Wikipedia:Teahouse

Welcome to the Teahouse...                        

A friendly place to learn about editing Wikipedia.

Ask a question

331dot, a Teahouse host

Question forum

Host profiles

Guest profiles

Experienced editor? Become a host!

Learn more about the Teahouse

Articles to improve

Question archive

Guest archive

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

Help Wikipedia

Is there a criteria for image replacement in an article?

Hello Teahouse. I do some editing but most of my contributions to Wikipedia have been images and I am starting to get into video. It has not become an issue yet but I have wondered if there is a criteria for replacing an existing User:image in an topic article with a better one? I do not intend to offend but if I have a better image (better illustration of topic; sharper; better exposure; taken on a sunny day etc.), under what conditions and by what mechanism would I replace an existing image in an article?

With word editing, I would just wade in; make the edit and state my case for the change. If there is no protest after some time, my edit stands until someone changes it in the future. Does image replacement work the same way as word replacement?

Thank you in advance for your thoughts on this.GRDN711 (talk) 04:13, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

If you can provide a photo which is objectively better than the existing one - say the current one is out of focus/bad angle/obscured, it's probably best to be bold and change it. Also, depending on the article, instead of replacing the photo you may wish to add your photo in the prominent location and move an existing one elsewhere (if there is room and value in doing so). This is all contingent on there not being controversy about which image to use - in that case, you should discuss image options on the talk page. Chris857 (talk) 04:43, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

GRDN711 just to add to the above advice, bear in mind that a fair use image can never replace a free one, no matter how much better the fair use one might be. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Teahouse editors, for your advice.

All the images I work with are already in Wikimedia Commons for free use. GRDN711 (talk) 03:44, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I do this all the time, serving pictures both as a photographer and as a photo editor. Criteria are relevance first, picture quality second. Sometimes I snap a better picture and use it to replace the old picture. Sometimes, looking through Commons categories, I find a better picture than mine, whimper a minute, and replace mine with the one that does the job better. When a dispute arises over which picture will better serve the article, and one is mine, I fall silent and let other editors decide. And whimper again if they decide against me, and move on. Jim.henderson (talk) 23:51, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

If you want to be polite about it and the difference is somewhat subjective, then you could look at who contributed the image on commons and whether they are one of the active editors on the article. Much of commons is mass uploads from the Geograph or our GLAM partners such as various Libraries and museums. If you think there is now a better image available than one from such a mass upload then no-one's ego is at stake. it is the nature of mass uploads that more relevant images will arrive over time, and the best image on commons for a specific article when there were only 5 million images on commons may not still be the best now we have 45 million images. But if user:foo took the photo now in use and user:foo is a major contributor to the article, then personally I'd only replace the image if I was pretty sure there was a big difference in quality. A simple way round that is to not bother checking who contributed the original image if you are replacing a blurry photo taken through a rain covered window with one that is well lit and in focus. ϢereSpielChequers 10:04, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

How do i address what seems to be a senior contributor taking a personal affront to contributions and comments?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/TheOldJacobite seems to takr personal offense at every contribution and question i make. How do I address this at a higher level of WP?2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 23:44, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

It appears that of all the irrelevant stuff that appears on the talk pages and articles of WP that what i contribute seems to have all the more importance to be erased from the record? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hanna_(film)&action=history2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 00:39, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello anon. From the looks of things, your comments do appear to be ostensibly on topic, and per our guidance on editing others' comments, should generally not be edited or removed by others. I have restored them, and User:TheOldJacobite would be well advised to not remove comments that are not obvious vandalism, and if necessary, that it's usually better to hat off topic discussion, but most of the time better to leave well enough alone. GMG^talk 01:46, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Not to prolong the issue, but this contributor also found it necessary on two other articles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Talented_Mr._Ripley_(film) and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Saving_Private_Ryan .2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 02:06, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I have reverted in Talk:Saving Private Ryan and notified User:TheOldJacobite not to repeat that kind of behavior. Sam Sailor 02:16, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Let us hope that regardless how long this behavior may have been going on that there is a change. A spirit of cooperation is not encouraged by attempting to shut down another contributor and certainly not being erased from the record. Let me suggest that it also be emphasized that reverts, even by senior contributors of WP, are not of and unto themselves justification for those edits. That unless a proper justification is provided there is absolutely nothing to assist in understanding just what is needed to edit. And that edit justifications reflect the truths instead of aspirations. I am not here to power play otherwise i could have shined on all concerned long ago. If I do not have at least the talk page to air concerns then just where is it suppose to be the proper place for such fundamental activity? Like I said, I hope there is a change. Thank you all for your attention to this matter.2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 03:18, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Please indicate how those comments were relevant to improving the article, which is the purpose of the talk page, not idle chatter about the plot. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 03:29, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

@TheOldJacobite: On the face of it, the comment is a direct suggestion for a change to the plot section. How you seem to think it is "idle chatter" is at best confusing. GMG^talk 03:52, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

You seem to be confused and i can understand the inability. When someone wants to "win" a situation the attempt to discredit by characterizing something as irrelevant sparks of the point of the contrary participant having nothing better to explain. In time there will be changes. Why? Because some things becomes less relevant and the emotionalism that may be involved in plot content may change. As said in my explanations, the articles are not just for those that have seen the films and to serve only those that have is not in the best interest of WP. There is much to be explained by one's weltanschauung. The talk page is for discussion. If others feel so compelled to post something contrary then all the best for the discussion. Your views are well documented by the actions that have taken place and the resulting reprimand. If the plot is incorrect or misleads then there is something amiss. WP is not written in stone, especially for those articles rated "star".2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 07:06, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Before this goes on much further, I attempted to clarify the points at hand by editing. They were repeated reverted sometimes without justification. The only recourse I had was to open up the discussion on the talk page, where such deliberations are, according to WP editing policy, suitable. Instead of letting the issue progress if it had any tractions, it was the intent to shut down the discussion by altering the record and erasing the action. That is not the purpose of the talk page; we all know that. Yet, that is what was the course at hand. A reprimand has been issued because of that action. So regardless as to the merits of the questions about the plot statements in question, the point of the talk page is for it to play its part in the process of consensus. You were denying that the process play itself through and going against the fundamental principle of WP--cooperation. Anyways, when was a clarification an expansion? If something is misleading then just how does that serve the purpose of WP. But I digress.2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 07:39, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately,---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} has began his actions with my edit to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amistad_(film) that include material fact corrections. This time he says that I clearly do not understand WP Guidelines. A review of his edits are filled with reverts. Should he have such a right to unilaterally determine that what anyone suggests for the plot be reverted continually on such blanket statements that something does not improve a current plot? Like I said, some of these edits I proposed correct facts.2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 15:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Another editor reverted the contribution without justification and I asked on their talk page why. The editor eventually said that I did not site anything. I was not aware that a plot needed citations if the documentation is the film? At question is: the number of Africans imprisoned: The president said 54; they are feed mush not food that would produce crumbs; There were also Tenme in the group which is found by understanding the African languages used in the film; and the name of the ship should be translated just as we translate foriegn language films. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 19:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I want to know how to upload images to a Talk page.

I have already asked but have not received an understandable solution.

The page is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_emitter#Characteristics

There is a serious error, a commonly believed fallacy, which I want to point out and explain why it is a fallacy.

Reference was made, in previous efforts to help, of Wiki Commons or some such and I don't understand. Syncopator (talk) 23:50, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Syncopator: you can't upload images to a talk page, just as you can't upload them to an article. You can upload them to Wikimedia Commons, and then use them in an article or talk page. Maproom (talk) 00:12, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Syncopator: I am a little dubious about whether that is an appropriate use of a talk page. Wikipedia articles summarise what reliable sources say: they mustn't advance arguments or reach conclusions unless they are reporting the argument or conclusioninf a particular source. If you are discussing the way that the sources are selected or used in the article, that is entirely appropriate for the Talk page; but if you are advancing an argument that goes beyond what the reliable sources say, I don't see how that can be appropriate. (I have not looked at the issue, so I may be misunderstanding you). --ColinFine (talk) 11:34, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

ColinFine.

I thought that was exactly what a talk page was for. If that is incorrect, what IS it for? And, where or how can I make the author of the article aware of the error and explain why it is an error? Syncopator (talk) 19:39, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

An article that is written like a travel brochure

I found an article that is written in a NPOV manner. It sounds like it is written by members of the community as an ad or travel brochure. I have no idea how to fix it. I thought I would at least throw this out.

Some quotes.

"It was founded and led by Norman Paulsen, one of the direct disciples of Paramahansa Yogananda. As a child, Norman repeatedly experienced visions of a long-haired man with lustrous dark eyes. When he met the yogi, he felt that here was the man of his visions."

