Wikipedia:Teahouse

Welcome to the Teahouse...                        

A friendly place to learn about editing Wikipedia.

Ask a question

David Biddulph, a Teahouse host

Question forum

Host profiles

Guest profiles

Experienced editor? Become a host!

Learn more about the Teahouse

Articles to improve

Question archive

Guest archive

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

Help Wikipedia

Can't upload

The https://video.online-convert.com site can make "webm" files, what the Wikipedia can read, but the sound isn't good always. The https://convertio.co/video-converter/ site can make "ogv" files, what is better, and it's the other video file type, what the Wikipedia can read. But I have a problem. The Wikipedia Commons doesn't let me uhploading a new video, what is a correct historical content. The automatic control system write to the screen: it is wrong content. So where can I show it for your controlling? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Idesz (talk • contribs) 09:12, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

See WP:UPLOAD. Septrillion (talk) 20:58, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Draft: Mohsen Keramati (again)

I reviewed Draft:Mohsen Keramati more than a week ago, and declined it, saying that it did not establish musical notability or general notability. I was asked by its author, User:Bkkh, to take another look, and I will try to address tone issues and notability issues. The previous reviewer had said that the article did not establish notability, and had a promotional tone. In my opinion, it still has a promotional tone. I see that what the author did after the first decline was to add many references.

I asked here, about a week ago, for the comments of other editors, and one other editor thought that the draft had been reference-bombed. I see now that the number of references is down to 4. I am asking again for other editors to comment on the current version of the draft.

I will ask the author, whose only edits have to do with this subject, whether they have any connection with the subject.

The subject does pass notability in the Farsi Wikipedia, for whatever that matters.

What are the comments, again, of other experienced editors? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:37, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

• I do not have any connection with the subject of the article. I am interested in Persian traditional music in general.
• In the first submission, I had less number of references. Because I was not sure how precise I had to be in specifying where each part of the text comes from. After getting decline on this submission, I added references to show where I have retrieved different information. This time I got a comment saying I have too many references. So again I went through my text and removed parts pf the text (that where about with which artists has Mr Keramati cooperated). As a result of this, what remained was lists of his music albums (which this time I presented as tables). I got a decline on this submission, too.
• I have even checked articles about other musicians (e.g. Kayhan Kalhor) and saw the second submission was not far from what other authors had done.
• Now here I am standing: If I keep the details (and their references) I get comment saying it is reference-bombed. If I remove them, it get comment saying it is promotional and does not have enough references. I will appreciate if other editors join this discussion, so I can see better what is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkhh (talk • contribs) 20:13, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Bkhh and welcome to the Teahoue. I just read through the current version of the draft, and i do not thin k it is particularly promotional at this point. However, none of the cited sources is in English, and I cannot asses them. There is nothing wrong with non-English-language sources but it does make it harder for a primarily English-speaking editor to review.

I understand that you feel caught in a catch-22 a situation where anything you do seem to be wrong, and this is very frustrating. Note that when we say that an article or draft has been "reference bombed" we do not mean simply too many sources cited, we means that there are many trivial sources, more than are needed to support the facts, making it hard to find the really significant sources, particularly the ones with the in-depth coverage needed to establish notability.

As a rule of thumb, I would say that somewhere between one cited source per paragraph, and 1-2 per sentence, is often a good number, but th4e needs of a particular topic vary widely. Of course all direct or closely paraphrased quotes must be cited. So must any controversial statements or extraordinary claims.

If English-language sources of equals quality are available, they should be used. It is helpful to provide a translation into English of he title and name of publication of non-English sources, and a brief summery in English, or a relevant translated quote from the source.

I will look at earlier versions and may have some suggestion to make then. Robert McClenon do you find this helpful? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:22, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

User:DESiegal - Well, yes. I wasn't really asking for advice or help myself except to be set straight if I was mistaken somehow. I was really asking for advice to User:Bkhh, and am relieved to see that they are in this discussion (rather than asking me to report back to them). I do not normally follow a draft through the approval process, but I try to give sound guidance. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:34, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Bkhh, I just examined the version of the draft dating from 18:06, 30 April 2018 (revision 839044195). That version had some 25 cited sources, of which 9 were album covers. Album coves are not generally good sources, although they can establish a credit list or partial list. Again, it seemed that none of the sources were in English.

Can you point out, Bkhh, 3-4 sources which discuss Mohsen Keramati or his work in some detail, say 3-4 paragraphs or more each, and which are independent of Keramati? This would mean not interviews with him, nor content from his publishers or business associates. If such sources are not now in the draft, could they be added? Could at least one be in English? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:51, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate everybody's time and effort in reviewing my article. Now I have a better image of what I should do. I suppose the current version will soon be deleted. To get approval on the next submission, I will keep an eye on your comments. Cheers! Bkhh (talk) 16:03, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm guessing I might have similar problems in future similar to Bkhh (talk's problems, as there are many local grime artists and few house music DJ's from my city who are known nationally and even internationally. The problem will be trying to show that they are notable enough to have a Wikipedia page, and for me who's not an expert on either genre it will be even harder especially when it comes to the DJ's. There's DJ's who deejay in clubbing capitals like Ibiza, Miami, Melbourne etc, international festivals like Glastonbury, Creamfields, Global Gathering etc, have their own branded club nights, nightclubs, record labels, festivals etc, appeared in magazines like DJ Mag and Mixmag, released songs with well known national/international singers/rappers, and appeared on radio stations like Leeds, Capital Xtra, BBC Radio 1Xtra, and BBC Radio 1. Then there's the Grime artists who have also done some of the things the DJ's have done, but mainly stick to large Youtube channels like SB.TV, Link Up TV and GRM Daily. The sources should be slightly easier to find as they will all be in English, but the hard work will be finding their most notable songs and where they charted on the ITunes Chart or the UK Singles Chart. Danstarr69 (talk) 08:15, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

