (talk) 22:06, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Seeker of truth 2015, just use the article talk page or the editor's talk page. It might not be too late either. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 22:09, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Add: I looked at your edits and they are to a very contentious topic and did not have sources. You can edit controversial stuff, but many people who spend a lot of time doing so end up getting mad and quitting. The same thing with any topic that has political overtones, people are going to have opinions and they're going to argue about how something should be covered on Wikipedia. I'm not trying to dissuade you, but you may also want to do some editing on non-controversial articles. Just some advice. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 22:17, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Displaying notability

My question concerns Draft: Markus Meechan. I was told that the sources I used did not show Meechan's notability. Given that he is the centre of a story that most of the media in Scotland, and to a far lesser extent outside, has been following, and that he owns a YouTube channel with 500k subscribers, I believe he is notable. My question is: how can I show this?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheInspector5 (talk • contribs) 22:25, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi, TheInspector5. Welcome to our Teahouse, and thanks for asking a very good question. To answer very briefly: I doubt you ever will. Sorry. The problem you have here is experienced by innumerable editors who, through no fault of their own (apart from perhaps not reading or understanding our key policies and guidelines) fail to grasp the core purpose of this encyclopaedia - to gather together and present information in a neutral manner on subjects worthy of note, all backed up with references to support that information. Yes, you have met our requirement of verifiability in that you've given  reliable sources that prove this person exists. But to meet our standard for notability, we require in-depth coverage of that subject, and none of the articles you cite go anywhere near achieving that. Lots of people -good and bad- get short term coverage in newspapers because of some minor event or other. These don't interest us here. Do please read this guideline WP:NOTNEWS to learn why this encyclopaedia is not a medium for reporting on relatively insignificant people involved in short-term news events. Nobody here cares how many followers they have on social media, and you would need to have demonstrated much more coverage about the subject before your draft ever stood a chance of being accepted. I'm sorry if this disappoints you, but I do earnestly hope it won't put you off from contributing in other ways to this amazing encyclopaedia. Of course, you could always consider contributing this story to our sister project, Wikinews. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:28, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi TheInspector5 there is a "meme" about Youtube that is used here sometimes: "Being famous on Youtube is like being rich in Monopoly", it has little to no relevance outside of Youtube itself. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:53, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Can someone fix this

This article has no sources and has been tagged since 2009 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Israel_bank_stock_crisis can somebody please fix this the writing is inflammatory Flamingoflorida (talk) 05:38, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Flamingoflorida. You are now the best person in the world to improve this article. Using your Google search skills, find the best sources that describe this 1983 banking crisis. Format those sources into references, according to Referencing for beginners. Rewrite the article, summarizing what those reliable sources say about this banking crisis. The encyclopedia will be better off when you are done. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:08, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Actually Cullen328, whilst you'd normally be absolutely right to say this, I think in this particular instance, Flamingoflorida might be far from the best person in the world to edit this article. This editor has a conflict of interest on this topic and matters relating to the Renati family, and has been brought to both WP:COIN and now WP:ANI in recent days. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:59, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I see that you are right, Nick Moyes. My usual inclination is to assume good faith but sometimes evidence emerges that indicates that extra caution is required. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:29, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Edit not being reviewed?

Hello All - Merry Christmas! I recently proposed an edit to the Charles Sabine biography page on the relevant talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Charles_Sabine It was reviewed and I was told I needed references. I've added a reference, but no one has reviewed the updated page. On the first edit, I saw an indication that editors had X number of edits to review ahead of mine. On the update, I didn't see an indication. Are things just slow over the Christmas period? Have I made an error in the way I've requested the second update? Thanks! PapaPapaya1 (talk) 16:06, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, PapaPapaya1. Your edit request was answered by a volunteer editor in less than 36 hours, which I think is an excellent response time. It can take many weeks, for example, for a draft of a new article to be reviewed by volunteers. Let me offer some friendly advice to you as a paid editor: Do not complain if volunteers take some time to respond to your requests. You are getting paid and we are not. Complaining causes resentment, and you do not want that. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:48, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

How has Wikipedia changed in the last 5-ish years?

I used to be a very devoted editor to Wikipedia, and then I stopped editing about five years ago (let's say, for the sake of argument, January of 2012).

What's changed since then -- in terms of policies, technology, etc? Obviously I see we have a cool new editing interface. Did anyone ever make progress on setting up an auto-archive system to combat link rot in cited sources? What were the big scandals and crises that I missed?

Thanks! Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 19:38, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

With regards to the linkrot we now have IABot, which use can use here https://tools.wmflabs.org/iabot/index.php?page=runbotsingle -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:43, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

How do I get an article to be semi-protected?

Is there a nomination process? The Verified Cactus 100% 20:18, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

requests are made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. You'll need a valid reason Meters (talk) 20:21, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Got it, thanks The Verified Cactus 100% 20:25, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Ettiquette For Requesting A Copy Of A Deleted Page

Per the Help Desk request at 'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk#Blockfolio_page_"speedy_deleted"_but_how_can_I_modify_what_I_first_wrote?_Can't_find_history._Please_advise.' a copy of the deleted content would be expected; is there some reason it would not be forthcoming (even if only to the original author himself)? Further, the author (Corpania) had his account deleted by the editor who marked the article for deletion; is the fact of the same considered fair/standard practice for Wikipedia these days? idfubar (talk) 09:31, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello again, Idfubar. Your question has been asked and answered at several other locations, and you are unlikely to get a different answer no matter where you ask. The deleted article was completely unacceptable and there is no reason to restore it in any form. Please get the message. We do not restore content that is 100% inappropriate for the encyclopedia. Instead, please write content that is in full compliance with our policies and guidelines. Persisting in this campaign may be seen as disruptive editing, which may lead to a block. Please stop now. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 09:50, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Mmmmm... change of seasons, change of host... but only one of two questions answered? (Talk) to you later?) idfubar (talk) 09:58, 24 December 2017 (UTC)