"Tucked away in the beautiful central coast hills, exists a place where people of common thread gather regularly. The Sanctuary's large meditation/prayer lodge on Sunday morning is usually filled with music generated by percussion, strings, and voice; thoughtful message; a vibrating stillness."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunburst_(community) 138.229.206.34 (talk) 03:50, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

138.229.206.34, thanks for bringing this to our attention! I have removed some of the more blatant bits and tagged the page. MatthewVanitas (talk) 07:25, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I see how you trimmed it down to the facts. Good lesson for me. 138.229.206.34 (talk) 07:52, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Why is my Draft of Merlin Project (Software) not published?

Hi, I'm wondering why my draft for an article about the Merlin Project software is not published? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Merlin_Project_(Software) Can anybody help? Thanks. Auctificus (talk) 07:37, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

It has not been published because it has not yet been submitted for review. A WMF software change altered the label on the button "Save changes" to "Publish changes" (without changing many of the instructions which refer to it by its previous name), but it does not publish it as an article. To submit it for review you need to add {{subst:submit}} to the top of the draft, but it would be pointless to do so at present because there are no independent references. All the references come from the company. You need to read Wikipedia's definition of notability, and it would also be wise for you to read the guidance at WP:Your first article. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:06, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

@David Biddulph: I believe I've now managed to update every single main help page and screenshot. Please advise if you encounter any I've missed, or where the distinction between "Publish changes" and "publish" to mainspace remains unclear. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 11:00, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

How to be an efficient wiki contributor?

I am new to Wikipedia and I would like to hear from the experienced contributors on how to become an effective editor asap. Would like to hear some personal insights preferably. Jefinjo (talk) 07:42, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is built on consensus, and any article will be built faster and better by a team of editors than an individual. I would suggest joining WikiProjects which interest you, and working as part of a unit on those, as a gateway to efficiency. This will also give you the practice with editing necessary to become effective. Stormy clouds (talk) 07:59, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hey Jefinjo. I see you've already found the Wikipedia Adventure, which is a good start as far as a general familiarization goes. Other than that, honestly, the most effective way that I've found to learn about Wikipedia is to be publicly and spectacularly wrong (see also WP:BEBOLD). Trust me, there will seldom if ever be any shortage of people lining up to correct you, and all you have to do is be willing to listen and learn from them. Don't be afraid to make a robust argument, because that how you tell whether you've happened upon someone else who is also publicly and spectacularly wrong, but if their argument winds up being better in the end, then it usually means you've managed to learn something new. GMG^talk 08:08, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Jefinjo, and welcome. I suspect each of us has a very different story to tell about how we first got involved with Wikipedia. What makes some of us stay here (and gain that experience) is the realisation that we're helping create or maintain an amazing world-wide, free resource of knowledge. It's so often the first port of call for many people seeking information, and being able to contribute to that is reward enough. For a minority, its a place to mess around and vandalise, but these people soon get blocked from editing. If you're interested, I've put an old video at the top of my UserPage which tells my own story of how I got involved with Wikipedia, and some of the lessons I quickly learned along the way. (Pooor sound quality, though). I've just looked back at my very first edits in 2010, and I evidently chose to visit articles I had an interest and knowledge in, and simply made very small efforts to improve some of them. The hardest bit, for me, was adding references to support the facts I was inserting, because I'd not realised our editing tools contained easy-to-use "Cite" templates to capture and insert all the information. I was doing it all by hand, and it took an age! It was 12 months before I felt confident to create my first article, but it's now available on 17 different language Wikis, which is quite rewarding to see.

Sharing knowledge with others has always been my driver in life, as has learning new skills. Wikipedia fulfils both for me. Later, I got into little routine jobs, like using special tools to automatically spot and correct spelling errors during my lunch breaks. This then led me towards more of the behind-the-scenes maintenance tasks that keep Wikipedia running smoothly. And here I now am, still learning, but also sharing and guiding where I can. We have tons and tons of guidance pages on how to do stuff well, though do not let yourself be overwhelmed by any of them. Just be bold! I put this "next steps" handout together a few days ago for brand new editors who attend Wikipedia gatherings in person. It's not been tested yet, but do let me know if you find it of use to you, or would like to make any suggestions to better meet your needs (or fears!) as a new editor. Good luck on your journey. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:50, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

What should I do?

Hi! Now my article Draft:Long Yang is already pending for review. There is a problem about this draft. The problem is, the subject is quite notable, but there isn't enough sources that meets WP:42 to show her notability. So, although the subject is notable, my draft might be rejected by the reason of notability because there isn't enough good sources. In this case, what should I do? And it's best to review my draft before March, because I will not be able to edit from March to June. Give me some suggestions, please! Omega68537 (talk) 13:10, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Omega68537. I'm afraid you are confusing two meanings of "notable": the usual one and the Wikipedia one. Wikipedia uses the word in a special way, and it means precisely "there [are] enough sources that meet[s] WP:42 to show her notability". If there are not enough such sources, then by definition she is not currently notable by Wikipedia's standards, and it is not possible to write an article about her that will be accepted. Sorry. --ColinFine (talk) 13:16, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

can i make my own page for a museum

can i make my own page? Gagariniew (talk) 14:16, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Gagariniew. Anybody is welcome to edit Wikipedia, including creating a new article. But please be aware that creating an article is on of the harder tasks on Wikipedia: I suggest you spend some time working on existing articles first, andthen read your first article and see if you can find enough indepdendent published sources about the museum to ground an article. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by ColinFine (talk • contribs)

@Gagariniew:: ColinFine is right to advise you to learn to make simple edits first. I'd also suggest you take the interactive tour at The Wikipedia Adventure, which is a great introduction to the basics. As an ex-museum person myself, I'd welcome seeing good article on any notable museum. The key is in the word Notable, so do check that word I've just hyperlinked. Some so-called 'museums' are little more than an amateur collection of bits and pieces, whilst others will be important (and notable) repositories of local artefacts, specimens, documents or data. You might well like to check out one of our so called "WikiProjects" which coordinates a lot of themed work. (See: WikiProject Museums) One final point - nobody here makes their "own page". Everyone shares and collaborates. Those who think they own their own page are usually the ones who represent an organisation, and that can be an awkward for them when they discover that we're an encylcopaedia, assembling facts in a subject in a neutral manner, rather than giving free promotion or advertising. Do come back if you need any further advice on anything. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 15:03, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Resubmitting article

Hi,

I've re-edited an article about David Williams-Ellis that was rejected. I'm a bit stuck as to how to resubmit it or speak to the person who rejected it to see if the changes I've made will allow it to be published. Any help or advice will be greatly appreciated.

Many thanks,

EmmaJayneRW EmmaJayneRW (talk) 16:50, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

The pink box at the top of your draft has a blue button labelled "Resubmit". That is the button to use when you wish to resubmit. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:53, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Please mention classification system in infobox

I have a request on improving taxobox. On a taxobox for a taxa; it should be explicitely mentioned; which system of classification has been used. If a mixture of system has been done (although that is highly unrecommended). It is important because classification systems change; where not only the taxa fusion and splits; but ranks of the taxa sometimes changes; and although quite rarely; rank names too changed. So whenever publish a taxobox; please mention which system of classification is followed. Best if a taxobox contain 2 or 3 columns for the hierarchies according to separate classification systems. This not only improve correctness of the articles; but also will work as better reference and would help literature search. RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 16:51, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello, RIT RAJARSHI. You really need to bring this up with people who have a special interest or knowledge of the subject. I suggest either Template Talk:Taxobox or WT:WikiProject Tree of Life. --ColinFine (talk) 17:48, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

@ColinFine: Thank you very much for your kind attention. RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 19:28, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

For those interested in this topic, it has been helpfully continued here. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:23, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Already exists

Hey, I'm confused -- I had an article declined b/c it already exists, except it was only created a few days ago and my original one was submitted last month (and it seemed like the reviewer was unsure about its notability). I guess I'm just confused about how it already exists *after* the one I started? I'm referring to A Few 'Gurt Men and Draft:A Few 'Gurt Men (the one I tried submitting) ohmyerica (talk) 18:08, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

• Okay, I now realize that the original redirect was made last February (because I don't even know the current date apparently!) and that article was apparently written a few days ago. I guess the question is still sort-of standing though. Is this just what happens when a draft is submitted, since there might be duplicate drafts? ohmyerica (talk) 18:11, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

It's always a good idea to check whether an article already exists before you spend time creating a new draft, but you probably did that and saw that it was only a redirect. I can see that your draft was written before Sasha Leiva666's version. Perhaps you could work together to create a good article? Your additions and references might help to establish WP:Notability. I'm not sure whether there is any other process available. An admin might be able to advise? Dbfirs 20:37, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Title for a new page with a common name

Hello, I wanted to create a profile for an individual with a somewhat common name. There are already several Jeff Smith articles out there. Do you just create the title with the parenthetical in it already and that suffices? Uhtregorn (talk) 18:25, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

As there are multiple Jeff Smith articles, there is a disambiguation page. If you are creating a new article, title it with the profession of the subject in parentheses. e.g. if he were a golfer, the title would be Jeff Smith (golfer). Hope that this helps. Stormy clouds (talk) 19:04, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Seems straightforward enough. Uhtregorn (talk) 20:27, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

But unless you are very experienced in creating new articles, Uhtregorn, I strongly advise you to use the WP:Article Wizard and create a draft, in any case. If you do so, then when you submit it for review and a reviewer accepts it, they will sort out the naming of the article. --ColinFine (talk) 22:31, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

How do i create a humorous wikipedia essay?

