Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wavery2 (talk | contribs) at 06:44, 8 April 2018 (→‎Minor change affects Wikipedia category: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


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

PrimeHunter, a Teahouse host

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


Edit a particular fact in question.

Edit a particular fact in question. Item: Subject, Martin Luther King Jr., where the "Cause of death" is noted as "Gunshot head wound".

How do I edit?

Thankfully, milliedehls

  • @Milliedehls: - You edit by clicking the "Edit source" button and then changing the source code for the article. Martin Luther King is a protected article, which may be preventing new accounts from editing it until they are four days old and have made at least 10 edits to the encyclopedia, criteria which you have not satisfied yet. Why, exactly, do you wish to edit this passage, and to what? If the edit is a constructive one, I will implement it on your behalf. Thanks, Stormy clouds (talk) 23:20, 1 April 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Milliedehls you should not attempt to change a well-established fact like this unless you can cite reliable sources which say otherwise. What sources did yo9iu have in mind? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 05:25, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia subject, "Martin Luther King", where "Cause of death" is stated as "Gunshot head wound". That is factual, however, for historical best, "Cause of death" should be noted as "Assassination". "Assassination" should be without hyperlink or without any (cyber) link to another page. This Wikipedia edit suggestion is of opinion only, but also considering respect of the one greatest leaders in United States history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milliedehls (talk • contribs) 06:36, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't reiterate again terms I used to suggest or request the edit for "Martin Luther King". Words used in my explanation of my intitial inquiry were, "opinion" and "factual" and "should". Is the rationale of my suggested edit of subject readers or editors curiousity? My edit would not be other than the fact, just less morbidly stated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milliedehls (talk • contribs) 18:29, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Milliedehls: It now reads "assassination". Has it been edited? -A lad insane (Channel 2) 20:43, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Cause of Death" has been edited to state "Assasination" for the subject Martin Luther King. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milliedehls (talk • contribs) 04:50, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ping:Milliedehls As far as I can tell, this edit changed it. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 18:00, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A lad insane and Milliedehls: it was this edit. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:05, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Cordless Larry: Thanks, I forgot to check the link. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 18:20, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Milliedehls: @A lad insane: Yes, it was me, forgot to leave a note here. "Gunshot head wound" is just as poor of a description as "cardiac arrest" when someone was electrocuted or "drug overdose" when they were given a lethal injection. It may not be factually wrong, but it doesn't represent the facts properly. Alexis Jazz (talk) 15:31, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexis Jazz: I would agree with that. All the other articles (Bobby Kennedy, JFK, Gandhi, etc) all read "assassination", and for good reason. I probably would have changed it if you hadn't. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 15:48, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Khaled Malas tagged?

I am a new user. I am researching this architect, Khaled Malas for my project. I do not understand why his entry is tagged as being non-neutral. Thank you. ~~coneyislandbaby lou~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coneyislandbaby lou (talk • contribs) 14:39, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coneyislandbaby lou, Khaled Malas is not tagged for being non-neutral. it is tagged for being promotional. These are often related, but are not quite the same. However, I don't see any seriously promotional content and may remove the tag. The article is also tagged for questionable WP:Nnotability and as it stands, i think that tag is proper. Additional cites sources might deal with the issue. A good place to discuss this would be on Talk:Khaled Malas. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 19:22, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed that the tag has not been removed, although i agree with the article being non-neutral. i do not agree it is promotional. a previous user has raised this in Talk:Khaled Malas. I will continue to find additional cites. thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coneyislandbaby lou (talk • contribs) 10:25, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you very much. I do not understand it as being promotional. It ic certainly neutral. Thank you for your help. Coneyislandbaby lou —Preceding undated comment added 08:35, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This logo won't switch to the new version, it just shows the old version. Tried purging, didn't work. How to fix? ITSQUIETUPTOWN talk • contribs 06:23, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a valid link to it: This logo. I see that there's been some to-ing and fro-ing about which version should be used, the latest change was about two hours before you wrote your question above. Maproom (talk) 07:33, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see the current version in Philippine Airlines. That is the version with comment "Reverted to version as of 04:36, 5 April 2018 (UTC)". PrimeHunter (talk) 10:31, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Book as a Reference?

Can a Book be a reference? I have made a page called reticulitermes lucifugus using the information given in the book Atlas of World Wildlife by the world wildlife fund. Can we put it as a reference? Thanks a lot in advance (talk) 08:00, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is this page good?

Hey just wrote my first Wikipedia page and was wondering if it was any good and what changes i need to make. here is the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calpurnia_(band) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SethM06 (talk • contribs) 09:20, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi and welcome to Wikipedia. I would suggest that you add more content about the band. Also, as it is the notability of the band can't be confirmed. So, I suggest you add more references from third party sources. Also, add the musical style and if you're among the band members then I would suggest you read WP:COI. Abhinav0908 (talk) 09:51, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello @SethM06: welcome to wikipedia. I believe the band are notable for wikipedia, but the article could do with being expanded. I've edited the page a little to help you out. Use google to search for news stories about the band, and look at other wikipedia articles written about other bands for ideas of what to add. If you need any help let us know. Best wishes, Polyamorph (talk) 16:18, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Memorizing the lives of a couple in their involvement in Civil Rights and stopping the Vietnam War during 1940-1980 - Would this be appropriate for Wikipedia?

The couple is my parents who passed away in 1993 and 1994. Starting in the 1940s they were active in helping Black people move to their town of Baldwin New York, which was all White. Later, they demonstrated against the Vietnam War. Their most notable accomplishment occurred in 1967-68 when a Black teacher in their high school of all White teachers and all White students was accused by a White female student of sexually molesting her. During those times, one might expect that the outcome would not turn out well for the Black teacher, regardless of whether or not it was true. My parents knew the Black teacher and after confirming that the allegations had to be false, mobilized the community and other teachers in the school to expose the falsehood and save his job. In the end, the accuser admitted that she made it all up in an attempt to get the Black teacher out of her school. This was featured on the cover and in an article in the March 1968 issue of The Ladies Home Journal.

Currently, there are six (6) people who have firsthand knowledge of their lives and work. These include myself (their oldest son (my brother passed away in 2000), my sister-in-law, and their four grandchildren. We have decided to create something on the Internet to memorize their lives, and the difference they made in other people's lives, for future generations and others. We think Wikipedia would be the best platform to present this information, which would include essays about them written by the six of us, their writings, The Ladies Home Journal cover and article, and pictures. However, I do not know if this would be appropriate under Wikipedia's guidelines and rules. I am sending this to the Support Desk to help determine whether or not we could put this on Wikipedia. I would appreciate a response as we begin to write, gather information, scan, and put everything together as to using Wikipedia.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmperlman39 (talk • contribs) 12:33, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bmperlman39: Welcome to the Teahouse! I'm afraid my response may not be very encouraging. Your parents were clearly very admirable people, worth memorialising, but unfortunately Wikipedia is not intended to be a platform for that. It is a tertiary source, which means that it summarises what secondary sources say about a subject - not first-hand sources. None of us can write about things that only we have knowledge about (the example I sometimes use is that if Queen Elizabeth II were to join Wikipedia she would not be allowed to add anecdotes about her father to the Wikipedia article about him, unless they had already been published. That's the key. If there are multiple independent reliable sources that have written about your parents, there can be an article summarising what these sources say, but otherwise I'm afraid not. I'm sorry to have to discourage you from this, but I know it can be very demoralising to start writing about a subject that is dear to us, only to have it deleted from lack of notability, and I suspect that is what would happen if you were to try. For more information you can read this information. I know there is a lot of info and a lot of rules, but you are always welcome to come back to the Teahouse with more questions. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 12:48, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Bmperlman39: Might I respectfully make a suggestion? Bonadea is quite right to say that Wikipedia is not the place to add such important historical, yet personal family memories. I would recommend you to consider creating a website using one of the free tools like Google's Blogger would be the best approach for this. I have created a number of these for different projects - some receiving many hundreds of thousands of hits over the years. Nowadays they can be made to look just like a website with fixed pages, and not just like a chronological diary (though they can be both if you wish - see here for an example of this). Because Blogger accounts are free to set up, they require no annual payment to keep them online, so tend to outlive dedicated websites which disappear the moment you cease paying for hosting and a domain name. By way of example, this blog was created by a lady I know who sadly died in March 2009, yet all her posts and webcontent are still available online and viewable. Her other website disappeared 6 months later when her hosting payments were not renewed, and it took family members a very long time to retrieve and make her webcontent and research available again. You might like to consider this a very effective way of recording and sharing important family memories long after even you have ceased contributing to it. Hoping this may be of some assistance. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:47, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Music Artist Page

Hello. I represent a music artist and would like to get a wikipedia page set up for him. The artist is TKO from Omaha, NE. Easily found online, TKO is a rising hip hop artist with great presence on Spotify. His bio there explains a few things including recording a song with popular hip hop star Rittz, which has helped his music on Spotify reach nearly a million streams as of this writing. With a few other accolades and a bright future, a wikipedia page is something I am interested and securing for my artist. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1:940A:A6DE:3166:176C:9215:27AC (talk) 14:17, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I would suggest that you not attempt to write an article for your client. You seem to have a common misconception about what Wikipedia is. It is not a forum for promotion or publicity. This is an encyclopedia where article subjects must be shown to be notable with independent reliable sources. Wikipedia has no interest whatsoever in what someone wishes to say about themselves, only in what third parties write about an article subject in depth. Your use of the term "rising" suggests to me that it is far too soon for an article about your client and that they probably do not meet any of the notability guidelines at WP:BAND. If your client does later meet them, it is best for someone unaffiliated with them to write the article.
Lastly, you should read about conflict of interest and paid editing, the latter of which is required by Wikipedia's Terms of Use. 331dot (talk) 14:50, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to find out if I formation can be added

Hi

I am wondering how information can be added to some of the different items on Wikipedia

Ex
Barrie Molson Centre in Barrie under consturion PCL but not major trades like Electrical can the major trades be added

My family business has done a number of building that are on Wikipedia and just trying to find out it is also nice to see who else has done work on the buildings