lost Dr Who episodes

I distinctly remember that back in the mid to late 60's (?) that there were episodes where the Dr was played by both Roger Daltrey and Timothy Dalton. I have not seen any mention of these people in the articles on any of the sites of actors playing the DR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:280:C200:7AFF:A5F2:DF99:BED9:5502 (talk) 20:17, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps not. According to Doctor Who, those men are not listed among the Doctors. There is an extensive discussion of missing episodes from the 60s, but William Hartnell and Patrick Troughton are identified as the actors through 1969. Dalton would have turned 20 in 1966, so, really, not him. David notMD (talk) 20:50, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Consider asking your question at the Reference Desks. They tend to have someone who, if it happened, could possibly find out. On a side note, it does not seem likely. Besides what was mentioned above, a google search of "Roger Daltrey" OR "Timothy Dalton" AND "Dr. Who" yields nothing promising. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:45, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

• It's not a matter of "unlikely," it's a matter of "didn't happen" -- no need to take this to the Reference Desk. Such things are why Wikipedia has a strong rule about potentially controversial information needing to be able to be sourced to reliable, independent, third-party sources, rather than to personal recollections. Ravenswing 06:09, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Be aware that the article Doctor Who is about the BBC series - there are also movies (starring Peter Cushing and Paul McGann) and various TV shows where people have played that character (especially charity parodies where the role has been played by the likes of Rowan Atkinson, Richard E. Grant, Jim Broadbent, Hugh Grant and Joanna Lumley). But I can't find any source that supports either Roger Daltrey or Timothy Dalton.--Gronk Oz (talk) 15:09, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Timothy Dalton did appear on Doctor Who, though, playing Rassilon. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:36, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Blocking anonymous user:Unnamed Forever

Hi I'm Kyle Vasallo of San Roque Parish Church in Pateros, Metro Manila, Philippines. Someone in my page "Santa Marta de Pateros" changing my contribution and replacing them with false facts removing known names such as Poderes de Sta. Marta de Pateros. Please help me block this user thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srppateros (talk • contribs) 10:56, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

• N.B. - the OP, and the user they are attempting to have blocked, are engaged in a clear edit war regarding Santa Marta de Pateros. As of today, both editors have violated WP:3RR, (evidence) and as such both editors are liable to be blocked for their actions on the article. If someone with the appropriate authority could review this and take action, that would be appreciated. Stormy clouds (talk) 11:11, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Srppateros, you do not have any "pages" on Wikipedia, and neither does anyone else. Wikipedia publishes encyclopedia articles, and any contribution you make ceases to be your to control as soon as you press the "publish changes" button. If you disagree with a change, you start a discussion on the article's talk page and try to work it out. Note that the subject of the article has no say in its content. Are you in any way connected to the subject of the article? John from Idegon (talk) 22:20, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

It's pretty clear from their userpage that Srppateros is in fact an WP:ORGNAME. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:02, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

What can I do?

There are many errors on the page for the clitoris. This page appears to largely be controlled by a young *man* with a background in *computer science.* This does not seem right, especially considering that Wikipedia is so male dominated as is, with 85% male contributors. Apparently we can’t even have correct female anatomy on Wikipedia thanks to this gender imbalance.

Currently, the editors insist on publishing that the clitoral glans is 1.5-2 cm long. This is absurd. I contacted the author of the source they cite, and she verified this was an error. No articles in high impact journals nor legitimate OB/GYN or Urology textbooks confirm this absurd claim. The Wikipedia article contradicts itself, as it also says the glans is about the size and shape of a pea. It also says the glans is 5 mm in longitudinal diameter (length) in the very same paragraph where it claims the glans is 1.5 cm long.

This is so crazy! Can someone please help? I would really like to contribute to education about clitoral anatomy via Wikipedia, but this is made impossible by people who insist on publishing incorrect information. Jessicapin (talk) 02:28, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

There are not many errors in the article. There is Jessicapin disagreeing with what reliable anatomy and medical sources state and then saying that we can't trust any of the literature on the clitoris. Do see this, this and this section, where matters have been explained to her. Also see this version of her talk page since she is again messing with people's comments and taking them out context after having been told not to do that. In this case, she has tampered with Oshwah's post. Jessicapin keeps saying things are wrong despite what sources state and keeps telling us to look at our own clits if we have one. Jessicapin has already been told that I am not a man. And I don't know where she got her "a background in computer science" conclusion from; in that regard, she must be talking about Oshwah. As for the author she is referring to, I told her that we only have her word to go on regarding what that author stated and that, regardless, an author's email is not a reliable source. I also asked her: What did the author mean if not 1.5-2 cm? She has not answered. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:05, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

• @Flyer22 Reborn: Please do not engage in content discussion on this page. It is the wrong venue, and unlikely to be productive in any case.

@Jessicapin: As far as your post is a request for help, it can be broken into two categories: how to make a change in article content and how to discuss if others disagree.

1. To insert new content in an article, you need reliable sources backing up the claims made. If reliable sources say A, but you know for sure it actually is B, Wikipedia will go with A. You should not engage in original research, as you appear to have done by [contacting] the author of the [cited] source - there is a question of verifiability because we have no way to check your claim, and in any case a personal communication would not be a reliable source since we cannot expect the claims to have been checked, criticized etc. by peers. (I have no idea if Flyer22 Reborn's characterization is accurate when they say your claims go against sources.)
2. If you disagree with someone else about article content, first discuss it on the talk page of the article, and if things don't work out, ask for a third opinion or start an RfC. If the result to these goes against you, tough luck; that's how we operate.