I really like the ones i've seen so far, and would like to create one, is it like simply creating a normal wikipedia article, or are there any special requirements/steps, i ask because i don't wish to disturb the community if i screw it up, thanks! Da_dilo_dude (talk) 19:23, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Fell free to make an essay on any Wikipedia related topic. Pls see WP:PRJCRE.. just need to put it in the Wikipedia namespace.....like Wikipedia:Tim Hortons.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Moxy (talk • contribs)

And make sure to stick with some site-wide policies like WP:CIVIL, WP:COPYVIO, and WP:BLP. Like, you don't need to cite sources (although I did in Wikipedia:WikiBadger) or whatever, but anything that might result in legal troubles for the site or personally insult its members should be avoided. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:30, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

New to this

I amd trying to add some information to articles and I can't get the hyperlink to copy, I had to paste the entire link into the article, AND what if I find a section that is just wrong and without reference to a reliable findable source, do I just delete it? Do I need to somehow write and publish a reason? Thomas-Robert (talk) 23:00, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

In regards to your first issue, I formatted and sourced it for you. On the second problem, where you find a section which is entirely unsourced, raise this issue on the article's talk page to get the view point of other editors. If it is blatantly and demonstrably incorrect, remove it and state so in your edit summary. However, avoid violating the policy regarding reverts to other editors' edits, as doing so constitutes edit warring. Stormy clouds (talk) 23:17, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Thomas-Robert, welcome to the Teahouse. Click the "View history" tab to see what Stormy clouds did, but I would actually have done it differently and written ''[[Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co.]]'' to produce Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co. See Help:Link for more details. The double apostrophes produce italics. What do you mean by "findable" in "without reference to a reliable findable source"? If there is a source in the article then others may be able to find it. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:28, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

@Prime Hunter: - thanks, as what I had originally done was unorthodox. I had intended to link to the article above with different text, but reneged on this idea and forgot to change it. Streamlined now. Thanks. Stormy clouds (talk) 23:33, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

By findable I am talking about something that may not be on the web, such as the hard copy of a Supreme Court Case. Noting that I have two different versions of the same case obtained from what I would consider reliable sources; and that the official version is the hard-copy in Supreme Court Reports. For the record one of the versions is from lexus nexus, which I do not think is linkable anyway. Looks like I need to make a trip to a well stocked law library. Thomas-Robert (talk) 01:02, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Thomas-Robert, good news/bad news. First, the good. There is no requirement for sources to be online. Bad news is, a court case is a primary source. Primary sources have very little use in an encyclopedia. See WP:PRIMARY for further details. Generally secondary sources (Examples of which would be case reviews in a journal or textbook) which discuss the case are far superior sources. John from Idegon (talk) 02:27, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Real Madrid VS Barcelona

I am going to make a article on Real Madrid VS Barcelona. Will it be accepted?Mystery Bros (talk) 00:33, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Mystery Bros. We already have an article, El Clásico, about the rivalry between Real Madrid and FC Barcelona. We should only have one article for each topic. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:59, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@Mystery Bros: I see you created Real Madrid Vs FC Barcelona. I have redirected it to El Clásico. Please try to find out whether an article already exists. At an absolute minimum, enter the wanted title in the search box and see the first search results. The first one says "El Clásico (redirect from FC barcelona vs Real Madrid)". Your page [1] was also very unsuited as an article. Please use Wikipedia:Articles for creation but note it is difficult for new users to write an acceptable article from scratch. I recommend you don't try it again. I see you also created Draft:India VS Pakistan Cricket and was also told there that India–Pakistan cricket rivalry (the first search result) already exists. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:17, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the answers. Also, I wasn't anywhere near finishing the article so now I know not to continueMystery Bros (talk) 01:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

What is wikipedia's stance

on including wikilinks that take the reader to the Swedish language version of wikipedia? Carptrash (talk) 00:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Carptrash. Please read Help:Interlanguage links for details of when this is appropriate and how to do it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:05, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Nonprofit creating page

The Joy Bus is a 501(c)3 nonprofit in Phoenix, AZ and we would like to create a Wikipedia page for our organization. We have been featured in many Arizona media sources, as well as the national Costco Connection. Are these sources appropriate and sufficient for us to create an article? TheJoyBusOrg (talk) 01:44, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@TheJoyBusOrg: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You will need to do some things beforehand; first you will need to change your username as usernames cannot be that of an organization. This can be done at WP:CHU. Second you will need to review the conflict of interest policy at WP:COI and the paid editing policy at WP:PAID(If you are paid to edit) and make the appropriate declarations. If you have reviewed the notability guidelines listed at WP:ORG and truly feel that you can write a neutral article indicating how your organization is notable, please use Articles for creation. Please understand that in order to be successful(writing a Wikipedia article is very difficult even for uninvolved editors) you will need to forget everything you know about your organization and only write based on what independent sources state. This is usually difficult though not impossible for people in your situation to do. 331dot (talk) 01:57, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

User Essay

I know I am an experienced editor but I have a question. Can I make a user essay called User:Thegooduser/WhyeditWikipedia? or something similar to that under the userspace? Thegooduser talk 02:14, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@Thegooduser: Yes. Wikipedia related essays are allowed in your userspace. See WP:USER for what is/is not allowed there. RudolfRed (talk) 02:31, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Assistance with paid/COI editing

I've recently noticed some odd editing on the Olivia Palermo page, from an account with a (to me) name suspiciously sounding like a PR rep or something. Having reverted some of their edits and getting some of the copyright violating images deleted, I left a message on their talk page. Today I got this reply back, and although I could quote wp:paid and wp:coi at them, I'm not sure I'm experienced enough to address this properly! Any help would be much appreciated. In cases like this is it better to try and engage or to report to a relevant place? Beevil (talk) 09:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Leaving a message about COI on their user page is certainly something you're welcome to do, Beevil. There's Template:Uw-coi, which can be used for this purpose. If you don't feel confident dealing with this alone, there is always Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. I also wonder whether the editor's username represents a company, in which case it violates Wikipedia:Username policy#Usernames implying shared use. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:38, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry: Thanks, I've responded to their message and posted the template on their talk page, I hope everything I've said is correct and reasonable. The mention of legal counsel is what made me slightly wary to start with. Beevil (talk) 11:01, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I was a little concerned at that too, Beevil. But the relevant policy is No legal threats. I don't think he's quite in that territory, but perhaps he should be warned about it. --ColinFine (talk) 16:46, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Panettone

Thanks for the interesting article! I am sending it to friends who liked when I served some slices of it in the afternoon tea yesterday. There is a correction that can be made in the text. When it is said that is a tradition in Argentina for Christmas, and that it is enjoyed wih HOT CHOCOLATE or LIQUOR.... This is wrong. Christmas is in the summer time in South America! and we eat PANETTONE with vold cider! that is the tradition. You can correct it. Thanks for all your work! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.128.234.33 (talk) 09:46, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Even if you don't wish to make such a correction yourself(which is OK), the best place to ask others to do so is the article talk page(click "Talk" at the top of the article). 331dot (talk) 10:56, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hello anonymous IP. We;re glad you liked the article in Panettone - just one of over 5.5 million now on Wikipedia. If you'd like to make suggestions to improve any article, the best place to do it is at the Talk Page for that topic, namely: Talk:Panettone. It is important that you make your suggestion and also supply a reference to support any additional fact that you want to have someone add. For example, whilst you may know something in your country is a local tradition, it's not acceptable just to add it - Wikipedia must have "proof" in the form of a published article that refers to that tradition. Without that, everyone would starts to look at those 5 million articles and just wonder whether they're just full of opinions of individual editors rather than reported facts. I like the sound of Pannettone and cold cider - so maybe someone has published an article on the Christmas traditions in Argentina which mentions this? If so, feel free to add it yourself, if you wish. If not, it's sensible to leave it out. It's also best to register for a free account, but you can just edit as an IP, as you've done here. Regards from a wintery UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 11:07, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Advice around a 'band' page appreciated....

Hello Teahouse.

Let me begin by pointing out I’m well aware of the dialogue around ‘band’ pages and as a Wiki reader I too have no interest in reading sensationalised or self-promotional accounts of those seeking exposure.

I have however created a band page myself (for good reasons, see below) with the aim that it is factual and objective; it quotes reputable third party sources. I appreciate the self-creation of the page represents a conflict of interest and can only offer that, as an independent artist without the traditional machinery of record label/management company, the self-authoring of the contribution is pragmatism; there is no-one else to do it. I assure you my interests in Wiki are practical and educational only as there are many other avenues through which one can promote. The page has been submitted with the title of Talk-Show (the hyphen is important as it disambiguates from another act of the same name).