Thank you Matt L — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.170.202 (talk) 14:22, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Matt L. Thanks for your question, and welcome to our Teahouse. Firstly, my apologies for the very long wait for an answer. I am a little unclear what exactly you're asking. Because Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, based only on reliable sources that we require editors to add ( i.e. cite) when they make edits, we cannot accept anyone just adding information to an article even if they know it to be factually correct if there's nothing to allow other users to go off and check whether it's true or not. Thus, by way of an example, I know that the lifts in the famous BT Tower in London were installed by the Express Lift Company because my father managed their London office in the 1960s and 1970s, and he told me this for a fact, and I used to visit their workshops on Horseferry Road with him. (We even had waste bins at home made from leftover aluminium from these installations.) But I can't prove any of this, so would never dream of adding unsubstantiated trivia to the article. Nor, I doubt, would any users really find this of any interest!
So, by all means visit the Wikipedia articles about buildings your family's business has worked in, but please don't add trivial information about it unless you can find independent articles that talk about their involvement during the construction phase of any building. And even then, consider whether it would really be useful to other readers to know such stuff about the Barrie Molson Centre. I hope this puts things a little more into perspective? If in doubt, it's always best to post information on the talk page of the relevant article to see if other editors think your proposed additions and sources are acceptable. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:25, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Main page Twinkle mistake

Hi, I have just installed Twinkle for Wikipedia, and I decided to test its powers after using it on small things. At first I tried adding a maintenance tag to the main page as a test, and it failed, as it was fully-protected. However, when I attempted to remove all backlinks to the Main Page, it began to do that. I quickly stopped it, but I do not know how to restore the random links. Please help, thanks!

I know it was pretty stupid. User:SuperTurboChampionshipEdition

@SuperTurboChampionshipEdition: I've reverted your edits. You're welcome. See Help:Reverting for more information. -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:10, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My edit recently registered record was not published

I had edited https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saikhom_Mirabai_Chanu this page after she had registered a record in Commonwealth Games, but later I got a message that I can't edit a new record when it is registered. Can I know why did I get that message. --Ashish D Souza (talk) 16:20, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I am not sure, so I would suggest that you ask the person who gave you the message, by posting a reply on your user talk page. 331dot (talk) 16:33, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why I can't see my article?

Hi, I published my first Wikipedia article yesterday, but it doesn't appear when I search online. If I go to my Wikipedia page and search the title, it does appear. Can anyone explain to me the reason for this? I have done 10 edits and my account has been more than 4 days. Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vioadelia (talk • contribs) 16:21, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It takes search engines like Google time to index pages. 331dot (talk) 16:29, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I thought something went wrong. Thanks for the information guys! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vioadelia (talk • contribs) 16:33, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify the replies above, Vioadelia, it's not just that search engines take a while to index new pages, but that the article you contributed needs to be "patrolled" (in other words, be subject to a brief review to check that it's not a copyright violation, etc.) by an experienced editor before it is marked for indexing. There is currently a large backlog of new pages waiting to be patrolled, so this might take some time. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:50, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Vioadelia: I'm relatively happy to 'patrol' the article you've written, though I would prefer you to spend just a few moments beforehand to address a small amount of copying of phraseology like 'is a born and bred Londoner'. Many of the other highlighted concerns are simply titles or positions which one can do nothing about. See Earwigs copyvio tool results. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 18:34, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick Moyes: Thanks I'd be grateful if you can 'patrol' my article. I have edited the article and it seems someone has edited it too.
@Vioadelia: You may ignore the message on your talk page saying this article has been patroled and put up for speedy deletion on the grounds of copyright infringement. You may notice that first I disputed this rationale on your behalf on the article's own talk page, firstly because I didn't feel the infringements were major ones, secondly that I'd advised you to address them, and then, thirdly, because I spotted the text you partly used as a source had been released on an open licence by the UK government. The page patroller (who beat me to it) was informed, and they accepted this graciously and removed their tag. I think this demonstrates how consensus and common sense prevails here. I too have tagged pages incorrectly, and sometimes thought better of it immediately afterwards, and other times had my speedy delete tag removed by an admin. Even with open licencing, I would always advise putting things in your own words wherever possible, if only to avoid friendly fire accidents like this one. Best wishes, Nick Moyes (talk) 19:51, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick Moyes: Thanks for the information and advice - much appreciated. I’ll keep that in mind.

Page Ratings and Recommendations?

Hi all!

I'm working on improving the Emilia Lanier wiki page. Does anyone have any recommendations? I'm going to add in more images, add to the biography (with sources, of course), break up some of the Poetry section with more specific headings, and probably delete a lot of the Shakespeare Links section. The Shakespeare Links section is problematic because it distracts from Lanier and is generally unfounded. I might interchange the Shakespeare Links section with a section called Dark Lady Theory, because that's all it really is. I'll explain the Dark Lady theory, but I don't think it's necessary to go into detail about Shakespeare's unrelated plays on Emilia Lanier's wiki.

I was also wondering if anyone could tell me how to, after I'm done editing, submit it to see if I can get the page rating improved. I'd like to resubmit it once I'm done to the Women Writers Project.

Thanks! CarefulCatBird (talk) 16:56, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The place for discussing improvements to the article Emilia Lanier is the article's talk page: Talk:Emilia Lanier. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:05, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Before changing the article, you ought to read the Manual of Style, as (for example) I see that some of your recent edits have changed dates from a format that complies with MOS:DATE to a format which doesn't. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:14, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Newbie asks, how do I create a page about my place of work?

Subject line pretty much says it all. I've been charged with creating a page for our newspaper, but I keep getting reprimanded by H. What do I have to do, and make it simple, por favor.

robin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webmaster at Kentucky Today (talk • contribs) 18:05, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Webmaster at Kentucky Today. Welcome to the teahouse and to Wikipedia. Hammersoft has been correctly informing you of some key policies and practices, namely that a username should not be the name of an organization, nor imply shared use, and that people editing as part of their employment, or under contract, must disclose this. No one that I can see has reprimanded you for creating User:Webmaster at Kentucky Today/sandbox, which is actually a surprisingly good start for a draft created by an editor about the editor's own workplace. In fact it is good enough that it might plausibly be moved to Draft:Kentucky Today. It is not, however, ready for the main article space at this time.
The most important thing needed for this to become a valid article is to cite several reliable sources, both to support the facts in the text, and to establish the notability of the topic. Note that Wikipedia uses the word "notability" min a special sense -- here it means "has been written about in some depth by multiple reliable sources". Please read our guideline on the notability of companies and businesses. There are also some formatting issues (for example, all links to outside sites should be in source citations or in an External links section), but the addition of source citations is probably the main thing needed at this point. Please read Referencing for Beginners to learn how to format inline citations.
Would you object to my moving it to the Draft space as the next stage of its progress towards a valid article? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 19:08, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, DESiegel. Your comments are very encouraging. Kentucky Today has been mentioned many times by a competing newspaper, that has a Wiki page. Not really in depth comments. More along the lines of snide. Also, Kentucky Today writers have numerous bylines in dozens of newspapers. Would those citations suffice? Should I change my username to my real name? I have no objections to you moving the sandbox page to the draft stage. Thank you. So sorry for all the questions. I find the instructions on here tedious for my so-right brain. -robin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webmaster at Kentucky Today (talk • contribs) 19:20, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, Webmaster at Kentucky Today. While this user name is not as clearly against our policies, a name which more celarly identifies you as an individual would be better. It does not have to be your legal name. User:Robin At Kentucky Today would do, or User:R85 At Kentucky Today, or any penname that you might wish to use. Or you can use your real name, as i choose to. It may but need not include the "At Kentucky Today" form.
As to source citations, to establish notability, there should be several (at least 3-4 in my view, but there is not any hard and fast rule) Independent, professionally published reliable sources that have written about the publication. This means more than a passing mention, each such source should include at least several paragraphs about KT. Sources need not be newspapers, nor online. A book that describes a variety of magazines would be acceptable, as would a review article. Source should not be blogs, nor fan sites, nor be without any sort of editorial checking. Simple directory entries are also of no help in establishing notability, nor would anything published in the magazine itself. If some of your regular authors are themselves notable, this would help . DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 19:35, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) @Webmaster at Kentucky Today: Helpful tip; you can easily sign your talk page comments (like here) by adding a "~~~~" to the end of your post. That will automatically add your username and a time/date stamp to the end of your post. This helps us to identify who wrote something, and when. Ok, for the article; understand that stating that you have a conflict of interest is not an accusation about your integrity. We understand you have the best of intentions. The problem arises that people who are directly involved in or with a subject have a difficult time separating themselves from it enough to remain neutral on the subject, even if they are trying quite hard to do so. We have a policy here of writing neutrally in our articles. For someone employed by the subject of the article, is is not impossible to be neutral but it is quite difficult. I've seen it done, but it's uncommon. An example of how this can trip up against our policies is right in the sandbox you've created; there are five inline links that point to your website. Normally, the only place we would have that link is either in the infobox of the article, and/or in an external links section. ~10 minutes ago, @Theroadislong: tagged this sandbox for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G11, which means the article is purely promotional in nature. I can't say I fully agree with this, but it's not inaccurate either. Think about it this way; you as an employee of an organization have been asked to create an article for that organization. Of course you want to put your company in the best light. Would you intentionally write something negative about your company, even if were true and could be cited to reliable secondary sources such as a notable newspaper? I don't think your employer would be too happy with you if you did. And now, while I was writing this, it's been deleted. People with no connection to an organization are at liberty to write negative commentary, if its valid and cited. That would be hard for you to do, and therefore through no fault of your own you are compromised in your ability to be neutral on this subject. Does that make sense? The numerous bylines help to sustain notability of Kentucky Today, but by itself would not be of interest to the article, were it created. I'm sorry the instructions here are tedious. I know the learning curve here is a bit steep. But, don't let that deter you. Despite all this, we really are here to help. We might be able to create the draft for you. Can you point us to some secondary sources that discuss the subject in some detail (not just in passing)? How about some verifiable statistics on the subject, far preferably that are independent from the subject? While we can use Kentucky Today as a source, it is a primary source and we would very likely use it sparingly. Lastly, I just want to say...thank you for trying to work WITH us than against us. Trust me, we have literally thousands of companies that have tried to brute force there way into this project. I appreciate your candor and collegiality. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:38, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Webmaster at Kentucky Today, Hammersoft, Theroadislong, and Deb:, While the above exchange was in progress, another admin deleted the page as being overly promotional. I disagree, and have requested that this deletion be undone. However, you and your employer do need to understand that if an article about Kentucky Today is created, they will not control mit, and negative content, if supported by reliable sources, my be added to the article and remain there. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 19:52, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would be happy to create the article myself but I can't find a single independent source that mentions them. Theroadislong (talk) 20:04, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved the restored page to Draft:Kentucky Today, and cleaned up the formatting. However, like Theroadislong I have been unable to find any significant independent sources via a google search. Webmaster at Kentucky Today, if you can find such sources, whether online or offline, please list them on Draft talk:Kentucky Today. Please include full bibliographic detail. If such sources cannot be found and cited, this will never be a Wikipedia article. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 20:41, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for your efforts! Here are some independent sources about Kentucky Today