I also feel I need to point out a few things. You are right that there is a systemic bias in Wikipedia articles due to the demographics of editors, but that is not really relevant here. That bias materializes by certain subjects being more contributed to than others - but clitoris is quite a well-developed article with lots of contributors. You seem to believe that a young man with a background in computer science somehow is less legitimate than you to edit the article. That is not the case. The whole premise of Wikipedia is that we go by sources, and we cover subjects only insofar as a motivated, intelligent person who is not a topic expert can check by themselves from available sources. The idea is that John from New York is able to critically evaluate sources about (say) a Byzantine church in Istanbul just as well as Mehmet, a local inhabitant who can visit it every day; and stuff that is not in the sources (hence unavailable to John to check, even if Mehmet can plainly see it) should not be in the article at all. Topic experts are sometimes able to contribute to very specialized topics in a way laypersons cannot, but they never have a right to shut down debate with an argument from authority. (Why it is so is another, long-to-answer question, but part of the answer is that we do not want articles about crystal healing written exclusively by crystal healing practitioners.) Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:09, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Tigraan, thanks for taking the time to try to explain Wikipedia protocol to Jessicapin. I know that this venue is not the place for dispute resolution, but Jessicapin mischaracterized the matter, and I felt that it was important to clear it up. I've done so before when the complaint has concerned me. In any case, this matter was settled via WP:ANI. Jessicapin is currently indefinitely blocked. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:00, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I need a superhero

Hi I asking for help on a page there two things I need help with on the page entitled List of highest grossing superhero films the frist thing is peaking the frist list on the page. The second is expending the highest grossing superhero section if anyone fancy help I will put a copy of the lists on the talk page so we can do it there thanks Fanoflionking 17:09, 7 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fanoflionking (talk • contribs)

Hello, Fanoflionking welcome to our Teahouse. Forgive me, but I'm not really sure quite what it is that you are asking help with, though I see you have now added detailed information to the Talk page for that article. That is certainly the right place to discuss issues around that subject. Here at the Teahouse we give general advice on editing. If you need specific help on film-related matters, you might find interested editors at WikiProject Film. Please accept my apologies for not understanding exactly what help you are seeking. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:19, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

@Fanoflionking: Can I also ask whether you really meant to set your Talk Page to archive all its content when it reaches 10 bytes, and to collapse every message in it? You now have 124 separate archives since last summer, each seeming to have only one collapsed message each. (Changing to maxarchivesize = 10k would be far more reasonable.) Let us know if you need help making your archive work better for you. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:34, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

The OP wanted 10 threads, and was told how to do that some time ago (WP:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 744#Archive my tal), but didn't want to take any notice of the advice. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:11, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Edits Continually Removed

I made edits on a biography page of a living person (Shmuly Yanklowitz) which were immediately taken down and repeatedly removed by another Editor "Stop Vandalizing This Page". The edits were factual, not inflammatory, and cited. What is going on here?

FactChecker18 FactChecker18 (talk) 18:20, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi FactChecker18! Welcome to Wikipedia. As a general rule, when you don't agree with another editor, the best thing to do is to take it to the talk page. That way you can discuss the article and why they don't think that your additions improved it, you can argue why it did, and others can help out with how to proceed. I'd start a new topic there where you explain why you think your edits make the article better. /Julle (talk) 18:57, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

It might be good to know that Wikipedia typically disapproves of edit warring, i.e. when different parties try to change the text back and forth. You have a better chance of making others listen to you if you don't, but instead focus on the discussion on the talk page – then, when that is resolved, you can make the changes that the consensus on the talk page recommended. /Julle (talk) 19:01, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

The talk page of the article (as linked above) is here (Talk:Shmuly Yanklowitz). That is the best place to discuss your changes, instead of repeating comments in edit summaries or using your own talk page. Dbfirs 19:50, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

FactChecker18: you asked the same question at the Help Desk, where I advised you to discuss the issue at the article's talk page. You have not done so. Now JulieJulle and Dbfirs have given you the same advice. If you take it, I expect the outcome will be favourable to you: you have been providing references for the material that has been repeatedly deleted. (Though the citation that starts "|url=chrome-extension" probably needs fixing.) Maproom (talk) 22:03, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

@Maproom, Dbfirs, and Julle: The "FactChecker18" person has now done what you recommended, and has offered their viewpoint on the talk page of the article concerned. Please could you advise what results they should expect from doing so? MPS1992 (talk) 23:28, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

MPS1992, The user FactChecker18 might reasonably hope that other interested editors will engage with him or her, and discuss the appropriateness of the edits in question, or of the content being in the article, and of the sources now presented on the article talk page, and of such other sources as other editors may cite. Perhaps this will lead to a consensus on how the article should be changed if it should. Should no one choose to engage in discussion after, say, 30 days or more, that would imply that no one objected to the edits. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:22, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

@DESiegel: thank you! Apologies for slightly leading matters on here, but my concern is that, immediately after posting on the article talk page as suggested here, and without making any other further edits -- other than, allegedly, two from an IP address -- FactChecker18 was indefinitely blocked for being WP:NOTHERE. When I have made enquiries about situations like this in the past, I have been told that the blocked editor merely needs to make an appropriate unblock request on their own talk page, so third parties complaining about it is not useful. Is that the situation, or is there something rather "off" about this? MPS1992 (talk) 00:49, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