The educational need arises as the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) are giving the acts’ output broadcasting rotation, which comes with a profile page on the BBC website.

The BBC are unable – due to their own limited resources – to populate artist profile pages on their own website. As the artist however I am able to request from the BBC an auto-import of artist profile data from Wiki. Without a Wiki page my artist profile page remains empty, leaving BBC audiences with an impression that the act is uninterested in offering any helpful information to listeners. I’m aware this is my problem alone, nonetheless I appeal to your public spirit for advice.62.232.40.98 (talk) 10:33, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

You haven't stated what article or draft this is about, and I have failed to find it – but some editors here have near-psychic powers, and may be able to help. You question is unclear, but the gist seems to be that you want to use Wikipedia to further your career with the BBC. That is not what Wikipedia is for. My advice is: don't do it. Maproom (talk) 10:46, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I couldn't find it either and it is difficult to evaluate the article otherwise. I would second what Maproom said. You might meet the notability criteria which specifically state "Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network". However, it isn't Wikipedia's job to make up for the BBC. That's something you should do on a website of your own or social media. If no third party sources write about you, there cannot be an article about you at this time, even if you meet the notability criteria. Please review the autobiography policy; autobiographical articles are highly discouraged. Your best bet is to just allow others to write about you when the sources are there. You cannot use Wikipedia to advance your career in any way. 331dot (talk) 10:53, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks both Maproom and 331dot for your responses. Yes, fully understand the conflict of interest in writing autobiographical content, and as I've explained I've aimed not to fall into usual traps in doing so - that said neither of your are able to view the article and so can't evaluate. It has been published as Talk-Show, though I can't see it yet either. Perhaps it has not been moderated/approved for publication yet. I appreciate both of your time in responding.62.232.40.98 (talk) 11:24, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

We could view it if you could link to the article. It is not under your IPs edit history so I assume you either created it under a different one or under a username. While you don't have to tell us if you have reasons for not doing so, it is difficult to help you if you don't. 331dot (talk) 11:30, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks 331dot. I am now logged in under the ID with which I created the page and offer this as a url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dylanpops

It may well be that I have incorrectly created the page, hence it's not appearing. Hopefully you may advise. Your comments are very much appreciated.Dylanpops (talk) 11:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Dylanpops, ok, you shouldn´t have it exactly there, the userpage is for saying something like "This is me, this is what I do on WP" or whatever. I suggest you go here: Wikipedia:Drafts, scroll down to "Create a new draft" and copy your text to the new draft, then you can work on it there. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:28, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Ok, your userpage is now deleted, more at User_talk:Dylanpops. If you're not to discouraged, you can still make a draft. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:16, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Grabergs Graa Sang, 331dot and jimfbleak for your time, trouble and insights. I have taken your comments on board and had another attempt at a page, which I hope will meet Wiki's criteria. I'd be grateful if any of you would review it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Talk-Show_(UK_band)Dylanpops (talk) 21:15, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Creation of a Wikipedia page for Luxexcel (company)

Hello Teahouse,

I am a new user looking to contribute to Wikipedia content. To start with, I would like to create a page for Luxexcel, a Dutch-Belgian company that invented a 3D printing technology to produce optical lenses. Currently the company does not have a page on Wikipedia. Could you please advice me how to proceed?

Please note that I am employed by Luxexcel. Thank you in advance for your help. Sridharashok (talk) 11:18, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@Sridharashok: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The first thing you need to do is review the conflict of interest policy at WP:COI and the paid editing policy at WP:PAID, the latter of which is required by Wikipedia's Terms of Use for paid editors. Those pages will tell you to make a formal declaration of your conflict of interest and employment on your user page(click your username either here or at the top of the screen).

Please understand that creating a new article is very difficult, even for editors not associated with a subject. The subject must be written about in independent reliable sources that indicate how the subject is notable(as Wikipedia defines it). In your case, it is harder (though not impossible) due to your COI. You must forget everything you know about your company and write only based on what independent sources state about it. That's usually difficult for people in your situation to do, though it is possible. Please understand that not every company merits an article here. If you truly feel that you can write an article about your company with the proper neutral point of view, you should use Articles for Creation to submit a draft. If you just want to tell the world about your company, you should use social media. 331dot (talk) 11:25, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I've placed some helpful links on your user talk page as well. I would close by informing you that a page about your company is not necessarily a good thing(see WP:PROUD). You cannot lock it to the text your company might prefer to see, cannot prevent others from editing it, and cannot keep "bad" information out. As long as information appears in an independent reliable source, it can generally be in a Wikipedia article, good or bad. Please keep that in mind. 331dot (talk) 11:27, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your response @331dot - really appreciate it! I will read the guidelines thoroughly before proceeding. I do understand the consequences of writing a Wikipedia article about the company I work for. My sole intention to provide a connection between 3D printing (the technology) and the inventor of a specific category of 3D printing, which is Luxexcel. Additionally, I would also like to write an article about the technology in question.

Sridharashok (talk) 11:33, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

How to publish a Biography of a living person

Hello,

Am new to this forum, so naturally, i am having a bit of a hard time creating and uploading a biography of someone. However, since am keen and eager to learn the ropes, I will appreciate any help that I can get. My challenge right now is "The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes." The challenge is that most of the information is from the subject of the Biography, so I could use some guidance on how to come up with footnotes. Thanks. Ndiwulira (talk) 11:53, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@Ndiwulira: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is only interested in what independent reliable sources state about a subject. You will need sources not affiliated with this person in order to have an article about them on Wikipedia. If no independent sources write about them, it will not be possible to have an article about them at this time. If you do have such sources, you should review WP:CITE for information on citing those sources.

I would ask you if you are associated with this person in some way. Thanks 331dot (talk) 11:57, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Renaming a draft page

I've recently created a draft page for the upcoming animated film, Foster. The title of the draft is Draft:Foster (film). Right after creating the page, I learned that an article with a topic unrelated to my draft page has the same title: Foster (film). I want to change the title for my draft page, but I don't want to move it to a different page and create a redirect out of the old page. I just want to have the article renamed without creating any more pages in the process. What can I do? Superchunk22 (talk) 12:17, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@Superchunk22: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Renames are accomplished through a page move; however, since your page is a draft, I wouldn't worry about the exact title right now. If the page is accepted, the reviewer will put it at an appropriate title. 331dot (talk) 12:33, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh, ok, thanks for the help. Superchunk22 (talk) 20:12, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Article for deletion

I had an article that was proposed for deletion by some person I dont know. I wasnt completed the article so should I worry about it being deletedMystery Bros (talk) 12:26, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@Mystery Bros: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The method of deletion they have used allows for a week before it is deleted, and if the reviewing admin feels deletion is not warranted, they will remove the tag at that time. You are also permitted to remove that particular deletion tag yourself, although the nominator could pursue other methods of deletion such as a deletion discussion. I would encourage you to review Your First Article to learn what is being looked for in articles. 331dot (talk) 12:31, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Deleted per WP:CSD#G10 -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:02, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Translation from French Wikipedia

Hello everyone ! As I mainly contribute to French Wikipedia, I do not know every aspect of contribution here. Yesterday, I created an article about . I have just found a translation in English created shortly after (Andrew Parsons (Sports Leader)). Great. But this is a word-by-word translation, but there is no credits or mention translated from as we usually do on fr:. Is that normal ? Thank you for your answer. VateGV ^{◦ Discuss? ◦ Discuter ? ◦} 18:31, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

No, it is not the way things should be done. Your work should be attributed. Unfortunately, I see that the person who did the translation does this for every article they create, so they have some work ahead of them to fix this. We will have attribution for your work added to the article history and to the article the talk page. Thanks for your contributions, and sorry about that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your reply and for your help. VateGV ^{◦ Discuss? ◦ Discuter ? ◦} 19:43, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

about editing wiki pages

once you edit something, and it may not be correct.. will a helpful source come back and edit it properly? Kylam2002 (talk) 19:18, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@Kylam2002: - If you edit something which is factually incorrect, and do not provide references from reliable sources to support your edit, it will more than likely be reverted by another user. If you edited something which you know is incorrect, this is an unconstructive edit and possibly vandalism, and you should remove the edit yourself manually. However, if it is an accidental error, fear not, as another editor will likely fix it and reference with a helpful source. Stormy clouds (talk) 19:30, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

They were probably asking about this edit. It has been reverted and they have been warned. ~ GB fan 19:35, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@GB fan: thanks. That is a very weird edit, in that it is clearly detrimental to article quality, but not the extreme and overt vandalism which we so often see on en.wiki. Anyhow, thanks for handling that, and my notes regarding the original question stand. Stormy clouds (talk) 19:44, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Vat 19 Article