From the Advocate-Messenger

"The Advocate-Messenger has also announced a partnership with Kentucky Today, an online newspaper covering state government and UK sports. Long-time journalists Tom Latek and Roger Alford, along with other Kentucky Today staff, will be providing The Advocate-Messenger with investigative and analytical reporting on state government. On the sports side, Kentucky Today sports writer Keith Taylor will provide comprehensive coverage of University of Kentucky sports. “We are excited to partner with Kentucky Today because it gives readers top-notch state-level news coverage,” Hensley said. Kentucky Today touts itself as “your one-stop source for today’s top state, national and world news, plus news from the business, sports and entertainment worlds. … without the hassle of subscription fees or logins.” It is an online publication of the Kentucky Baptist Convention, the state’s largest religious organization with 750,000 members in 2,400 churches." Source The Advocate Messenger Advocate moving Accent, H&G content to A sections

Sun partners with Kentucky Today for UK, state news "As The Sun becomes one of the exclusive print partners for digital-only newspaper Kentucky Today, former Sun sports editor Keith Taylor will provide comprehensive coverage of Kentucky sports. Long-time journalists Tom Latek and Roger Alford and other Kentucky Today staff members who will provide in-depth analysis of what is going on in at the statehouse. ... "For Taylor, it is an invigorating opportunity to again be featured in the newspaper he was an integral part of for nearly 15 years.

“During my time at The Winchester Sun, Winchester and Clark County was like a second home to me and everyone treated me like family from the very first day and I have never forgotten that,” Taylor said. “The community has a special place in my heart, and I’m looking forward to providing coverage of the Kentucky Wildcats for Winchester and Clark County in my new capacity as sports editor at Kentucky Today.” ... Kentucky Today touts itself as “your one-stop source for today’s top state, national and world news, plus news from the business, sports and entertainment worlds … without the hassle of subscription fees or logins.” It is an online publication of the Kentucky Baptist Convention, the state’s largest religious organization with 750,000 members in 2,400 churches.

I have more links about the staff.

Mark Maynard, Kentucky Today managing editor http://www.dailyindependent.com/sports/distinguished-tomcat-award-finds-hands-of-write-ful-owner/article_a6971d16-eb8c-11e7-84d5-ff6c7d287a59.html http://www.dailyindependent.com/news/ronnie-ellis-maynard-is-great-journalist-better-person/article_c5b6c19e-5da5-11e7-aa3b-2f116bf8d93f.html http://www.dailyindependent.com/news/mark-maynard-years-and-no-longer-counting/article_d4b2e77e-4566-11e7-94b5-7fcd2c232610.html

Books Mark Maynard has written Teamwork: Ashland's 1961 Championship Basketball Season https://www.amazon.com/Teamwork-Ashlands-Championship-Basketball-Season/dp/1931672695 Mark My Words https://www.amazon.com/Mark-My-Words-Maynard/dp/1931672555 Grace Runner http://amyforafrica.com/grace-runner/

I'm sure there will be many more links to independent sources. Our editor had a long tenure with the Associated Press and the Columbus Daily Dispatch.

We don't mind negative reviews, comments or links. As journalists, we are use to it. 

Webmaster at Kentucky Today (talk) 21:24, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Webmaster at Kentucky Today I would reiterate that you need to change your username; usernames cannot be that of a position as that suggests the name could be shared(as in handed off to your successor or used by other webmasters at your paper). Instructions on how to do so are on your user talk page, please review them. 331dot (talk) 22:56, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Review Draft

Hello! Why does it takes so long for my draft to be reviewed? I've waited 1 month now, before, I only had to wait 2 weeks, max.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jan_Lexell Nimbo.lo (talk) 18:08, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Nimbo.lo, and welcome to the Teahouse. Drafts are reviewed by volunteer editors, working on there own time and at their own pace. There is a backlog. Six weeks is not an uncommon delay. If you got reviewed in 2 weeks before, you got lucky. In the meantime you can improve the draft further, or work on other articles or drafts. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:21, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • As it happens, Nimbo.lo, I'm one of the editors who review drafts, so I popped in to take a look at this one. It's been rejected four times already because you haven't demonstrated that the subject has received significant coverage in reliable, published, third-party sources, and all you've done are some cosmetic edits since the last rejection. I've now declined the draft for the fifth time, and I strongly urge you not to resubmit the draft until and unless you address the previous concerns and provide such sources. Ravenswing 19:30, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ravenswing:, I'm positive that the academic person meets the criteria for notability WP:NPROF. I'm just not sure how to show it. First, Lexell has received a honory degree at Luleå University of Technology, which therefore should establish notability under criteria #2. Lexells work has also got many citations which also should satisfy criteria #1. Although I'm aware that I haven't written in the submission anything about his citations. I wasn't sure how to reference it, that's why. I have now read in WP:NPROF that Scopus would be a good source. So if I wrote about Lexells citations in my article and reference to his site at Scopus, then notability should be established right? Nimbo.lo (talk) 20:47, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nimbo.lo surely an honorary degree would be covered in a news article at the time, and probably in a press release or on a web page by the granting institution. That could be cited. however, not all honorary degrees count as a highly prestigious honor, so this along may not satisfy WP:NPROF #1. Thw Scopus cite would need to make it clear that this person is 'highly-cited", which is a bit of a judgement call. Still such a cite would be a good idea. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:25, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
DESiegel I know, but I've already referenced to the university page, where they wrote about Lexells honorary degree. I've also referenced to Lund Universitys page where they wrote about it, and also to a big medicine magazine in Sweden. It should satisfy #2. Since it's an honorary degree at Luleå University of Technology. Which is a highly center of learning in Sweden. It would have been different if he'd got an honorary degree at a college, but LTU is not that. Therefore Notability should be established. About the citations, on Scopus you can clearly see that Lexell has many articles where he has got many citations (over 500, which is many), and he also stands as first author on them, that should be enough to establish notability. Nimbo.lo (talk) 05:56, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I just had a look at the draft - out of curiosity - and I also think this person seems to meet the criteria although the article is poorly-worded in places. I might be prepared to help out if needed. Deb (talk) 07:55, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Deb Yes please, that would have been very nice of you! Nimbo.lo (talk) 13:13, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User merging

Hi, aparently there was a global user merge a while ago. I havent been an active contributor in years now. However, now I see that this merge probalby lead to "hijacking" of someone elses account; as not the same person did use the username in question across all spaces. Who can be contacted to give the account back to the original owner, and un-link it from the rest of the similar usernames from other spaces? Roger (talk) 18:18, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Roger, welcome to the Teahouse. The current unified login system means the same person must have the same username at all wikis. Special:CentralAuth/Roger shows you have around 1400 edits in total across Wikimedia wikis. The former English Wikipedia account Roger was renamed to Roger~enwiki in 2015. Special:CentralAuth/Roger~enwiki only shows 4 edits and Special:Contributions/Roger~enwiki shows they were in 2002. Don't worry. Nothing should be done. You have far more right to the name than he does, and he probably hasn't even discovered that he was renamed 13 years after his last edit. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:37, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How to get my name on Wikipedia linked to my IMDb page

Hey there, Curious, my son is a series regular on the Netflix show Insatiable. Most of the cast names are typed in purple and link over to their IMDb page or web page. My sons name is typed in black and does not link to his IMBd page. How do I go about changing this for him. Thanks you so much for your assistance, Best, Mary — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:CB:4000:9E80:9C95:8ACA:4A17:87F9 (talk) 18:32, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link Insatiable (TV series) though none of the cast links go to IMDb or websites, they are links to their Wikipedia articles. Theroadislong (talk) 19:17, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Hello Mary, and Welcome to the Teahouse. I presume that you refer to Insatiable (TV series). Most cast members' names are linked, not to their IMDB pages (we don't normally do that), but to a separate Wikipedia article about that person. Ones that are not so linked apparently do not (yet) have articles, either because no one has yet created such an article, or because they are not yet notable. See our guideline on the notability of actors for more details on this.
Note also that you are strongly advises not to try to create a Wikipedia article about yourself, your son, or any close friend or person or organization with which you are closely associated. Wikipedia articles should be neutral, neither promoting nor disparaging anyone, and it is very hard to write neutrally about anyone or anything one is closely associated with. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 19:19, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CNN

Is CNN news is a reliable source or a good source for reference on wikipedia.DCEU (talk) 20:13, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. It would be for most stuff but if you could elaborate then I can give a more definitive answer. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:17, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Help! I believe I accidently created a page

I was following the directions for 'how to create a subpage in your sandbox' (To create a new sandbox (call it anything, such as 'sandbox2') enter this in the search box, using your actual username: User:Yourname/sandboxThen click on the reply you may create the page "User:Yourname/sandbox" ...but it seems I somehow created a new page (see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Redwidgeon/sandbox2&action=edit). How do I get rid of it?? Or, since I didn't actually add any info or click on 'publish page', will it just go away of its own accord? Thanks for any help you can provide! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redwidgeon (talk • contribs) 21:09, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Redwidgeon, welcome to the Teahouse. There is no problem. A sandbox is a page like any other so when you create a new sandbox, you create a new page. User:Redwidgeon/sandbox2 is valid page for a sandbox for your account. You can request deletion by placing {{db-u1}} on the page but there is no need to have it deleted. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:19, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Many thanks, PrimeHunter! Redwidgeon (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:05, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion vs reported fact in 'reliable sources'

Hello all. I have a question regarding citations of reliable sources, and how reliability translates between factual reporting and opinion reporting.