MPS1992 I had not known about the block until you mentioned it. It is true that, in general, blocks should be appealed by the person blocked, not by a third party, but there can be exceptions to that. It is also the case the "Not Here" blocks, in particular, are judgement calls more than most other sorts of blocks. I cannot say why the blocking admin chose to act at that particular time. FactChecker18 had engaged in an edit war, being particularly persistent in reinserting challenged content over repeated reverts. That is never a good idea. I don't know if there were other reasons for the block beyond that war. I think i will ask the blocking admin. But if FactChecker18 requests an unblock, acknowledges previous editing mistakes, and manages to convince whoever handles the unblock request that s/he indents to edit usefully in future, an unblock could easily result. But it is not by any means guaranteed. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:34, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

See User talk:JzG#User:FactChecker18 DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:35, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Pls help

re User:Zhiyun0630

pls help, don't know why I can't publish my first article. thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhiyun0630 (talk • contribs) 08:37, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello @Zhiyun0630: the issue is that you appear to be trying to advertise Petop Hotel Supply rather than to write a neutral article. Wikipedia is not Facebook or LinkedIn, we do not allow people to create pages to promote their business. MatthewVanitas (talk) 08:50, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

How to read my full contributions pages

Hello I'm having major trouble finding half of one of my contributions that I wrote down, it comes up in my contributions area but it will only show me the beginning paragraph and not the rest. Please help. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Woodstockuk95 (talk • contribs) 11:39, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

It looks like you may have typed it into the edit summary rather than the actual article text window. - X201 (talk) 11:42, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

@Woodstockuk95: It also looks like you pasted a copyright notice in your draft. Wikipedia content is not copyrighted - it is free for reuse, distribution and adaptation, even for commercial purposes. It is also not owned or controlled by any one editor.

If you have copied and pasted the text from a copyrighted source, then this is a copyright violation and isn't permitted. Wikipedia articles cannot use copyrighted text unless the copyright owner agrees to donate the material to Wikipedia. In doing so, they would permanently and irrevocably release it for reuse, distribution and adaptation, as mentioned above. This applies even if you are the copyright holder. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 18:05, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Drm310, you ought to know that Wikipedia content is copyrighted. While "copyrighted"–"not copyrighted" is a useful heuristic for non-free and free content, it's sometimes misleading or, like here, simply untrue. If anything, misinforming the public about this makes us susceptible of Wikipedia's contents being infringed. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:18, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Finnusertop Duly noted, thanks for correcting me on that point. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 18:25, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Background information

Good day,

How and where do I edit the WEBSITE section in the BACKROUND INFORMATION of a living person's Wikipedia page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ejacobszuk (talk • contribs) 11:50, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

A link to the official website is typically found either in the infobox or in an external link at the bottom of the page. ー「宜しく 」 クロノ  カム  13:11, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately some infoboxes pick up website addresses from Wikidata, which is outside the control of enwiki. The problems of using Wikidata in this way are under discussion at WP:Wikidata/2018 Infobox RfC. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:21, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

3rd party photo attributes

Uploading a photo is easy. Getting it to stay there is not.

I'm trying to give the proper accreditation and copyright information to a third party photo. It has been freely distributed throughout the internet on multiple sites. There's a lot of scattered information about this (and links that won't work on the help pages), but no succinct way to upload something I don't own without it being removed quickly. Basically I just want to have the right line of code to put in so I'm not uploading something multiple times and having it flagged and taken down multiple times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thousandmilemedia (talk • contribs) 11:53, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Adding the {{OTRS pending}} template will grant time for the holder of the copyright to send in formal permissions. I uploaded a photo yesterday this way. It adds a tag to the file stating “An email containing details of the permission for this file has been sent in accordance with Commons:OTRS.” ー「宜しく 」 クロノ  カム  13:04, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

However, Thousandmilemedia, you should not use {{OTRS pending}} unless you have already obtained agreement from the copyright holder to release the image under a free license. If all you have is that it has been freely distributed throughout the internet on multiple sites, you should not upload it at all, unless by freely distributed you mean it has appeared with a free license applied. See donating copyrighted content and Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for more details. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:08, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Very helpful, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thousandmilemedia (talk • contribs) 11:53, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

No sources (well, just a few)

Hi there, I'm completely new to Wikipedia, I tried to create an article for "Solaris Hotels & Resorts" I was rejected 2 times, one because it was more like a novel, and the second because I don't have too many sources yet. I'm already working on it again, and it is hard to find reliable sources for the article I want to "publish".

1 - Is there a maximum number of attempts to publish it? I'm worried to be blocked or something like that. 2 - Sources in a different language are valid? the company is 100% mexican.

thanks for your help Fermo771124 (talk) 22:49, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Fermo771124. Please read and study Your first article. Study it until you understand it thoroughly, and do not resubmit your draft until it fully complies with our policies and guidelines. An unreferenced draft will be declined again. Do not waste the reviewer's time. Your draft article must summarize what reliable, independent sources say about the topic. As for sources in a different language, they are permissible if comparable English language sources are not available. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:06, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Fermo771124, and welcome to the Teahouse. There is no stated maximum number of submissions of a draft, but if you resubmit without making any serious attempt to correct the issues previously noted, you are wasting everyone's time, and people may well be unhappy. Note that Draft:Solaris Resorts was deleted not for having too few sources, but for being promotional. Please keep any drafts and articles factual and neutral not designed to promote or praise the subject, or to advertise it. If you are in any way connected with the company, you have a conflict of interst and should disclose it and seriously reconsider creating the draft. If you are being or expect to be paid for your editing, you must disclose that in accord with our policy on paid editing. Thsi is not optional -- iundisclsoed paid editing is grounds for permenant loss of editing privilages. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:12, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh I see that you have disclosed being a paid editor. Thank you for disclosing properly, but expect to be held to a rather high standard in such a case. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:15, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Some steps that often give good results, Fermo771124:

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

Congratulations, you have now created a valid Wikipedia article. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:17, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

DES I'm just scrolling through reading the Teahouse and noticed you said sources don't have to be online. How do with source something that isn't online? For example, do we take a photo of a newspaper/book and post it somewhere on Wikipedia? Danstarr69 (talk) 19:35, 9 May 2018 (UTC) Oh and what is considered local? Is a newspaper which covers a city of 550,000+ people (or 350,000+ people if you're from one of the towns within the city yet deny you're from it) considered local or regional? Danstarr69 (talk) 19:42, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Danstarr69, and welcome to the Teahouse. One cites an offline publication with the title of the article, the title of the publication that contains it (such as a newspaper or magazine), the date of publication, the page number, and the author if stated. The publisher and location of publication may be added if they provide context, but not if they are redundant (It adds nothing to say that The New York Times is published by The New York Times co in New York City. However it may add something to state that the Times-Argus is published in Anytown, MA by Lester Communications.) One does not take a photo or a scan and upload it. That would actually be a copyright violation. Rather, one provides enough information that a reader with access to a good library could obtain a copy, possibly with some trouble or expense. For example one might cite an imaginary news story with something like this:

{{cite news |title=Smith Elected Mayor |work=Times-Argus |date=October 21, 1966 |first=Fred |last=Blogs |page=6 |publisher=Lester Communications |location=Anytown, MA |quote= Smith sailed to victory to win an unprecedented 5th term as Mayor of Anytown.}}

which would render as:

Blogs, Fred (October 21, 1966). "Smith Elected Mayor". Times-Argus. Anytown, MA: Lester Communications. p. 6. Smith sailed to victory to win an unprecedented 5th term as Mayor of Anytown.

A book is cited similarly, by title, author, publisher, year, and page number. The ISBN, LCCN, or worldcat record number can help, if available. see {{cite book}}, {{cite journal}}, and {{cite magazine}} for some of the possibilities.

As to what is local coverage, that can be tricky. If the source has a purely local scope, that is local coverage. A weekly paper distributed in only three villages with a total population of 12,000 is pretty clearly local. But even major papers have purely local coverage, often in a "local events" section, or something of the sort. When the Washington Post publishes an announcement of a free concert in downtown Washington DC, that is probably local coverage. If the New York Times covers a concert in DC, that is pretty clearly NOT local coverage. Ultimately this is a judgement call if the matter is important. If all the coverage comes from the same city, that tends to suggest that it is local, but there are exceptions. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:11, 9 May 2018 (UTC) @Danstarr69: DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:12, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

A message on my talk page

Hi everybody!

I have a question. It will be great if you can answer it. Today I saw that I have got a message on my talk page. It was a welcome message sent by a bot. The strange point is the message is in Azerbaijani language, while I do not know any Azerbaijani and consequently have not authored anything in this language. Do you have any idea why I have got such a message?

Please if this question is not relevant here, let me know. Regards, Bkhh (talk) 07:58, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Good morning, Bkhh, and welcome to our Teahouse. Looking at your talk page on English Wikipedia, I cannot see the welcome message to which you refer, nor as any been removed from there. However, we now have unified logins across all language versions of Wikipedia, meaming that your user name is valid on all other Wikis. Your username is likely to be automatically 'attached' with another language wikipedia when you first visit that site - even by accident. I suspect you did that on 3rd May (see here for a global list of your attached accounts.) A user often receives automatic notification of a welcome message some time after visiting another Wiki - and I suspect this might have been what you saw. Does this make sense? Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 08:54, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Nick Moyes: Thank you for the response. Well the message is still there but (strange) I myself can see it when I go the Azerbaijani Wikipedia.But if this is is something that can happen accidentally, I am fine with it. It was just a wonder how such a thing is probable and if this is going to affect any article that I submit in future. Bkhh (talk) 09:20, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

The message is there on your azb.wiki talk page, visible to everyone. It is not accidental, it's automatic, and it will not affect any articles you create at en.wiki or azb.wiki. --bonadea contributions talk 09:55, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

@Bkhh: azb is the South Azerbaijani Wikipedia. Special:CentralAuth/Bkhh shows your account was created there 3 May because you viewed a page while logged in. A bot posted a welcome to your South Azerbaijani talk page azb:User talk:Bkhh today and you were notified of this. Just ignore it. Many users are confused by automatic welcome messages in languages they don't know. Maybe this practice should be stopped for users who haven't edited the wiki and didn't originally create the account there. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:12, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you both! It is now very clear to me.:-) Bkhh (talk) 13:29, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Why do one syllable words get hyphenated

Why do one syllable words get hyphenated? Reading article on Sally Yates, Michael Flynn’s surname gets hyphenated as Fly-nn. I would never do that.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Turtlens (talk • contribs)

Where did you see this exactly? On the mobile website perhaps ? I've been running a test there to see if having auto hyphenation was potentially a useful addition. Auto-hyphenation depends a LOT on the browser. The browser does it all by itself, using a dictionary. I guess here it might have failed. Can you tell me what kind of browser and the version of that browser you use on that device ? —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:12, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Turtlens, welcome to the Teahouse. It's possible for a page to have an invisible soft hyphen which suggests to browsers where to insert a hyphen at line wrapping but none of the occurrences of "Flynn" in Sally Yates do this. It sounds like your browser is choosing it by itself with no instruction from Wikipedia. I see you posted at the mobile version so I assume you also read the article at the mobile version. Does it happen at the end of a line with your browser splitting "Flynn" between two lines? PrimeHunter (talk) 11:37, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I've noticed that at least Safari on my Mac does this as well, and it seems clearly wrong to me. I've therefore filed a webkit ticket in the hopes that they'll at some point fix it. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:47, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Turtlens (talk) Probably Safari on iPad, probably Safari 11. Can’t find app version directly. And yes, the hyphen was at end of line. I realize software somewhere was auto-hyphenating, my plaint was that no normal person would hyphenate Flynn’s name like that.