Would a vat 19 article make it out? Also, I'm sure I won't finish by today so will I receive a message saying this could be deleted or something like that? Mystery Bros (talk) 00:40, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Work on the article in Draft space like your other drafts and submit for review when ready. WP:NODEADLINE RudolfRed (talk) 01:58, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, to be pedantic, there is a deadline for drafts: after six months without any edit, drafts become eligible for speedy deletion G13 (though it can still be recovered afterwards). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 14:56, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Mystery Bros (talk) 01:35, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

user essay

Does an user essay need references? Thegooduser talk 02:48, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Essays in your userspace can be about whatever you want them to be (subject to certain Wikipedia policies and some modicum of common sense; i.e. no copyvios, no attacks on others, no polemical or abusive writing), and do not need references. If it goes too far afield from Wikipedia's core purpose, it may be deleted, of course, but if you have something to write you think may be helpful to others at Wikipedia, go at it. Wikipedia:Essays has more information. --Jayron32 02:59, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

@Jayron32: My essay is called User:Thegooduser/Why I shouldn't edit Wikipedia can you check it to see if it is suitable for Wikipedia Guidelines? Thanks Thegooduser talk 03:05, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I see nothing wrong with that. --Jayron32 03:07, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Please assist in improving this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Thale_Katlego_Letheo

It was declined on the basis below:

Here's the issue: from what I've spot-checked, most of your references either don't mention Letheo, or are written/spoken by her. Neither of which help her meet WP:Notability (athletes). I understand that there's a lot of politics involved re African women athletes and the South African government, but if there simply isn't information out there about her in WP:Reliable sources, we just don't have much to work with.

If African women mountaineers are under-covered in the media, that's the media's fault, not Wikipedia's fault. If that is the case, I agree it's lamentable, but basing Letheo's article on unreliable or absent sources does nothing to fix that media bias, it would just result in her having a weak article of low-credibility, which wouldn't solve anything.

All of the notes pointed are correct. I know this climber personally and I am assisting with this project. Is there a way to improve it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RSAMountaineer (talk • contribs) 05:50, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Dear, you are doing a great job developing local content on sports women. But you have to do this ethically and follow the guidelines. Find sources to cite other than your own understanding or knowledge. You would also have to remove the social media links in the external links section. Wikipedia:Ten Simple Rules for Editing WikipediaDanidamiobi (talk) 08:43, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I think once she actually achieves the seven summits challenge she will definitely receive significant media coverage as the first black African woman to reach the highest peaks on all seven continents, and will then meet our notability criteria as a result. (One of my ex-climbing partners had that ambition, too, though she never achieved them all.) But, for the moment, I think this is simply a case of being WP:TOOSOON, though well worth keeping in your sandbox for later use. (Remember that untouched Draft Articles are liable to be deleted after 6 months of inactivity) It looks like she might be aiming for Everest again in 2018. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 11:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

How do I (1) upload a photo and (2) makes reference links

Hello, joined today and wish to add a photo, a further description and a couple of book references to a Grevillea reference already here on Wikipedia. - I have read the instructions and tried and go totally confused. - I have read the questions and answers below and got totally confused. - What is the picture library and where do I find that which someone mentioned in an answer below - can I upload a photo directly to the article? - What size picture is accepted? Thank you Kalaryder (talk) 07:46, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello Kalaryder welcome to our friendly Teahouse. It's great to see someone wanting to improve botanical articles, though you have chosen two quite hard tasks on your first day of editing. Maybe take one step at a time and do some minor rewording or grammar enhancement to get a feel of the tool wouldn't be a bad idea. First of all, have you already found the photo on Wikimedia Commons that you want to insert, or is it a new photograph which you own the rights to that you want to upload?  If you can answer that one, we'll know the best advice to then give you. Here is the category of images for the taxon. There's a search bar at the top right of the page.

Meanwhile, may I suggest you read this advice sheet which should assist you: Help:Referencing for beginners. In essence, either of our editing tools has a "cite" template which you find by looking for the "cite" button. You'll then see a template with fields which you fill in for title, author, date, publisher, etc. Don't worry if you make a mistake when editing. So long as you realise it, you can quickly go to the View History tab, look for your last edit at the top, and click "undo". That'll return the article to how it was before you tried to work on it. We all make mistakes from time to time, so it's a nice option to be able to fall back on. Nobody can break Wikipedia like that! Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:34, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

The above answer is better than a canned reply, but I will still give the canned reply with barebones instructions for image upload:

To use an image on Wikipedia, follow these steps:

1. Ascertain carefully the copyright status of the image. If in doubt, ask. As a rule of thumb, images that you did not take yourself are almost always under copyright, and images that you took can be released under a free license.
2. If the image is in the public domain, or under a free license compatible with Wikimedia Commons' license requirements, or if you hold the copyrights and are willing to release the image under such a license, upload it on Wikimedia Commons using the Upload Wizard.
3. If the image is neither public domain nor available under a free license, check whether it satisfies all non-free content criteria. In particular, photographs of living people almost never qualify. If it does not, it cannot be used on Wikipedia; do not upload it. If it does, upload it on Wikipedia (not on Wikimedia Commons).
4. Once the image has been uploaded to the Wikimedia Foundation's servers (either to Commons or Wikipedia), follow the steps in the picture tutorial to place the image in an article.

Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 14:54, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi and thank you

the photos I intend to use will all be my own. I spend a lot of time photographing wildflowers in Western Australia. No the flower I intend to use is not showing beside the article I wish to add it too. Yes willing to release it - thank you I will add to the Upload Wizard.

I will struggle through the reading again for referencing - it's a pity I need to do that as I can describe the plants much better through my personal viewing of them. Can I describe the plants such a way without having find someone else's description and paraphrasing? Thanks Kalaryder (talk) 23:56, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia newbie - need your opinion on the article

Hello, dear Wikipedia community!

I'm a newbie here and I have never wrote any articles on Wikipedia, so I need your opinion on the article I'm working on. I'll really appreciate any advice you can give. I try to stick to the rules, but there's still a chance that I've missed something important while editing the article.

Here's a link on the draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:ESforce

Much appreciated! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MariaKR (talk • contribs) 14:01, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

According to the article, ESforce is a holding company, now owned and controlled by a bigger company. So it's not an independent business, and it doesn't actually do anything, it just owns other business. It sounds like something of interest only to accountants. Maproom (talk) 14:14, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Maproom, thank you for your comment! According to the documents, ESforce is still an independent business, which operates with subsidiaries (it's a common practice in Russia). So I'm not quite sure that writing the opposite will correspond to reality. But if this is important, I can remove the mention of the holding's independence from the article. MariaKR (talk • 08:50, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. I haven't fully examined all the sources, but they seem to be press-release type announcements of routine business transactions, which the notability guidelines for organizations at WP:ORG specifically state are not acceptable to establish notability. What is needed is in depth coverage of this company in independent reliable sources, which does not include press releases or routine business announcements. 331dot (talk) 14:18, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello, 331dot, and thank you for a warm welcome! I've tried to search more sources, but (sadly) there seems to be not enough publications about this holding on English. There're plenty of russian sources with a great variety of opinions, but I can't add them to the english Wikipedia (according to the rules). So, I tried to use materials from popular and non-promotional media. MariaKR (talk • 08:50, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Translation of the article of my company from French to English

Dear Teahouse, I am Asdesas4, nice to meet you!

I am a new contributor in the English version of Wikipedia, but already experimented in the French version.

Actually, I wrote an article in French for my company : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragone. so I am a paid contributor. My article has been improved and validated from many French Wikipedia collaborators. I am convinced that as Dragone is an international company that produces shows all over the world (just as the Cirque du Soleil do), this article may have an interest in the English version of Wikipedia.

Could I create here the English version of this article? It should have the same references as there are articles from international media and newspapers.

Fortunately for me I have colleagues that speak a better English than me, so the English version would be perfect.

What do you think of my project ? Can I start to work on it? Or who should I ask?

Asdesas4 (talk) 15:06, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

@Asdesas4: - Given your conflict of interest, policy would indicate that you probably should not write the article yourself. However, if you are proposing a direct translation, this should be fine, and your focus should primarily be on ensuring that the article scans properly in English, given the differences between English and French in terms of terminology, grammar and syntax. Si vous voulez commencer ce project, je pourrais t'aider avec votre traduction, et corriger les erreurs. Stormy clouds (talk) 17:04, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

@Stormy clouds: Thank you so much for your answer. I will do my best to show you the most accomplished possible article and then your check is going to be very very helpful. Let's keep in touch! Et merci d'avance

Asdesas4 (talk) 08:50, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Submitting for review?

Hi guys - I've spent a fair bit of time editing my article and I think I'm at the point where I should submit it for review. However, it still has some minor issues in it (I can't figure out how to format the See Also section correctly) and am not sure if a few places need additional references. Ideally, I'd like to be able to submit it for review so I can at least get feedback on what I currently have written.

Can anyone tell me what happens after you submit an article for review? Will I get feedback and have a chance to implement changes? Or is there a risk of it getting completely rejected?