As I understand it, these sources are generally considered reliable because a certain amount of rigor/fact-checking goes into their publications. Furthermore, if they misreport a fact, usually there are other publications that one can cite showing the mistake (e.g. so and so is blue).

These standards seem somewhat more difficult to apply to opinions/opinion pieces/mixed opinion-facts in those same reliable sources (e.g. so and so is mean). After all, while 'so-and-so is mean' might appear to be a violation of neutral point of view, someone who routinely kicks puppies for fun is probably objectively mean. To some extent these can be explained by expressing the rationale, but this may not be possible if the citations are made in the condensed top-of-page summary, and one can fall into the trap of misleading due to incomplete information (e.g. so-and-so kicks puppies for fun, while leaving out monthly donations to orphanages).

How should this sort of thing be handled?

I apologize if this was previously answered. I did not see it when I checked through the archives.WeeSquirrel (talk) 23:01, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, WeeSquirrel, and welcome to the Teahouse. You are correct that opinion sources are treated somewhat differently than straight reporting sources. In general, when a source expresses an opinion, say Governor X is embarking on a disastrous policy. we report that as Columnist Y asserts that "Governor X is embarking on a disastrous policy." along with a citation to where Y said that, and, if others have given different views non the issue, a representative sampling of other views. (See WP:DUE.) When a basically opinion source states something as a fact Governor X accepted a bribe from mogul Z. we may accept that as a reliable source to support the fact, but usually not as a sole source. And if there is dispute about what the facts are, we should give all versions that have reliable support, or at least a representative sample, if there are too many. Here again we tend to Use the Y said that X accepted ... or According to Y, X accepted ...., again with a proper citation. If there is a choice between a straight reporting piece, and an opinion piece that also states facts or purported facts, then all other things being equal, the straight reporting tends to get more weight. But much depends on the reputation of the specific sources involved. For example, an opinion piece on a Economic issue by Paul Krugman who is both a columnist and a renowned economist would probably weigh more heavily than "straight reporting" from the National Enquirer or the Daily Mail.
Note that accurately recounting what a non-neutral source says is not itself non-neutral: the source did in fact make a statement, and if the source is significant enough, then its views should be included in the article (WP:FRINGE sources are a different matter). WP:NPOV means to include all relevant views, not to omit on4es nthat have strong opnions, even biased ones. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 02:21, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your welcome, your in-depth answer of the question, and the very helpful links (especially on balance). We were having some difficulty on a somewhat controversial page on what would I suppose be considered a fringe source. There seems to be an argument flaring up over the extent to which the discussion/manner of discussion of the topic, especially in the lead section, gives off the appearance of undue Wiki bias, and I was having some difficulty wrapping my head around when it is just a case of calling a spade a spade, versus an excessively enthusiastic description of something that admittedly is seriously flawed, but may not on the whole quite merit the treatment received. WeeSquirrel (talk) 17:59, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

unsuccessful in getting help

i am not a computer user and have been having a really hard time getting information for Daniel Shindarov, a 93 year old violin player published to wikipedia. tried my best with directions on article creation but to no success... and no matter what i try cannot get any help, just deletions. Mr. Shindarov being 93 years old does not really have articles... there are some russian newspapers and a few online music sites that have written some articles, but being his age not much is available from russia when he was part of bolshoi theater orchestra. how can i get some help with this creation? didn't want to wait until he is passed on before creating information about him. thank you, sofia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirskull (talk • contribs) 23:18, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, Sirskull welcome to our Teahouse. I'm a little bit confused by your posting because the 'hard time' you refer to seems to date back six years to an article your submitted in 2012 which was then rejected. That article appears to have been kept as a draft so that it could be further worked on, though six years later, untouched, it is inevitable that it would have been deleted. You then appear to have returned and posted a question on the talk page of an editor who has not been active for over a year -though I couldn't work out what drove you to do that. Anyway - you're here now, and that's what counts. The best place to draft any article is in your own sandbox (every user has one of their own) as there's no time limit on how long content remains there, providing it meets with our general acceptability guidelines (no copyright violations/unsubstantiated material about a living person etc). Because not everyone in the world meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines, it may be that you'll never be able to create an article on this man. But there's no harm in trying. If he's from Russia, a good place to start is to look on Russian Wikipedia and see if he's been covered there. If so, you could use the references deployed there as a starting point, and even translate the article (providing you give credit to the source). If not, you'd need to start looking around for in-depth coverage of him in books, newspapers, magazines etc. If he is notable only for his music, you would need to read WP:NMUSICIAN to see whether or not he's likely to meet our criteria for notability of musicians. Gather those references together in your sandbox and then use only them to write about him, but using only your own words, not copying those sources directly. Once you've done that, then you could consider submitting the article to Articles for Creation, or coming back here for an opinion. How does that sound? Is this the sort of help you were hoping for? We can't write the article for you, but we can advise whether or not you're one the right path. There certainly seem to be a lot of videos and short mentions of him, though at a quick check I couldn't see anything in depth that had been written about him by other people in mainstream independent websites. But maybe you can dig these out. Hoping this helps to get you going again. regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:59, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reassessing articles

Is anybody editor to reassess articles, and how often should they be reassessed? I'm asking this because the page orange-fin anemonefish was assessed almost 10 years ago as "stub class." Since then, the article has grown to 8 times its size, gotten 6 more references, been divided into 5 full-length sections, or 8 including sub-sections. I think that the quality rating should be start class or C class - the reasons I don't think higher is because the sentence structure is a little bit off and there's a full section about a subject that is fully covered in another article.--SkyGazer 512 talk / contributions / subpages 23:20, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello SkyGazer 512. Thanks for your question, and welcome. I think you have a point about this article's quality assessment, so correspondingly I have changed the assessment grading to 'Start' class. Actually, you could have done that assessment yourself as it doesn't require any official qualification or permission to do - just common sense. Apart from 'Good Article' and 'Featured Article' there is no formal barrier to have to jump over - it's all very subjective, and a bit woolly. According to this page of statistics there are currently 575,245 articles which remain completely unassessed, so it's highly likely that many more have the wrong quality assessment. My person view is that all these assessments should be clearly displayed on every article's page so that users can see how complete or incomplete an article is considered to be, or can modify the grading according this grading guide. However consensus in a recent discussion is against me on this issue, and we only show it for FA and GA standard pages. Hope this helps, Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:17, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply. That's definitely helpful information to know.--SkyGazer 512 talk / contributions / subpages 00:19, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, if I am the person who has made an article substantially longer (better?) I do not upgrade the rating, because that feels too much like patting myself on the back. On occasion I shorten an article and downgrade it, but with an explanation at Talk. David notMD (talk) 01:08, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A stub is "too short to provide more than rudimentary information about a subject". I frequently see articles rated as stubs that are clearly no longer stubs. I have no problem upgrading them to Start, whether or not I am the editor who expanded them. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:09, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To see the class of an article, turn on Xtools in your preferences, under Gadgets -> Appearance: XTools: Dynamically show statistics about a page's history under the page heading. Vexations (talk) 14:21, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nick Moyes, I know this is two days after my original question, but is approval needed to assess a page as A class?--SkyGazer 512 talk / contributions / subpages 19:21, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again, SkyGazer 512. Good question and, to be frank, I wasn't sure myself because 'A' grade articles are not far below the peer reviewed level of GA - Good Article (which I have been involved with a bit). As always, a little bit of research and reading helps. So, at WP:WikiProject Council/Assessment FAQ tells us the following: In general, anyone can add or change an article's rating. However, assessing an article as "A-Class" generally requires the agreement of at least two editors, and the "GA" and "FA" labels should only be used on articles that have been reviewed and are currently designated as good articles or featured articles, respectively. So, what to do? I would advise going to the relevant WikiProject that the page you're considering relates to, and proposing the A grade assessment, and seek opinions from editors there with experience, and changing the assessment if consensus goes that way. You could put a similar post on the talk page of the article itself. Another thing you could consider is taking the lead to get whatever article it is up to GA level and seeking advice from Peer Review as to what further improvements you could make. How does this sound? Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:05, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, once again, very helpful information. Actually, there isn't a specific article I'm considering to be assessed as 'A' grade right now, I was just curious for if I may come across something like that sometime in the future.--SkyGazer 512 talk / contributions / subpages 21:07, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and I have yet another question :). Is there something like Special:AncientPages but for talk pages instead of articles? This would be very helpful for reassessing articles that may have been assessed a long time ago and the article has grown greatly.--SkyGazer 512 talk / contributions / subpages 21:52, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

how do i get this topic

the history of transportation in southern Nigeria full story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uzorjesi2 (talk • contribs) 23:41, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. Are you trying to find this article on Wikipedia? Thegooduser Let's Chat 23:45, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Uzorjesi2: Is this article (Transport in Nigeria) of any use to you as a starting point? You might find the folks at WP:REFDESK are better equipped to help you find the information you seek than are the hosts here at the Teahouse. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:50, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:AlviZaman80

I found this account on the user creation log. User:AlviZaman80. Thir userpage and talk page seems too advance for a new user to do. Is this user a sock? Thegooduser Let's Chat 23:44, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Thegooduser: Do you have some reason to suspect that the user is a sock other than their ability to use wikicode on their user page? Maybe they studied it beforehand, or abandoned a prior account in good faith, or forgot their password, etc. etc. Please assume good faith and don't go looking for socks unless you have evidence. 331dot (talk) 23:54, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: Sorry. I was just wondering about that account. I'll assume good faith in the future. :-) Thegooduser Let's Chat 23:56, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Appears Thegooduser was correct and user was a sock of User:Alvi Z.NZFC(talk) 00:59, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
NZ Footballs Conscience Fair enough, but Thegooduser didn't say that the name was similar to another one,(or say they had anything else to base their suspicion on) only going by the user's proficiency in creating their user page. That's probably not enough in most cases. 331dot (talk) 07:55, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Asia's Next Top Model Cycle 1-Cycle 5