how

how do you make a Wikipedia page?Good things come in small pakages (talk) 11:00, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi and welcome Good things come in small pakages. If you're a new editor, you may find it easiest to use the Wikipedia:Article_wizard to create a Wikipedia page. As you only have six edits, however, you may want to closely review Wikipedia:Your first article before beginning. Chetsford (talk) 15:15, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

help

how to become an assessor(a person who does GA reviews). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kpgjhpjm (talk • contribs) 11:19, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello and welcome, Kpgjhpjm. No special permission is needed to review articles for GA status and the instructions to do so can be found here. However, you may want to first focus on better familiarizing yourself with Wikipedia before conducting GA reviews as it appears you have fewer than 200 lifetime edits. Chetsford (talk) 15:12, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Contributing to Wiki - Middle Eastern Culture and Politics

Hi Folks,

I'm very interested in politics and culture of the broader Middle Eastern Region. There is a lot of high quality content in the English Wiki especially on the main political issues. But occasionally I find articles that are lackluster, outdated or a bit biased.

I'm a complete newbie in edditing Wikipedia and I don't want to step on someones feet. So my question is basically: Is there a active community/portal that maintains these articles, or can you point me to some experienced user who I could consult, for example when I'm doubtful about a source.

Thx and have a nice one.

Mac C. Million (talk) 12:00, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Mac C. Million I don't know any specific users who edit that subject area, but as for communities, there's the larger WikiProject Politics and WikiProject Asia. WikiProject Western Asia is probably the most specific to what you're looking for, or WikiProject Arab world is a bit larger. All of the WikiProjects are listed here. Often there are also places for asking more specific questions like if a source is reliable (the Reliable Source Noticeboard), or more general questions about Wikipedia (here, or at the Help Desk). Dairy {talk} 00:15, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Review process question...

Hello, My suggested article "The Smile Machine" has gone from "review pending" (8 weeks) to "no longer under review"...meaning I think it is on a sort of back burner. At least I hope it is, perhaps that is a sort of limbo... I would like to know if possible, why this step was taken. Was it in response to something I put on the page? I am trying to make the article as complete and "disinterested" as possible, but perhaps something in the content doesn't seem kosher. If this is the case, please let me know and I will change it/delete it/etc. I am trying to keep in step with the guidelines and spirit of Wikipedia. Thank you, Dickturner (talk) 14:31, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Draft:The Smile Machine is still "Review waiting". There is no "back burner", as far as I'm aware. (The entire section "The Smile Machine Package" seems to me non-kosher, being in effect an advertisement, with no independent sources.) Maproom (talk) 16:22, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

IMDB

If I want to update someones filmography on Wikipedia, do I need to find other sources for each film/TV show, or will their IMDB profile which is already listed at the bottom of the page be good enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danstarr69 (talk • contribs) 14:40, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

@Danstarr69:, individual sourcing is always preferred to blanket IMDB cites because IMDB content is partially generated by its users and the general consensus of editors here is that it is not reliable as a source. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:01, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Fair use of a painting

Hi All. So i'm at a college which commissioned the following painting: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Earth_Creations.jpg . I'm not sure whether it is under fair use. A simple google search has allowed me to find it quite easily on pinterest (and a slideshow which took it from pinterest). The pinterest image seems to be a backup of an article that my university wrote and which has since been made inaccessible. I've sent a request to the university and am awaiting further access to the article.

The artist has very recently passed away, and I am wondering what route to go with the fair use? In the meantime i've taken a deliberately low quality version of the painting for the image used in the articles. While I do have access to the painting in person, i'm not sure whether I should just take a photo and try to make it square; i'm sure it would be a lot of effort to create my own low-quality image. The college has printed post-cards with the image on it. Would I be better to just scan it?

In general, what is the go with fair use for paintings like this kind. This specific painting isn't on any Australian art-registries as far as I can tell, unlike most (but not all) of the artist's work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chillybanana (talk • contribs) 14:52, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Chillybanana! Well, the first thing to do is probably to ask for the image to be deleted from Commons. You see, Commons does not accept fair-use images; it only accepts images that are truly freely-licensed, and from your description, it doesn't sound like this image is free. I've taken the liberty of nominating it for you. Don't worry, it's an easy mistake to make, and you can still potentially upload and use the image; you just have to go about it in a different way.

What you have to do instead is to upload the image locally, just to the English Wikipedia, which does accept fair-use images. First, make sure your image use follows the non-free use criteria; the restrictions are stricter than what copyright law allows, so read it over and make sure that this qualifies. If it does, then you can upload the image locally using the local file upload wizard; make sure to choose the "This is a copyrighted, non-free work, but I believe it is Fair Use" option in the source and copyright information, and fill out the rest of the form. You shouldn't have to worry too much about how hi-res the image is; there is a bot that should come along and automatically scale down the image for you to comply with that element of the criteria. Then, you'll be able to keep using it in the article. Hope that helps! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:26, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

How do I change the name of our organisation on Wikipedia - I am a new user

I am a new user on Wikipedia. How do I change the name of our organization and change some information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.208.217.112 (talk) 15:16, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. We can help you better if you tell us which article you are referencing. 331dot (talk) 15:17, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello, IP Editor. 331dot is correct that it will help if you tell us what organization. But in any case, you will need to cite one or more reliabel sources showing the correct name and correct info. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:10, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I would add that if it is your organization, you will need to review the conflict of interest policy at WP:COI and the paid editing policy at WP:PAID before you do anything. 331dot (talk) 19:03, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

The presentation of a new idea that challenges orthodox belief

I had an article rejected because it appears more as research and opinion than an encyclopedic entry. The article says X and provides the reasons for X conclusively based on primary and secondary sources versus the traditional Y view which is unsubstantiated.