Thanks in advance to anyone who can shed some light on this. (Article: Draft:Scrap Arts Music)

CanadianMusicFan3 (talk) 15:09, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello CanadianMusicFan3 and welcome to the Teahouse.

I edited your draft to make the See also section look more standard, but two of those entries should be removed and the targets wikilinked in the body of the article where they are mentioned.

I don't see any reason why you could not submit this draft for review. One of the things you'll get feedback about is whether you've shown that the group is notable and you may get comments or help on formatting your citations. You can continue to work on the article while waiting for a more formal review and, even if the article is declined, you can continue to improve the article until you've addressed the deficiencies. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:38, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You've already recieved an answer at the WP:Help desk. For future reference, only submit your question at one location. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:40, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Trying to Edit Onni Group page

Hey, I've tried editing the page "Onni Group" multiple times after telling the editor / creator that almost all of the information is wrong.

Was told on my last edit that the edits were "promoting" on the company when it was clearly changing FACTUAL information only.

Not really sure how someone who has no idea about the page can say information is promotion or not

70.36.63.2 (talk) 16:44, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. Your edits indicate that you are a company representative, and as such you should not directly edit the article about your company as you have a conflict of interest. You have been given information about this on your user talk page. We all want articles here to be accurate; if there is incorrect information in the article, please describe it on the article talk page.

I would further add that the company has no say as to whether an article exists about it or not(you attempted to blank the article with that as a justification). Wikipedia summarizes what appears in independent reliable sources about an article subject, and the subject itself has no more say than anyone else about the article. We welcome input, especially if there are errors, but it needs to be done in the correct manner. Please review WP:COI and WP:PAID and make the appropriate declarations. 331dot (talk) 16:57, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes I understand that, I've been trying to change FACTUAL information only has you all have clearly told me many times. Please look at my last edits and tell me how that is promoting at all? I'm changing the incorrect information to correct information...70.36.63.2 (talk) 17:08, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

You should not directly edit the article due to your conflict of interest. Before you do anything else, you need to read the conflict of interest policy at WP:COI and the paid editing policy at WP:PAID; the latter is required by Wikipedia's Terms of Use if you are a paid editor. You should then formally declare your COI and/or paid editing relationship on your user talk page. Then, please visit the article talk page to explain what changes you feel are needed, and why. I also see that you have asked a user who reverted you about their reversion, I might also wait for a response from them. Your edits were likely seen as promotional because you simply listed projects your company is involved with. The article can only contain information discussed in independent reliable sources, it is not a place for you or your company to just list its projects. Again, if there are errors such as the location of your offices being incorrect, please make a request on the article talk page. 331dot (talk) 17:22, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

So the creator made the project lists with inaccurate projects and me listing the proper ones is promotion? Why leave a project list there if you don't want the proper ones listed?

People who don't have a COI have tried editing the page and it's still getting flagged. Seems like anyone who tries to do anything immediately gets reverted. So the inaccurate projects that the creator listed isn't promotion, and the updated ones are promotion?

We'll keep trying to put accurate information on the page and keep going through this awesome process 70.36.63.2 (talk) 17:34, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Currently, the only projects listed are those that are described in independent sources(it appears this was just done). That is all that should be in the article. If you have other independent sources describing your projects, please offer them on the article talk page. I've explained how you should proceed, which will give you the best chance of success in what you would like to see. 331dot (talk) 17:42, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

So when a person adds projects to the page that isn't related to the company is that an independent source? This information isn't secret or hidden, can easily be found online by anyone. If the creator actually wanted accurate information on the page its pretty easy to be found ie. the edits I'm trying to make. Looking forward to wasting more time trying to get the right information here. 70.36.63.2 (talk) 17:59, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

If you feel your time is wasted, you don't need to spend it here. No one forces you to be here if you have better things to do, as we all do at some point in our lives. A project can be in the article if it is described in an independent reliable source. Please read WP:RS for more on what such sources are. You are probably right that such information is online and easy to find, it just takes someone willing to do it to get it done. This is a volunteer project, where people do what they can when they can do it. No article on Wikipedia is ever "finished" or 100% complete. That doesn't change your need to comply with the policies I've outlined and suggest changes as I've described. 331dot (talk) 18:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia has essentially no interest in what you or I have to say about your company. We only summarise what reliable, independent published sources have to say about a subject. Theroadislong (talk) 18:30, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes someone that is "willing to do it" has been trying to many times and every time it's getting reverted. When the information we're trying to put on the page is so readily available online and keeps getting considered as "promotion" just doesn't make sense.

70.36.63.2 (talk) 18:41, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Refusing to comply with the requirement on WP:Paid editing, trying to delete an article just because your company president doesn't like it, and removing explanations from your talk page after complaining that you don't understand the system will not encourage volunteers here in their efforts to help you. If there is inaccurate information in the article, then we want to correct it, but corrections need to be backed up with references to independent WP:Reliable sources. It would be best if you discuss these on the talk page of the article. Dbfirs 18:58, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Ya, we wanted to originally delete it. If you actually looked at the last edits I tried to make, it was changing INACCURATE information on the page into FACTUAL & ACCURATE information, that is directly on the company website. But now this is considered promotion? What's a more reliable source about a company, a company website or some creator who has no idea anything about the page he made?

19:12, 15 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.36.63.2 (talk)

As you have been told, Wikipedia is not interested in what any of us want to say about a company, only in what independent sources write. The company itself is not an independent source. It isn't a matter of the creator "having no idea", unless you claim they are making stuff up. 331dot (talk) 19:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Alright, i'll keep watching the "independent sources" get denied

70.36.63.2 (talk) 19:35, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean by an "independent source denied"? 331dot (talk) 19:38, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

70.36.63.2 You haven't suggested any corrections or independent sources on the article talk page yet. Dbfirs 19:41, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

How about this: A company website is NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER going to be accepted as a source of other than the most basic information, for example name and address of the company. Find published articles about the company by independent sources and propose those in Talk. Someone else will decide to put into article. Likewise, if stuff wrong in the article, describe what is wrong in Talk. David notMD (talk) 20:15, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

70.36.63.2 I'm with User:Dbfirs. You keep repeating that this alleged information can "easily" be found online in independent sources by "anyone." Fair enough; would you mind producing them, please? You don't even have to put the sources in proper citation format. Just link them to the article's talk page, and we'll do the rest. Ravenswing 05:48, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Copyright infringement

In my page Swati Maliwal Jaihind, I have written about her achievements as have been specified in a govt. website upon her request. I have written it in my words but I still seem to be doing something wrong. Should I delete the website link? Or is there some way I can incorporate that information without violating copyrights? Womenempowerment (talk) 17:16, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello Womenempowerment welcome to our Teahouse, and thanks for your question. I think we might need you to provide a link to the page you're referring to. I seem unable to find it, either in your contributions, in draft or in mainspace. I note from your talk page you have had your sandbox deleted on the grounds that you had copy/pasted content from a website, so was that it? (Not being an admin I cannot check those pages to see what they contained). Even if you changed a few words from another website, this 'close paraphrasing' is still going to be interpreted as copyright, so content gets very swiftly deleted when you do so, and warnings issued. If you do want to work with text that has been copied from another source so that you can completely rewrite it, my suggestion is to do what I do and undertake that task in a normal wordprocesssor. Everything - even the contents of your sandbox - is published and available online, so copyright content does need to be kept clear of all pages. If you are working at the request of the subject, you do need to declare your involvement, by following our conflict of interest policy. And if you are being paid, we have another one for you to read, too! See: WP:PAID. Sorry I can't help much more. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 19:57, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Article rejected for not adequately showing the subject's notability.

Could somebody please help me with this? I submitted an article about a Norwegian singer, the page name is ZIALAND, it was rejected for not adequately showing the subject's notability. What can I do about it? I have some links from online articles and reviews of her music, could that work maybe? thank in advance.