Can I ask you a question, I want to help and contibute the updates of Asia's Next Top Model, and can help me with it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natheloiz04 (talk • contribs) 23:46, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Natheloiz04. I'm sorry you've had to wait for quite some time for an answer to your question here at our Teahouse. I suspect we weren't quite sure what you were asking, and perhaps hoped someone else might dive in with an answer first! The Teahouse is here to help with specific questions about editing Wikipedia, rather than assisting users in jobs they want to do, like improving particular articles. But I would say that most sensible editors who are new to Wikipedia learn how things work by making only small changes at first, and watching to see how others edit and contribute, too. It's all done by consensus (working together) and should be based on sources of information that are reliable and independent of the subject. I recognise that it can seem overwhelming at first to make edits that everyone else is happy with. But be bold, and be also sensitive to any feedback or reverts to any edits you make at first. You will learn from these, and any mistakes you may make, and you shouldn't be offended, even if sometimes an edit you make is reversed (reverted) with a rather sharp or terse comment from another editor. If you are unsure why one editor has taken a certain action, it does no harm to ask them on their talk page to explain further. May I urge you to read Help:Getting started, which I hope you will find interesting? I'll pop by in a moment and leave a few other useful links on your talk page which should help get you going. I hope this goes a little way to answering your concerns. Pop back with any specific questions you may have at any time. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:46, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Transfer old contributions?

I cannot remember my login for my old account BroadwayLuver, so I created this one. Is there anyway to port the contributions I made in BroadwayLuver to SondheimFanatic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SondheimFanatic (talk • contribs) 04:22, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SondheimFanatic. I don't believe it's possible for such a thing to be done, primarily because the edits made with a particular account need to remain attributed to that account and accounts are never really deleted. You can, however, post a link on your user page to the older account if you like if you'd like people to be aware that you once edited using a different account. Just follow the instructions in WP:MULTIPLE. You might also be able to WP:REDIRECT your old usepage and old user talk page to your current ones. At the same time, you can treat your older account as if it never existed and just edit as normal. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:37, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
SondheimFanatic In order to transfer your edit history to a new username, you would need to make a request using either procedure described at WP:CHU from your original account. Since you say that you forgot the login to it, that's not an option, so you will need to do as Marchjuly suggests. 331dot (talk) 07:47, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SondheimFanatic: User:BroadwayLuver has an email address registered in the account. If you still have access to the mail then you can use Special:PasswordReset. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:31, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How to recover deleted draft for editing

hi i would like to see my draft that was deleted for editing please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bloggerglittergloss (talk • contribs) 05:07, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bloggerglittergloss: I don't see that you have edited any pages other than this one. You can try WP:REFUND if you know the name of the article that was deleted. RudolfRed (talk) 05:11, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Bloggerglittergloss: It was deleted as spam. Spam is never restored. There is another draft about the same person at Draft:Abhijeet Gholap and there should never be more than one draft avout the same thing. As already requested, you have to comply with WP:PAID. Thanks, --bonadea contributions talk 08:04, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Bloggerglittergloss: I have mailed a copy of the last version. Other users don't have access to your stored email address but can mail you via Special:EmailUser. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:07, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you use Twinkle or Huggle without being an admin?

I'd like to find some vandals and revert it but it is rather hard for me. But here's a question. Can you actually use Twinkle or Huggle as just a normal user? If so, I might be looking forward to using either one. But is there a tutorial for a beginner? HorsesARENiceRide me to my talk page 06:06, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back to the Teahouse, HorsesAreNice. You do not need to be an administrator but you need to be very careful with their use. Please read Wikipedia:Huggle and Wikipedia:Twinkle for complete information including manuals. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:44, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh cool! But is there a tutorial and which one is more popular? Huggle or Twinkle? Oh and can you use it on a tablet or phone too?HorsesARENiceRide me to my talk page 15:01, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@HorsesAreNice: Personally, I'd advise against using Huggle to start with (I'm still coming to grips with it myself!). Twinkle is very useful, but you really ought to lurk at 'Recent Changes', where you'd be hard-pressed to not find any vandals. Try this setting to reveal the most likely problems amongst current edits. For guidance on Twinkle, see WP:TWINKLE and Wikipedia:Twinkle/doc. You might also like to consider live spell-checking with Lupin's tool. This can also highlight non-good faith editors. See: User:Lupin/Anti-vandal tool. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:51, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article

When I want to write something in wikipedia , I am denied why?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Obaidullah wahdat (talk • contribs) 07:21, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Obaidullah wahdat. In the article Subject pronoun, you misspelled the word "subjective" as "subjecetive". Also, you added this personal commentary "It is proofread by Obaidullah Wahdat Haidar" to the article, which is not allowed. You are allowed to edit articles, but if your changes do not improve an article, they will be reverted. Take some time to study our help pages, including our policies and guidelines, and be sure that your edits to articles are actual improvements. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:33, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Murree

Can you please look at Murree? its written that it comes in Punjab but if you see Google map it is covered in KPK!! so its needs to be changed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haseebullah Popal (talk • contribs) 10:19, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Haseebullah Popal, welcometo our Teahouse, and thank you very much for raising your concerns. I'm terribly sorry you have had to wait quite a long time for a reply to your post here. I really think these matters need to be discussed on the article's talk page (see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines), and not here. I see you did try to make this alteration yourself, and that your edit to Murree was reverted on the grounds that Google maps is not an accurate source for adminstrative boundaries. This is not an unreasonable thing to say, so if you feel there really are genuine grounds for stating it falls within anotherr area, you will need to provide very reliable sources to demonstrate this. Opinion and data gathered by Google maps simply don't count for much if governments and local councils state the opposite. I have no view on the matter, but encyclopedias need to be based on reliable sources at all times, and everyone can contribute to ensuring accuracy. I hope this makes sense. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:19, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Slander on a person page

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

I absolutely do not like the person the web page describes. However the sentence: 

 ``She is a useless human devoid of empathy, humanity, or merit. She is medically incapable of self-reflection, a condition doctors have deemed terminal.

is extremely childish and needs to be removed.

And no, I'm not going to be the one to remove it, the damn drama that happens here when editing pages is why I stay the hell away, but putting that in a wikipedia page is clearly not appropriate and reflects badly on wikipedia.

The user that did that, even though I probably would buy them a beer for being right, needs to have their account suspended for mis-use of wikipedia in that way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1010:B06B:8D62:B30E:1CD2:A6CC:41AE (talk) 11:11, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've reverted it. Fram (talk) 11:14, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, the person who carried out that vandalism did so from an IP address, not an account. That IP made three reasonable minor Article edits plus one comment on a talk page during 2017 – this latest seems different in character, so may not be the same person. Time may tell. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.218.14.51 (talk) 11:37, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing Wiki Commons creators

Hi,

I've been trying out adding in a photo from wiki commons - the actual adding in process is fine. However I haven't added a specific attributation to whoever uploaded the photo to Commons. I've had a look at a number of other photos added by others from commons, and nothing seems to show up in the wikitext - I just wanted to check there was nothing that I'm supposed to add?

Cheers, Nosebagbear (talk) 12:23, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nosebagbear. Clicking an image automatically leads to attribution (unless there is specific image code to disable this feature). This is sufficient. Wikipedia does not use image attribution in captions or elsewhere on the article itself. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:07, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I shall go and add some more to some photo-less articles. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:21, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Italian Wikipedia

I edited this random article I got: Santa Margherita di Atri. The comment box stated that I should use the article in the Italian wikipedia as reference. I don't know Italian, so I used Google Translate. Now, I'm getting random Italian alerts from the Italian wikipedia and, even though I didn't edit anything anything in it. I can't even read what those messages say and google translate is becoming glitchy. Please assist — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sitaphul (talk • contribs) 14:26, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sitaphul. Just ignore the Italian message. When you visit a wiki the first time while logged in, your account is created there. That happened today at the Italian Wikipedia. Some wikis post welcome messages to new user accounts which haven't edited. This causes an alert. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:25, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Sitaphul and welcome to the Teahouse. I am afraid you misunderstood the message on Santa Margherita di Atri. It meant that you could perhaps find additional information in the Italian Wikipedia article, not that you should cite the Italian Wikipedia as a source. Wikipedia is never considered a relable source for a Wikipedia article. For one thing, it risks circular citation and "citeogenesis". For another, user-generated content, ihncluding Wikipedia, is not considered reliable. I have removed the cites to the it Wikipedia that were in the article. If you are able to add citations to reliable sources it would be helpful. I agree that you can safely ignore the messages from the Italian Wikipedia. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 20:09, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sitaphul (talk • contribs) 06:19, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

self-published source and local newspapers as sources

I am writing a reasonably short history of a 200-year old church, of which I am a member. The WIKI article will be supported with citations from a longer history of the church written 50 years ago, by an independent author, but self-published by the church. The only other source I have is from issues of the local newspaper. I need to use it as a source for the church's activities for the past 50 years. Do I need permission from the publisher to cite the local newspaper as a source? Will use of a local newspaper be acceptable to Wikipedia? The local newspaper went out of business last November, but I don't think that affects the need for permissions. Can anyone advise? Doug — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug armstrong ph (talk • contribs) 14:41, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Citations and short quotes don't need permissions at all. Local papers, which are reliable should be fine. Self-published sources would be fine for non-controversial information, but for anything which could be contested, a independent source is helpful, and self-published sources do not meet the minimum requirements for notability. --Jayron32 14:52, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Welcome to the Teahouse, Doug armstrong ph. I echo Jayron that a local newspaper generally works as a source, but it depends on the breadth and importance of the paper. A city daily newspaper, almost always; a small town weekly, often not. Beyond that, though, a source must provide "significant coverage" to a subject, which means discussing it in depth: the general run of "Rev. Ignatz Bartosiak will be the guest preacher at All Souls Church this Sunday at 10:30 AM" items do not count as to supporting the notability of the subject. Even if it does, you'd have to find another source beyond the self-published history; WP:GNG requires multiple sources to support notability. Ravenswing 17:17, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Publish Biograph

what are the details i need to input before my article can be publish? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chief bolaji (talk • contribs) 15:09, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

notability

If the lack of religion coverage is a larger trend among national media and some reviewers require national media as legit forms for notability how can I get approval for Draft:Douglas_Clay ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Csulaguy (talk • contribs) 15:50, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox for venue vs NRHP