How can I craft the article not to seem opinionated? I can modify the verbage that verges on opinion and be more factual, but the overall structure of the article would seem to have to be X not Y and here is why according to these sources.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jd00001 (talk • contribs) 15:40, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

@Jd00001: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The short answer is- you don't. Wikipedia is not for publishing original thought or research. Wikipedia is only interested in what independent reliable sources state about an article subject. If the theory you discussed in your draft is published in reputable, third party sources such as academic journals, it can have an article here. Otherwise, you will need to find another forum to publish your research in. I'm sorry that is probably not what you want to hear. 331dot (talk) 15:45, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

It appears your draft is mostly based on Dan Gibson's work, and it appears scholars are skeptical about it. Thus it doesn't seem that any conclusiveness can be drawn the way you state - on just one person's book and perspective one cannot write a neutral article Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:59, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Welcome to the Teahouse, @Jd00001: If you are referring to your draft Petra The Muslim Holy City, the reviewer fairly noted that it was structured as an argumentative essay, not an encyclopedia article's summary of secondary sources and further advised study of Wikipedia's 3 core content policies of neutral point of view, no original research, and reliable sources. WP:CCPOL must all be considered at once.

The simplest start to overcoming the argumentative essay format might be to try writing a summary paragraph for insertion into an existing article, including only the major points and citing all controversial claims, while acknowledging differing views with citations as well. If a well-stated and well-cited summary paragraph can survive in an existing article, e.g., Mecca, Petra, &/or Muhammed, it might later be expanded into an article section or standalone article. This strategy will give you running feedback from other editors as you strive to incorporate these claims to knowledge in Wikipedia. It will be tough.

I was immediately struck by some questionable publishers, e.g., Independent Scholar's Press and Open Democracy, suggesting the possible lack of pre-publication peer review. Sure enough, the one source most heavily relied upon is a widely discredited and uncredentialed author, Dan Gibson, whose work has been negatively reviewed by professional scholars, as the WP article makes clear. I would be interested in seeing what can be claimed without using such unreliable sources. It is a fascinating question, and I wish you well in developing it into an encyclopedic summary, if it can be supported with reliable sources. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 16:39, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you everyone. I am a newbie. I would like to respond to all commentators collectively. Is this the way to do it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jd00001 (talk • contribs) 14:00, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi want to get adopted

Hi i want to get adopted by someone and also I have requested a review of my user page I want my name in user page hall of fame regards to everyone☣LearnLurker☣Chat 16:19, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

@LearnLurker: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I would ask if you could change the display of your signature so it is more traditional; it is much larger than normal and can affect how others view the page. 331dot (talk) 16:22, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

@LearnLurker: - I agree with 331dot vis-á-vis the signature. It is also worth noting that, while not impossible, it will be difficult to gain respect and have people take you seriously given your love for Comic sans - a lot of people don't like it (even reliable sources), and it is a bit meme-y. However, that is your call. Stormy clouds (talk) 16:29, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

You know my question has not been anwsered☣LearnLurker☣Chat 17:14, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

@LearnLurker: Technically, you didn't ask one. But if you want to be a productive Wikipedia user, we have some advice for you. To follow up on the signature issue, yours actually is a violation of the signature guideline; you can't have templates or parser functions in your signature, which includes things like your {{#switch}}. You need to remove that bit, especially given the vast amount of vertical space it consumes in the source editor. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:18, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

@LearnLurker: - I'm impressed! The radioactive symbols are a nice touch. But I would be even more impressed if you filled in that Articles Created section. ;) After all, we're all here for a reason, right? -- kewlgrapes (talk, contribs) 17:39, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello, LearnLurker. I will be a bit more direct. This is a project to expand and improve an encyclopedia. User pages are for editors to describe themselves in the context of building the encyclopedia. You have not yet made a single edit to an encyclopedia article. What are you doing here, then? Please get to work. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:53, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes of course that why I am asking to get adopted make more sense now☣LearnLurker☣Chat 18:52, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

@LearnLurker: If you want to be adopted, you might find more assistance at Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user. You may also find the tutorial The Wikipedia Adventure helpful. As Cullen328 suggests, focus less on your userpage and signature and more on what work you want to do here. You also still need to remove the parser function from your signature. 331dot (talk) 19:08, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I have offered adoption. Septrillion (talk) 20:48, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I accept your offer☣LearnLurker☣|☣Chat☣ 17:43, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I fixed my signature I could not fiqure out what was wrong with it so I copied and modified one☣LearnLurker☣|☣Chat☣ 17:45, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Possible vandalism reversion

Hello everyone! I was looking through a user's contributions, when some of his edits were marked with the tags [rollback][vandalism]. Do these messages imply vandalism? After reversion, how should I notify/warn users about this (talk page)? Thanks for the consideration! Lightningboltz03 (talk) 16:53, 9 May 2018 (UTC)Lightningboltz03 5/9/18

Hi, Lightningboltz03, welcome to the Teahouse! Those links are actually from a tool called Twinkle, which is designed to help Wikipedia users revert vandalism. They appear on all revertible edits regardless of how good they are, so their appearance has nothing to do with whether the edit is vandalism or not. Determining whether a particular edit is vandalism or not is a task for the human in the equation. :) As far as notification, if you use the [vandalism] link, Twinkle will notify the user for you. If you use one of the other links, you'll have to notify the user yourself if you want; Twinkle should also provide you a dropdown menu with some templates if you go to their talk page, or you can just write something yourself. Hope this helps! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:06, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Question?

how to change rating of an article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kpgjhpjm (talk • contribs) 17:36, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

You had an answer at WP:Help desk#how to assess a article?, which also told you not to ask the same question in more than one place. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:47, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

K - This is your 8th or 9th Teahouse question, and yet you appear to be doing very little in the way of article editing. David notMD (talk) 18:14, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

How to find which Creative Commons license does an image hold?