Diveke (talk) 18:50, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Your draft Draft:Zialand has no sources at all. In order to demonstrate notability, you need to provide references to articles written about Zialand in unrelated, independent journals, magazines, books, etc. Theroadislong (talk) 19:00, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

You could also delete the section on Influences. There has been no independent music reviewer say that. As a matter of form, delete all the red-links. Best of luck Rhadow (talk) 19:02, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Sock Puppetry Accusation

What can be done about an accusation that I am a sock puppet. Someone is accusing me of being a sock puppet because my IP address changes when I go onto the site yet they are all with the same beingging sets of numbers. I thought the issue of sock puppetry had been resolved long before and yet here goes another accusation of sock puppetry. The purson that is accusing me is insistent that an IP address would not show up if I logged into WP with a user name. I have no registered user name therefore do not have an registered account. Yet this person after explanation after explanation goes back to saying that I am not addressing his statement because I have noit logged onto a registered username account. What can be done.2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 19:11, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

The accuser is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anmccaff#Amistade2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 19:14, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

You can solve the problem by creating an account, though there is no obligation to do so. IP addresses change for some users, so there is no way to track which edits are yours if you don't use an account. Dbfirs 19:26, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes I know that but it seems every time there is a conflict sock puppetry comes up. I will continue to use my IP address whatever it is that is issued by the system.2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 19:45, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

The problem was the conflict. It is obvious to me which IP addresses are assigned to you by Time Warner in Los Angeles, and you have not tried to hide your change of IP address, so I cannot see any justification for accusations of sock puppetry unless you also edit under an account name. Where there is disagreement over edits, the best policy is to discuss the changes on the talk page of the article. Dbfirs 20:00, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I have noted my concerns about facts and omission on the Amistade talk page and have directed the accuser to the Tea House to better understand what is going on. I do not have a registered username therefore I cannot avoid using one. I just do not understand how someone can accuse someone and continues to believe their incorrect perception despite repeated explanations.2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 20:06, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

The talk page is Talk:Amistad (film). We also have an article La Amistad though the content there may legitimately be different. I've no knowledge of either, so I'll leave it to others to comment. Dbfirs 20:22, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hello IP user: I can understand why you are irritated. But might I politely add that, whilst you are indeed quite at liberty to edit from an IP address, many editors get suspicious when they see content subtly being changed without any citations, irrespective of whether that person has registered for a free account or not. Your actions in changing and then re-inserting those small changes without any evidence to support them was, I'm afraid, typical of what I personally often interpret as subtle vandalism. That's not to say that you were in this case. But just because you "happen to know something for a fact" doesn't entitle you to change article content without evidence to support your beliefs. I've only spent a few moments looking, but believe you were quite wrong to change "53 African people" to "54 African people" without proof. Just read this Times article to see why other editors are suspicious of unsubstantiated changes. Maybe you have other sources to prove "54" is correct. if so, you need to cite them. I've no idea I've not seen the film or know the story in detail. The fact that you are an anonymous IPv6 editor is unfortunate, and I hope you understand why, if you go around making changes like these, other people may jump to conclusions about you that are not necessarily correct. If this makes you uncomfortable, then there is one option and one requirement for you: Create an account for free and sign in with it; don't make changes without supporting them with sources. You decide which is which. I hope this explains how others might see those edits. You did right to raise those concerns afterwarss on the article Talk page. If the film got the numbers wrong, then that could be a legitimate issue to raise in the article, using sources, of course. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:31, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

You should acquaint yourself with the record that clearly indicates where in the film such references come.2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 21:02, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with that remark. If any statement is contested, just insert a citation to support it, or leave it well alone. That includes the Plot as far as I'm concerned. Note: The evidence (using Intersect) does not lead me to support the suggestion expressed below. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:42, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

It looks as if the IPv4 address 104.35.236.49 might also be you, and this increases the unease felt by registered editors. I endorse Nick Moyes' recommendation to create a free account on Wikipedia. You don't need to use your real name. I prefer not to have my name anywhere on the internet, so if you feel the same, just make up a pseudonym. If you have references, then you need to cite them. Dbfirs 21:10, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

It is not my responsibility to make certain that WP's system functions properly and I will not establish a registered account in order to edit. I just noticed that other number because I was wondering where some of my edits went. Evidently it changed while I was editing under the usual 26.... went to 104 then reestablished back to 26..... Again, it is not my responsibility for the functioning if WP's system.2605:E000:9143:7000:4541:FEA4:B7BA:FDE9 (talk) 00:24, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with Wikipedia's function. Your IP address is assigned to you by Time Warner in Los Angeles. Dbfirs 10:07, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

As for adding a citation, when has it ever been except by viewing a film what is the plot?2605:E000:9143:7000:4541:FEA4:B7BA:FDE9 (talk) 00:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC) Where did the number 53 come from? There is no citation?2605:E000:9143:7000:4541:FEA4:B7BA:FDE9 (talk) 00:34, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Where there is disagreement over content, a citation is the best way to resolve the issue. An on-line review of the film with a plot summary would be easiest to check, but any reliable newspaper or magazine review would be OK to cite. Dbfirs 10:07, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Error in Linkage

Greetings There is an erroneous link for a Canon of Westminster Abbey, named Rev. Sebastian Charles He was a Canon there (in charge of the treasury) from 1978 to 1989, when he died. He is linked fromt he Westminster Abbey page listing all the former Canons, to a TV show because one of the actors had the same name. Rev. Sebastian Charles was a talented churchman who worked with leper colonies, the black community in London, with the parole board there, and in many other ways. He was Born in Burma and was of Tamil extraction. He was also very funny, very astute, a loving father and husband. He does not deserve this sullied treatment, nor this error in linkage. I know nothing about disconnecting a link. I hope someone else can show mercy to his legacy.

Here is the false entry: There is a page named "Sebastian Charles" on Wikipedia Half Moon Investigations (TV series) (redirect from Sebastian Charles) the nickname "Half Moon" because of his small height. Red Sharkey (Sebastian Charles) is one of the main characters of the show. It is shown in many episodes 4 KB (384 words) - 20:10, 5 July 2017

Thanking you in advance, with hope, Rev. Dean J. Seal, seal13dean@gmail.com 162.219.228.37 (talk) 19:34, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I have unlinked Sebastian Charles. Theroadislong (talk) 20:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Question about image

I'm planning to upload this image (which is from Google Books) of Jim Bakker's "I Was Wrong" book (it's mentioned in the article) and I'm just curious: If I go to here and upload it as a book cover, do you think it will be accepted on Wikipedia? I'm just curious. LovelyGirl7 talk 23:53, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. LovelyGirl7. As a general rule, a non-free image of a book cover is acceptable only in an article about the book, rather than the biography of its author. If a book was published before 1923, copyright has expired, and you can use an image of such a book cover anywhere. Please read our policy on non-free images for more information. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:03, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I wish to list myself as a glbt advocate

so is this possible I worked for almost seven years with representative eggman to create AB331 a new law creating privacy rights for DD214 of service men and women who are transgendered. I also sued the Department of veternas affairs to force them to to properly change the gender classification on their records for people having changed their gender. Duffymali (talk) 04:19, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• I'd recommend against it, because Wikipedia is not an advocacy organization; it's an encyclopedia. You're certainly welcome to make neutral, well-sourced edits to GLBT-oriented articles. You might also want to check out the WP:LGBT WikiProject, which focuses on related topics. Ravenswing 05:32, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

How do I respond to contributing editors' questions and address their concerns in an article?

Hello Teahouse!

Longtime Twentieth Century art enthusiast and novice Wikipedia contributor. I have recently become interested in Armenian American artists, and have been contributing to the article on Stephen Sacklarian. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Sacklarian

I cannot find a way to directly message him back, but would love to respond to HostBot JTMorgan's astute question on a source and increase the legitimacy of this article. JTMorgan's question:

"Also, I'm curious--can you share exactly what John Canaday wrote about Mr. Sacklarian's work, since you used an article of his from 1958 as the only source in describing the artist's style? If Canaday published at length about the artist for a Metropolitan Museum seminar, that would be of real interest. Thank you, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:55, 16 February 2018 (UTC)"

My response: In the transcription of a 1958 lecture on expressionism the differences in the mental processes of artists, Canaday stated that "while some painters approach and interact with the canvas with an empty and spontaneous mind, others like Stephen Sacklarian, Marilyn Gordley, and Harvey Quaytman claim to have exact mental images of their finished works prior the first brushstroke."

I intend for this source to specifically reference the final sentence of this paragraph.

How does the community recommend I proceed?

20thCenturyArtEnthusiast (talk) 06:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi 20thCenturyArtEnthusiast you post your reply directly after the question, excactly the same way as I am replying to you here. Start with a single colon ":" to indent your reply. BTW the post you quote above is not signed by JTMorgan, the signature is an IP address, thus an unregistered user. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:09, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Correcting the ping for Jtmorgan (×2) -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:15, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Roger (Dodger67)! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 20thCenturyArtEnthusiast (talk • contribs) 07:28, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Album art for missing images

I do a lot of cleaning up of album covers. When I find a page with no cover art for a recording and I have it. 1. What do I need to do to add it to the page so everyone can see it?

I thought there would be a drop in box to place it, but not seeing that I'm a little lost. I don't know if I would just upload it with the image button and it will be placed in the proper place by someone. I would hate to make a mess of a page if it did not go in the proper place.

I was also wondering if I have a better-looking image then the one showing. 2. Would you want the better-looking image to replace it? Some of them are so beat up and sad looking.