How does one decide under which Infobox should a sports venue with great historical and architectural value be listed? Can one list a structure such as the Hiram Bithorn Stadium in Wikipedia under a dual infobox? comment added by Tgrau789 --Tgrau789 (talk) 17:31, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Translation

mikä on ilves tanskaksi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.204.244.161 (talk) 18:54, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, the Teahouse is only for Wikipedia-related questions. Please use Google Translate or a similar tool. GermanJoe (talk) 03:58, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Hew Locke" wiki page multiple issues

Hi everyone! I am the original author of this page - which i believe was, and still is - factually accurate. I have reworked it and hope I have corrected the issues of -

- wording that promotes the subject in a subjective manner without imparting real information. (February 2018) - tone or style may not reflect the encyclopedic tone used on Wikipedia. (February 2018)

But as I have a Close Connection to the subject of the page - I understand that I shouldn't remove the template messages myself. Is there a way I can invite another editor to check my changes, make any new changes they want, and hopefully remove all the template message?

Trying to get the template removed as quickly as I can! Vicarage bobby (talk) 19:05, 6 April 2018 (UTC)Vicarage Bobby[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Vicarage bobby. I see no major problems in the current version of the article, and none are described at Talk: Hew Locke. Accordingly, I have removed the tags and asked that they not be restored without an explanation on the talk page. Thanks for this article about an interesting artist. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:12, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

thanks Cullen - I didn't expect anyone to deal with it so quickly - it is much appreciated. Keep up the good work everywhere! Vicarage bobby (talk) 15:29, 7 April 2018 (UTC)Vicarage Bobby[reply]

Deletion of article

hi i am new to wikipedia, and one my article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_technology_innovations_in_renewable_energy has been flagged for deletion by discospinster

I disagree with reason given by the above user that the journal is a "non-noteable journal", this is because the article i created was about a publication which has been publishing for the last 5 years. I thought putting it on wikipedia will increase its reach and become more noteable . I have included citations of reputable indexing agencies which include the content from this journal in their database. I can share even more citiations of agencies who have reviewed the journal and considered it useful. Thus the journal is growing and noteable and readers on wikipedia should know about it.

if you still disagree with my opinion please let me know what should i do specifically to prove this article deserves its place on wikipedia. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Support9975 (talk • contribs) 15:24, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Support9975: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You are permitted to remove the Proposed Deletion tag(what that tag is called) if you disagree with its reasoning, although Discospinster or anyone could then begin a full Articles for Deletion discussion. I haven't yet looked at the article in depth, but merely listing where the journal is indexed is not sufficient to establish notability, the measure by which subjects are determined to merit articles here or not. This journal needs to be described with in depth coverage in independent reliable sources. If it is not, it probably would not merit an article at this time. If independent sources exist, please offer them.
I would also ask you if you are associated with this journal in any way. Thanks 331dot (talk) 19:37, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Support9975 and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia. Wikipedia uses the term "notability" in a special sense. It does not mean "importance" here, it specifically means "has been written about by others in a non-trivial way". Therefore the article needs to cite multiple independent published reliable sources to establish this. That is the key requirement. Please read Referencing for Beginners to learn how to format such citations. And do please note that it isn't "your" article, as per WP:OWN. Once posted to Wikipedia, anyone and everyone has the right to edit it to improve the project. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 19:44, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Discospinster. I'm afraid that, like many people, you seem to have a misapprehension about what Wikipedia is, and what it is for. To "increase its reach and become more noteable" is another way of saying "to promote it". But promotion of any kind, commercial or not, is specifically forbidden on Wikipedia. Sorry. --ColinFine (talk) 21:42, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't create the article, I proposed to delete it. ... discospinster talk 03:59, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube Info Update Frequency

Fairly simple question, I'd think, so here's to hoping that the answer is just as simple. Is there guidance somewhere as to how often articles /should/ be updated with Youtube information (*number of views, subscribers, etc*)? I've taken a cursury glance around but have yet to see any guidelines for this situation. Thanks in advance. - NsTaGaTr (Talk) 19:36, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As often as one wishes. We are a volunteer project as editors here, so, provided that the edits are not conflicting, you can update as freely and frequently as you wish, preferably providing citations from reliable sources. Hope this helps, Stormy clouds (talk) 19:44, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, NsTaGaTr and welcome to the Teahouse. As Stormy clouds says, there is no particular frequency with which such information should be updated, but I would not bother unless there has been a significant change or the figures are old enough that their accuracy would be questioned, say more than 2 years old. Such stats are usually of little importance to a Wikipedia article, unless it is about a person notable largely for Youtube posting, or about a Youtube event. if you do update such information, please include an "as of" to indicate when the information was last checked. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 19:55, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In my view information about "numbers of views, subscribers, etc" should not appear at all in a Wikipedia article unless an independent reliably published source has reported them, and should be updated only when the source updates or a new source is published . Without such a source, I would regard them as original research, unacceptable in a Wikipedia article. Furthermore, until such a source has reported them, I don't think they are encyclopaedic in most cases. --ColinFine (talk) 21:54, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here I disagree, ColinFine. I think YouTube is a reliable source for the view counts of specific items, and the subscriber counts of specific channels. If someone is notable largely for YouTube success, then this info is relevant and encyclopedic. In most other cases, they will not be relevant. (And an independent source will almost surely merely be repeating what YouTube says, there really is no other source for view counts.) NsTaGaTr, be aware that the issue may be disputed. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 02:06, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image uploads

I need help changing out the profile picture on my daughter's wikipedia page. She's embarrassed by the one that is currently up but I cant seem to upload a new one or figure out how to link Please help! Can I email it somewhere? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JennaCable (talk • contribs) 21:09, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JennaCable: - You can upload the file, provided that you took it yourself, via Wikimedia Commons. You can use the Upload Wizard for this process to make it easier. You will need to waive your copyright on the image to upload it, and provide a reason for its use. However, you need to disclose your conflict of interest before editing the article in question, and ask other editors if the replacement image is suitable for use. Hope this helps. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:22, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Hello, JennaCable, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia. Please see Help:Introduction to images with Wiki Markup/1, Wikipedia:Uploading images, and Help:Pictures for detailed information on how to upload an image, and then place it in an article. The image must be your own work, that is, you actually took the picture. Or if it is not, you must get the copyright holder (normally the photographer) to upload it or to email Wikipedia with a grant of permission, as described at Donating Copyrighted Material and Requesting copyright permission. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:24, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note, you need not waive your copyright to upload an image. But you must grant a free license allowing anyone in the world to reuse or modify the image, provide that you are properly credited. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:27, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How do I get wiki makeup tools?

How do I get wiki makeup tools?

Hello @PW102281: and welcome to the Teahouse. Did you mean to ask about markup tools (see Help:Wikitext)? I have posted a few links to basic information - including editing guides - on your user talkpage. Hope this helps. GermanJoe (talk) 04:06, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tatums, Oklahoma

Derrick E.D. Smith Jr is not the mayor of this town. He is currently on probation for impersonating a public official. He is not allowed to even run for Mayor in Tatums, OK because he is not a resident. You can no longer edit this field. Every time it is changed to the correct Mayor, Pinky Hurley it is changed back to Derrick with nothing to validate its credibility. This needs to be corrected. He should not be representing this historical town. As you can see below he goes by many things, but Mayor of Tatums, Oklahoma he is not.

https://www.facebook.com/people/Mayor-D-ED-Smith-Jr/100007616476480

https://www.linkedin.com/in/derrick-e-d-smith-jr-b734b3128

https://www.linkedin.com/in/derrick-e-d-smith-74093032

https://www.facebook.com/people/Mayor-D-ED-Smith-Jr/100007616476480 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barbiej123 (talk • contribs) 22:26, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Barbiej123, and welcome to the Teahouse, The Tatums, Oklahoma article currently lists Pinkey Hurley as mayor. In general the place for suggesting changes would be Talk:Tatums, Oklahoma. Aha! I see a specific editor has been inserting thiw incorrect information. (Note, facebook would probably not constitute a reliable source for this info.) I will warn that editor not to insert incorrect information again. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:55, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Bakker

Hi I'm back again. Recently, I have successfully got the article to GA-status and now I'm may consider getting it to FA now? Is there anything I can do to help do (if I do)? If so, any suggestions I should do or add in the article (lead, sections, citations, photos, etc) and if there is, I would love to see a list of what the suggestions for me to nominate it. I am prepared for any scenario. --LovelyGirl7 talk 01:10, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, LovelyGirl7, and welcome back! It's awesome that you have got this article to GA status in your just three months on Wikipedia. It certainly took me longer than that to have my first GA. The step from GA to FA is much greater than upgrading from say B-Class to GA. I've been here for almost five years and still haven't promoted an article to FA status, though that is a dream of mine.
Expect a thorough and rigorous review. You should ensure that there are no obvious errors so that the reviewers can concentrate on more substantial issues. Here is a useful tool that looks for some common issues. Read some of the main sections of Manual of Style and, of course, the Featured article criteria. The most important advice I can give you is to check how some recent and ongoing FA nomination discussions have fared, here Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. You'll get an idea of the standard and what kind of issues the reviewers are looking for.
The sourcing on the article looks okay, but the FA reviewers will probably have a close examination of those, so be sure you can come up with better or alternative sources if they ask for it. The article also looks a bit short to me; most FAs tend to be longer. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:52, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted edit

I just learned that one of my edits was deleted. What I'd like to know is what it was and why it was deleted. Did I do something wrong? Maximajorian Viridio (talk) 03:28, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Maximajorian Viridio:, and welcome to the Teahouse. Could you name the article or edit in question please, so other editors can look into the specific situation? Generally speaking, you could contact the deleting editor to ask for clarification, if an edit summary was not provided or not clear enough. I am assuming you probably know this already, but just in case: you can check the article's editing log with the "View history" tab. GermanJoe (talk) 03:50, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Maximajorian Viridio: - re-pinging (misclick). GermanJoe (talk) 03:50, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure we're on the same page. What I mean is, I looked at my User Statistics page, and saw that one of my edits had been deleted, as opposed to being live. Maximajorian Viridio (talk) 04:25, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the Teahouse, Maximajorian Viridio. You made a single edit to the now-deleted article "Criticism of Osama bin Laden". That article was deleted as the result of the discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Osama bin Laden, and your edit was deleted as a result of that discussion. It is perfectly normal for active editors to have a few deleted edits, and this is not a negative indicator at all. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:22, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's reassuring. Thank you for filling me in. Maximajorian Viridio (talk) 15:04, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How can i contribute to Wikipedia?