I would also need to know 3.Is there is a size limit? I work in 1000sq. I like a full-screen cover. But again I don't know the rules for cover art. So I could use some helpful info. Thank you. Ezz9 (talk) 07:01, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Ezz9. Non-free album cover images must be low resolution and must be uploaded here to English Wikipedia with an acceptable fair use rationale. Begin by reading our policy on the use of non-free images. This policy is enforced quite strictly, but if you follow it carefully, you can upload album covers. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:57, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Citations for Film Plots

Since when has it become WP policy or guideline to require citations to show material inaccuracies in film plots. Is not the mere review of the film sufficient for the purpose of a film plot?2605:E000:9143:7000:4541:FEA4:B7BA:FDE9 (talk) 07:04, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

It seems you are in disagreement over something in sn article. Pleasse discuss the matter on the article's talk page to work on getting consensus. If that doesnt work, follow the guidance at WP:DR, or just give it a break and work on something else for awhile RudolfRed (talk) 16:18, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

"Something Went Wrong" when I try to upload new image but no further explanation?

Hello Teahouse!

I am trying to upload a new image to an article about artist Stephen Sacklarian. There is currently no image of the artist himself on the page and I have one. Whenever I go to upload however I receive the message "Something Went Wrong" but no explanation or "source code" of any kind underneath. What does this mean?

P.S. I own the photo and there are no copyright issues or conflicts of issues, just would like the photo to be uploaded! Thank you for any help. 20thCenturyArtEnthusiast (talk) 07:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Do you own the copyright to the photo? You probably do if you took it yourself, but if you own only a copy of the photo then someone else probably owns the copyright. See Help:Introduction to images with Wiki Markup/1 for some guidance on how and where to upload. Dbfirs 07:30, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! This helped. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 20thCenturyArtEnthusiast (talk • contribs) 08:31, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

How to create/ Ask to create page about Business Conglomerate

Hi, I want to know how to create a page about a Business Conglomerate or at least how to request in a suitable forum to create a page about a Business Conglomerate. I tried a sample draft in a similar lines of an existing article. But it is published in my User Name. No one has reviewed till now. Some one please help me out.Madhava cs (talk) 07:53, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia must not be used for advertising any business conglomerate, and your user page may not be used for a draft article. Please move the draft to your sandbox so that you can work on it there. You need to find independent WP:Reliable sources where the subject has been written about in detail. Your current references don't seem to be sufficient to establish WP:Notability. Dbfirs 08:12, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Why do some images of Wikipedia entries show in Google preview and other don't?

Hello Teahouse!

I've noticed that for many places and people, when the name is searched on Google the Wikipedia article preview comes up in the top sidebar. Many people have their "profile Wikipedia image" show in the Google preview, while others do not. I have observed it does not appear to have to do with how "famous" the place or person is.

Is this something that should be done on the Wikipedia side? i.e. Somehow linking the image as the primary photo that person. Or is this a Google issue, subject to the powers that be on the Google side of things? Any help would be greatly appreciated! 20thCenturyArtEnthusiast (talk) 08:37, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Who can fathom the algorithms of Google? Sometimes they present different results to different customers. Sometimes the image is obtained from outside Wikipedia, or even of someone else. Dbfirs 09:45, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Dbfirs I agree! Seems like these things are subject to powers and algorithms beyond the comprehension of us mere mortals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 20thCenturyArtEnthusiast (talk • contribs) 09:49, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Google seems to have picked up your photo from Wikipedia, but is not displaying it with the Wikipedia content yet. Perhaps we need to wait a while for the web crawlers to index the page again. You take good photographs. Dbfirs 09:56, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! I try :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 20thCenturyArtEnthusiast (talk • contribs) 10:05, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

My first article doesn't seem to proceed from the draft state. Have I uderstood something wrong?

Dear wikipedians, I wrote a stub of a new article several days ago, but it doesn't seem to go anywhere from the draft state. Have I done something wrong here or is the way things proceed just this slow?

My article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:R%C3%A1dio_Yand%C3%AA

Best, Scandibahia

Scandibahia (talk) 10:55, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Scandibahia: Draft:Rádio Yandê has been submitted for article status, and rejected one minute later (which is remarkably fast, it can take months), for the reason given at the top: "This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability." If you want things to proceed further, you'll need to address the reason for rejection, by finding and using better sources, as explained in the rejection notice. Maproom (talk) 11:50, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Creation of an English version of the French page Jean-Michel Roux ?

Hi, I am trying to create an English version of the page but can't find a simple way of doing it. The page already exist in French and Finnish, but when I tried to create the same page in English, I've been told the referencing is not enough.

thanks Denis

Denis xxx (talk) 11:20, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Denis xxx: I see that the draft you have created Draft:Jean-Michel Roux, like the French article fr:Jean-Michel Roux, cites no references at all. If you want to create an article about him in English Wikipedia, you'll need to find some citations of reliable independent publish sources with significant discussion of him. They may be in French if you can't find English ones. Maproom (talk) 11:41, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hi Denis xxx and welcome to the Teahouse. You need to read WP:Referencing for beginners. At present your page has not even a single reference to establish WP:Notability. Please find independent WP:Reliable sources where the subject has been written about in detail, and cite these. Each Wikipedia has its own separate rules for articles, so you can't just assume that French and Finnish articles make the subject notable here. Dbfirs 11:45, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

Today I got onto the site and found a notice about declaring a conflict of interest. I thought how odd since my activity certainly has absolutely no possibility of a conflict of interest when all it has been recently is correcting errors in a film plot.2605:E000:9143:7000:4541:FEA4:B7BA:FDE9 (talk) 15:28, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello, @2605:E000:9143:7000:4541:FEA4:B7BA:FDE9:, and welcome to the TeaHouse. The editor who put that message on your User Talk page was Theroadislong. He/she did not indicate which article had prompted the message, and the wording of the message is very generic. I see that you have replied on your User Talk page, but did not ping the other editor so he/she may not be aware of your reply - hopefully you will get a response now. --Gronk Oz (talk) 15:59, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I just noticed that you also left a message on Theroadislong's User Talk page - watch for a response (when might depend on time zones).--Gronk Oz (talk) 16:04, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

The problem with a decentralized system is that you have people acting on their own for what turn out to be the most incredibly inaccurate basis. How correcting plots in films could be a potential conflict of interest mystifies me as much as having to justify edits in pots by providing citations when currently and in the past all that was needed was viewing of the film. There are many edit examples where citations have been provided in plots and removed as being unnecessary. So this new application smacks of some thing very unusual.2605:E000:9143:7000:4541:FEA4:B7BA:FDE9 (talk) 16:58, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I posted the conflict of interest notice because your IP addresses are assigned to you by Time Warner in Los Angeles. Theroadislong (talk) 17:09, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

No wonder WP creates it own enemies? I have absolutely no control over the issuance of IP addresses and because they change I am accusesd of somehow undermining WP. And then if I do not take the "suggestion" of establishing a registered user name I am somehow betraying WP and being uncooperative and hostile and whatever people seem to come up with when all along I am using what is endorsed by WP--the use of my IP address as an identifier. Instead I am subjected to repeated accusations of being sock puppet. Are all these actions the result of learning grammar and composition? Or some other explanation? I just find it so bizarre for people that supposedly are of a developed mind.2605:E000:9143:7000:4541:FEA4:B7BA:FDE9 (talk) 17:40, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Return

Hi, I was an active member a few years ago (about 4 or 5 years), and for some reason I had to retire. I am decided to come back and contribute. But after so many years, I am a bit clueless, and would like to know somewhere where I can start. Or somewhere I can read about the changes that WP has gone through. Thanks. Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 15:55, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

@Miss Bono: Check out WP:HOW for some ideas on what to work on. I dont think anything has changed much in the past few years. Feel free to ask questions if you need help. RudolfRed (talk) 16:24, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Autobiography has not been accepted

Hey! I'm a rap artist from Lithuania and wish to put my autobiography/biography on Wikipedia. This would obviously me a tremendous step forward regarding Google searches. So far, Google has put up the minimal amount of information about me (name/occupation/a few songs). Since I do not have much experience regarding editing - would anybody be able to write the biography for me? Even just a short paragraph would do. I'd be more than happy to provide any information necessary.

MusicUser (talk) 16:15, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

you have it backwards. this is an encyclopedia not a platform for promotion. When you become WP:Notable then you may get an article here. RudolfRed (talk) 16:28, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi MusicUser and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia strongly discourages autobiographies because it is so difficult to write neutrally about yourself. Wikipedia has no interest whatsoever in what Google displays, and, as explained above, must not be used for promotion. Best wishes for your rap career, and when you are famous enough to have been written about at length in independent WP:Reliable sources, Wikipedia will consider you WP:Notable and will have an article about you. Dbfirs 16:33, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

MusicUser More specifically you would need to meet one of the notability criteria for musicians at WP:BAND; as stated, though, we are not concerned with Google results. Sorry. 331dot (talk) 16:39, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Templates

Hi, I'm new here. Where can I find a page with templates and useful stuff to collaborate? Thanks Onaxis (talk) 17:01, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Also, how can I add a page to my Watchlist? Onaxis (talk) 17:05, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

And how can I edit my signature. Sorry for so many questions. Thanks loads. Onaxis (talk) 17:07, 16 February 2018 (UTC)