Hello All,

I am new to Wikipedia and am very exited to being here. I would like to learn how can I improve the Wikipedia articles in respect to Wikipedia guidelines. Where I will find all the Wikipedia rules to follow while improving any articles? Any advise will be appreciated. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gangasagar Vishwakarma (talk • contribs) 10:22, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gangasagar Vishwakarma - finding all of the rules may be a bit of an ambitious first project, but the core policies can be found here - these are the five pillars which underline the encyclopedia and its policies regarding editing. Other key policies which arise frequently for new editors, and are worth perusing as a result, include conflicts of interest, avoiding edit wars, learning what Wikipedia is not, comprehending citations from reliable sources, and neutrality in editing. This is merely the tip of the iceberg, but it is a good place to begin. As a sidebar, you should also always sign your posts by leaving four tildes ("~~~~") at the end of each comment when on talk pages or forums for discussion. Hope this helps, Stormy clouds (talk) 10:35, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How to get my articles assessed?

I've created 5 articles so far. Two of them, Xu Geyang and Long Yang, are assessed because they are created via the AFC process. The other three are created directly, and they are unassessed. How can I get them assessed? Omega68537 (talk) 12:58, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Omega68537, and welcome to the Teahouse. Article assessments are awesome, and they can give a great sense of purpose and direction for new editors. For experienced editors, they tend to be less interesting and something of a burden. Yet there are people who actively assess articles. In my experience, it might take a few days for an article to get assessed, up to a week or two even. Assessments at this stage are usually done by people who patrol new pages in areas they are interested in. If your article is not caught by the people who do assessment at this stage, and that might be the case because it's been a week, there is another option. Most WikiProjects have article assessment (and re-assessment) teams. For instance, WikiProject Biographies takes requests for assessment on this page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Assessment. If they don't respond and you'll grow inpatient, I guess the Teahouse (here!) is also an option. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:40, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Omega68537, I have assessed three of your articles, grading 1 as C-class, and the other two as Start-class. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:56, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Omega68537, I notice that pretty much all of your cited sources are in Chinese. That is perfectly acceptable, but if there are any useful reliable sources in English, please provide them also. That will make it much easier for readers and other editors who do not read Chinese to verify the content. Thank you. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:18, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Revenue Cutter merlin india

Hello I wonder if you can help I am looking for any information on the Revenue Cutter Merlin which was lost at sea in 1940 with all on board during a typhoon off the coast in Bombay , can you help please — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leolinedancer (talk • contribs) 13:32, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Leolinedancer. You can ask such questions at the Reference desk here: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous. Cheers Polyamorph (talk) 14:16, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Create a new page

Hi there!

I wish to create a page for a really low budget film, that externally only has a Twitter and Facebook feed for references. Besides that, and the crowdfunding website, is this enough external sources of information for the page to be published on Wikipedia?

I plan of putting in little snippets of info regarding the plot; including the cast and crew also. I must also add that some of the people involved can have links to their IMDb pages also.

Thanks!Nostromo123 (talk) 14:21, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nostromo23: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. All article subjects must be shown to be notable with independent reliable sources (See WP:RS) with in depth coverage. Primary sources such as social media are not acceptable to establish notability as Wikipedia defines it. (WP:N) I regret to say it doesn't sound like this film is yet notable enough for an article. 331dot (talk) 14:27, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would add that user editable sources like IMDB are not usually accepted as reliable sources. You may find reading Your First Article helpful. 331dot (talk) 14:30, 7 April 2018 (UTC
I'm sorry, Nostromo123, but from your description, what you are trying to do is promote the film. Please use another site for this, because promotion of all types is strictly forbidden on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is only interested in subjects which several people unconnected with have already chosen to write about in reliably published sources; and articles should be mostly based on what those independent sources have said, not what the subject says about themselves, or what random people on the Internet say. --ColinFine (talk) 18:58, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just created first article.

Please could someone help me to edit the article BlueAir because I am a bit lost on how to do it. You will find information on the wiki page, but I have marked this as a stub.

1) Was I correct to mark it as a stub? 2) Can someone please help me to expand it?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisuserisepic (talk • contribs) 10:52, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Thisuserisepic, and welcome to the Teahouse. You were correct to mark this as a stub, but the problem is that you did not cite any sources. Therefore, in this edit Chrissymad converted the article back to a redirect to Blue Air, advising that you work on your new article in draft space. I concur with that advice. I would threfore sugget that you use the article wizard to create Draft:BlueAir. But before you do this, you should seriously consider whether this company is Notatable in the special sense in which Wikipedia uses that term. Please read our guideline on he notability of corporations. In general, you would need to find multiple Independent professionally published reliable sources that discuss the company in some depth. That means not anything from the company itself, not its web site or press releases, nor interviews with company officials, nor stories that just repeat press releases. Those are not independent. It also means not mere directory entries or passing mentions or routine announcements. Those do not discus the company in any depth. Each source used to help establish notability should contain at least 3-4 paragraphs about he company. If you cannot find at least three sources like that, stop, there cannot be a Wikipeia article about the company at this time.
Also, are you in any way connected with the company? if yu are, you have a Conflict of Interest, please read our guideline on that before proceeding. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:27, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate article

I created a pretty in-depth article about artist Blanche McVeigh, published as a draft on March 1. It has never been accepted, but I noticed today that a stub-level article was published last week. Can someone assist with merging the two articles? Mine is more detailed, but the stub has better categories. SaturdayLibrarian (talk) 16:57, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link: Draft:Blanche McVeigh  ; Blanche McVeigh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hello, SaturdayLibrarian and welcome to the Teahouse. Links to the two versions are above. You are correct that a WP:Merge along with a history mere, is the way to proceed. I will quickly review you draft, merge into it anything useful from the stub if it looks OK, and then move it and do the history merge. Thank you for your contributions! DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:05, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much. I appreciate your quick response! SaturdayLibrarian (talk) 17:55, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The accepted and merged article is now at Blanche McVeigh. Thank you, SaturdayLibrarian for what looks like a very good new article. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 19:49, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Uproven Statements Presented as Fact, Edits/Changes Rejected

Hello,

This regarding the Wikipedia page for "Patricia Kennealy-Morrison"

link: Patricia Kennealy-Morrison (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

extended content challenging the article's account of the "marriage" of Kennealy to Jim Morrison
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This page contains the statement:

"As editor-in-chief of Jazz & Pop she first interviewed Jim Morrison of the rock band The Doors in January 1969. After the interview, they began a correspondence, became friends and later lovers. She and Morrison exchanged marriage vows in a Celtic handfasting ceremony in June 1970.[2] Before witnesses, one of them a Presbyterian minister,[3] - according to her memoir - the couple signed a document declaring themselves wed.[4] Although handfasting, like other purely religious ceremonies, is not legal unless the appropriate State paperwork is filed, she later changed her legal name to include Morrison's name, and Morrison addressed letters and poems to her as "Patricia Morrison" and "my wife, Patricia".[5]"

Kennealy-Morrison has never publicly identified the minister she claims performed the ceremony, or any of the witnesses she claims witnessed the ceremony.

The letters Kennealy-Morrison claims Jim Morrison wrote to her where he addresses her as his wife or the addressed envelopes with Morrison writing "Patricia Morrison" have never been produced and therefore have never been authenticated or presented to the public.

The signed "marriage document" that is also referenced on this page contains a lot of Kennealy-Morrison's handwriting with redacted information which does not allow the reader to see the name of the minister whom Kennealy-Morrison claims presided over the "handfasting ceremony".

"They declared themselves wed." Again, this is according ONLY to Kennealy-Morrison. Jim Morrison's "death benefits" card was auctioned off a few years ago. Morrison filled the card out four months after Kennealy-Morrison claims he took her as his "wife" and yet on this form Morrison declared himself "single" and listed his younger brother Andy Morrison as the only beneficiary. In his last will and testament Morrison declared himself as "unmarried" and listed Pamela Courson-Morrison and his two siblings as the beneficiaries and formally declared Courson-Morrison as his, as he put it, "only companion in life",

Wikipedia also lists two external resources this page that only serve to bolster Kennealy-Morrison's unproven claims of having a long-term relationship with and being Jim Morrison's wife.

Wikipedia is a trusted source for information for people all over the world and yet it is allowing unproven claims made by one person to be presented as fact. In regards to Kennealy-Morrison's alleged "marriage" to Jim Morrison, Wikipedia only references claims made by Kennealy-Morrison and Kennealy-Morrison herself.

I tried to add two external sources that offer a reasonable rebuttal to statements she has made publicly and in her memoir, one from a former friend of Kennealy-Morrison's and an eye-witness to what the author alleges actually transpired between the two of them.

The second was from an objective third party who documented statements made by Kennealy-Morrison herself that clearly contradict the claims she made shortly after her cameo in the film "The Doors", on her now-defunct website "Lizard Queen Productions" and then again in her memoir.

I chose my sources carefully. Kennealy-Morrison has stated that she is aware of both articles, she has never publicly denied any of the statements in them and has never taken legal action claiming that the articles were false, libelous or damaging.

Kennealy-Morrison has publicly stated in interviews, on her old website and in her memoir that Pamela Courson-Morrison was "stupid", that she was a "whore", a "prostitute", a "junkie" and has publicly stated that Courson-Morrison "murdered" Jim Morrison by tricking into taking heroin by telling him it was cocaine and has made hateful attacks on both the Courson family and the Morrison family, after Jim and Pamela had died.

Wikipedia can reference Kennealy-Morrison's "Lizard Queen Productions", "Mrs.Morrison's Hotel" and Kennealy-Morrison's memoir that contain THESE false, libelous and damaging statements but I am not allowed to reference sources that offer views from people who also there during the time period Kennealy-Morrison refers to and another that offers Kennealy-Morrison's VERY OWN contradictory statements regarding her alleged relationship with Jim Morrison?

I did not "vandalize" Kennealy-Morrison's page and I did not write a personal attack on Kennealy-Morrison. I thought I was following Wikipedia's own mission, to serve as a reliable information source for the public by stating that proof of Kennealy-Morrison's claims have never been made publicly available and that proof of her "marriage" has never been brought before a judge or legally validated. This page itself states, This particular page leaves the reader believing that Kennealy-Morrison is Jim Morrison's "secret", "hidden" or forgotten "wife" and that, based on the facts, is inaccurate.

The surviving members of The Doors, Bill Siddons, The Doors' former manager, Jim Morrison's former body guards and former friends and colleagues of Kennealy-Morrison herself have all publicly, loudly and repeatedly corrected or disputed Kennealy-Morrison's version of events.

Does Kennealy-Morrison have "proof" that she is keeping to herself? I don't know. But since when does Wikipedia allow for a page to be created that contains claims that come from one person who has never proven them and then present them as fact?

I'm sure if I were to create my own Wikipedia page for Kennealy-Morrison, or for anyone else, that contained any claim I cared to make without my being able to back-up any of those claims with actual proof I am pretty sure Wikipedia would remove it.

When I made changes to Kennealy-Morrison's page I stuck to the facts and simply stated that her claims have never been verified or proven and cited two reputable external sources that asked reasonable questions and offered reasonable rebuttals to her claims.

Can someone please explain to me why these small changes, that, unlike Kennealy-Morrison's claims, are backed up formal documentation signed by Jim Morrison himself and notarized by his attorney and by statements made by witnesses to the goings on between Morrison and Kennealy-Morrison were not allowed?

Respectfully,

Kathleen Tully

— Preceding unsigned comment added by JDMAVkwd (talk • contribs) 13:17, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, JDMAVkwd, and welcome to the Teahouse. The article talk page, Talk:Patricia Kennealy-Morrison is the place to propose improvements to the article and to challenge any existing content as unsourced or insufficiently sourced. It appears that you have not yet attempted to discus this matter there. I urge you to do so. It does appear that this account of the "marriage" is currently cited only to a primary source, Kennealy-Morrison's autobiography. If the facts are seriously disputed, an independent source should be provided. However your addition consisted of a completely unsourced paragraph on a clearly controversial matter about a living person. According to our biographies of living people policy this is not acceptable either. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:05, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
JDMAVkwd, I have removed the obviously unreliable self-published sources and trimmed the article to be more neutral. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:07, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Article

Hello! I wrote an article about a person that I then moved to Draft space. After that I asked for a speedy deletion of the page, very stupid yes. Now, is there a possible way to get the article text back. I don't have it and I put down very much effort and work on it. Thanks in advance. The topic for the article was Leif Östling. Nimbo.lo (talk) 21:21, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nimbo.lo. No problem. I've restored it to Draft:Leif Östling. In future, you can make such request at WP:UNDELETE. When you think the article is ready, you can either move it back to mainspace yourself or request a review by clicking the button in the template I added to the page. – Joe (talk) 21:36, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much. I thought I had to write all again. Thank you! Nimbo.lo (talk) 21:41, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, how do I get the request a review button when I create an article. Because it wasn't there when I pressed publish. Nimbo.lo (talk) 21:43, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Nimbo.lo. There is a gray information box at the top of your draft. At the bottom of that box, there is a button that you can click to submit the draft for review. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:11, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen328 Yes I know, but it wasn't there at the first when I created the article with wizard article creating. Nimbo.lo (talk) 22:14, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

www.thermatec.com

Hi I like to create a page and add content about Thermatec Instrumentation & Controls Inc. How do I start? BR Dan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:D591:45D0:1D83:165D:9E16:9A32 (talk) 23:17, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I would caution you that successfully creating a new article is probably the hardest thing to do on Wikipedia. Even experienced users sometimes have difficulty. It takes much time and practice. Instead of diving in to article creation, you may wish to take some time to learn more about Wikipedia first, perhaps by using The Wikipedia Adventure, a tutorial of sorts, and by first editing existing articles in areas that interest you, to get a feel for how Wikipedia operates and what is being looked for in articles. If you do this, it will greatly reduce the chance that you will end up disappointed and with hurt feelings as your work is mercilessly edited and critiqued by others. I don't want you to have a bad experience.
However, if you still wish to attempt it, you will need to visit Articles for Creation where you can submit a draft for review. However, before attempting to write a draft, you should understand that all article subjects on Wikipedia must be shown with independent reliable sources with in depth coverage how the subject is notable per guidelines; in the case of a business, it would need to meet the guidelines at WP:ORG. Simply citing the company website, press releases, or routine announcements is not sufficient. You should also read Your First Article to learn about the process.
I would ask you if you represent or work for the company you wish to write about. Thanks 331dot (talk) 23:33, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would add that while it is not required, you may wish to consider creating a username, as it offers certain benefits. 331dot (talk) 23:34, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse, BR Dan. If you are an owner or employee of this company or a public relations person for the company, then you must first comply with our mandatory paid editing disclosure. Next, please read and study Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Pay special attention to the importance of significant coverage of the company in independent reliable sources. Then, read and study Your first article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:35, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Citation for a topic whose subject matter is relatively new.

Hello,

I tried looking through the archives but was unable to find an answer to this. Hoping the kind folks at the Teahouse can help!

Company A manufacturers a new type of widget and has done so for a little over a year. Company B recently started manufacturing the same type of widget and has done so for a few months now. Company A and Company B, both based in North America, are the only companies currently producing the widget. I would like to state the fact that Company A was the first to produce the widget in North America, however, since the widgets are a new type of invention there haven't been any "reliable sources" (per Wikipedia's standards) mentioning this. My question is, what is an acceptable way to cite this fact?

Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamphilipb (talk • contribs) 00:04, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Iamphilipb. If no reliable source mentions this, then it simply does not belong in the encyclopedia. We summarize what reliable sources say. No more and no less. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:14, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is there an existing article about Company A? Company B? About the widget of which this is a new type of, independent of A or B? Even so, what Cullen328 said. David notMD (talk) 00:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New user: why is some of my article missing from the Preview?

For example:

In the early part of the 20th century, nice dolls for children were often made of porcelain, and therefore breakable. Hattie had long dreamed of making an unbreakable doll for children that would be as beautiful as the porcelain dolls. After much experimentation she collaborated with an Italian sculptor and designed and made a doll out of kid glove which was "considered more beautiful in every way than any of the foreign toys," at the annual Toy Fair in New York City. The dolls had glass eyes, movable heads and limbs and could sit and stand on their own. They were beautiful, and nearly unbreakable. Meier and Frank Co. was delighted and the dolls were soon on their shelves and on the shelves of other department stores.<ref>Pagter Johl, Janet. Your Dolls and Mine: A Collectors' Handbook. H. L. Lindquist Publications, New York, NY, 1952, pp. 114-118. ASIN BOOOJLEIA. ASIN BOOO7EG7GK.</ref><ref>Drama Of the Dolls.” Tacoma News Tribune, Sunday, May 7, 1972<ref>“Kid Doll Invention of Former Albany Woman Is Shown.” Albany Evening Herald, Wednesday, December 22, 1920.

I'm sure the reason must be something fundamental that I am not understanding about creating a Wiki page. Thanks in advance for your help.

Patricia Mansfield Harris — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patricia M Harris (talk • contribs) 00:40, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Patricia M Harris, welcome to the Teahouse. Some of the text was displayed in the references section because multiple ending </ref> were missing. I have added them [1] and also removed some <nowiki>...</nowiki> which may have been inserted automatically by VisualEditor. It appears you started the edit in VisualEditor and switched to the source editor. They make references in different ways. VisualEditor adds references via an interface with a menu: Wikipedia:VisualEditor/User guide#Editing references. I guess you instead tried to do it by typing the <ref>...</ref> code directly. That only works in the source editor. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:18, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I removed some other reference lines as I thought the in-lines would be the same.... looks a bit better now. Feel free to revert me if I have made an error!! Regards, Ariconte (talk) 03:41, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a question I really want to know how to do

how did this admin customize their name at the top? This admin. The source is also empty but just says user something. How did they even do that? HorsesARENiceRide me to my talk page 06:33, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They call User:Vanamonde93/User page and all the fancy formatting is done there.... Regards, Ariconte (talk) 06:38, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Minor change affects Wikipedia category

I just edited an entry for a geological unit (Cambridge Greensand). Its entry has two links at the bottom of the page, one of which was "Early Cretaceous Series of Europe". Since my change was to remove the "Early" from the entry, I also deleted it from the category, but since there is no Wikipedia category for "Cretaceous Series of Europe" that produced a broken link. Am now about to change the category to "Late Cretaceous", but that's making a change in the innerworkings of the Wikipedia, and I hadn't wanted to do that!

Is there someone I should warn/confess to about this?

The change was, I thought, minor (altering dating to match the current British Geological Survey date range).

Wavery2 (talk) 06:44, 8 April 2018 (UTC)Wavery2[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse&oldid=835360150"