Hello! I have been trying to upload an image to wikicommons from a domain ( https://presidentofindia.nic.in/profilephoto.htm ) but i get stuck in the part where it asks me to name the type of license the image holds. So I am asking someone to help me out and also tell me the type of license the image in the provided website holds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adithya harish pergade (talk • contribs) 21:10, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Adithya harish pergade, and welcome to the Teahouse. Not all images you find online are published under a suitable Creative Commons license. In fact, relatively few are. You'll know if the website has a notice that says that content are published under a Creative Commons license, such as an image caption that would say "Creative Commons By 3.0"

This website has no such notice. Indeed, it says "Copyright © 2017 The Rashtrapati Bhavan" and has a copyright policy page that says that contents on that website are not published under a Creative Commons license. Unfortunately, it means you cannot upload this image. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:28, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

How to remove a defunct fake news site from the "List of Fake News Sites"

I bought the domain name of a now-dead fake news site. (It was awful and was often sued.) I bought it because it is similar to my company name. I'm was a journalism major, and it appalls me. Because the site has been inactive for years (and I will eventually have it point to my VALID website), I'd like to have it removed. How? Thank you!

I hope this is the right place to post this question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Honestyforever (talk • contribs) 18:10, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

@Honestyforever: - what is the name of the website? I can look for an reliable source to verify its closure, and then remove it from the list. Thanks for bringing this issue to our attention. Stormy clouds (talk) 18:20, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Honestyforever. I disagree a bit with Stormy clouds. As an encyclopedia, we cover notable things from the past as well as the present. In my opinion, a defunct website should stay on that list, perhaps with a note saying that it has closed down. The proper place to propose and discuss the removal is Talk:List of fake news websites. As the current domain owner, you have a conflict of interest, so please do not remove it yourself. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:26, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

@Cullen328: - apologies for the confusion, it was not my intention to remove the site completely from the article. Rather, to report its closure with a citation, and then transition it to a section for defunct sites, or use a note. My bad for not explaining it fully. Stormy clouds (talk) 18:56, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

"How to help" page non-existent?

A while ago I had a different account and remember seeing a page titled "How to help", which essentially pointed new editors towards pages that needed cleaning up. As I look for it now, I see that I am unable to find it. Did it exist before? Does it still exist? I would like to know as I am trying to get more involved on this site. Thank you. CoolConvery (talk) 18:40, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, CoolConvery. You are probably thinking of Wikipedia:Community portal. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:09, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

@CoolConvery: It could also have been Wikipedia:How to help or the feature at Wikipedia:GettingStarted. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:58, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Not sure why page content was removed

I revised the page for the American Accounting Association to include various things about the Association's history and what we do. Everything was deleted saying that it was "promotional". If I am stating facts from our website and from history books written about the association, why is this considered promotional and not appropriate to have on a page describing what the organization does. Other pages feature products and services of theirs (such as Reebok). We are a membership organization that features journals, meetings and awards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NancyAAAHQ (talk • contribs) 19:15, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

@NancyAAAHQ: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I have just posted some information about conflict of interest on your user talk page, please review it and make the appropriate declarations.

Beware in citing other pages to justify something you are attempting to do; Other stuff exists, and each page here is judged on its own merits. The biggest problem with your edits was that you appear to have simply copied the information from your organization's website; this is a copyright violation, which we must take seriously. It is possible to donate copyrighted materials using the procedure described at WP:DCP, but the materials you attempted to add were very promotional. Wikipedia has no interest in what an organization wants to say about itself, or how it wants to be portrayed. Things like "vision", "value statements" and "mission" are unencyclopedic and not suitable article content, as it is difficult to independently verify what an organization considers to be its "mission". We are only interested in what independent reliable sources state about an organization, stating how it meets the notability guidelines at WP:ORG.

Now, if you have independently written history books (that is, books not written by your organization itself or commissioned by it) that have information, that may be valid article content. If so, you should not edit the page directly due to your conflict of interest, but instead make an edit request on the article talk page, for an independent editor to review. That is the proper manner for someone with a COI to change information in articles related to their COI. 331dot (talk) 19:22, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Referring to youtube/vimeo

Hi there - I recently submitted my first page for review and it was rejected because of inadequate references. The page is Draft:Messages_of_Hope_&_Support, and the rejection message states "Youtube and Vimeo are not reliable sources.".

On my draft page I have included references to youtube and vimeo videos because they are actual outputs generated by the applied social psychological intervention I describe on the page. In other words, I did not intend the referenced videos to be justification/proof, but rather pointed to them as evidence of outcomes/results (which I think are useful for readers).

What's the correct way for me to reference those videos in the page? For example, I've added them in an "External Links" section - should I refer readers to that section in the main body of the page?

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Girish.l (talk • contribs) 23:56, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Girish.l. I just read your draft and agree that the official YouTube and Vimeo channels are acceptable in an "External links" section at the end. Do not mention these links in the body of the article. We do not actively advise our readers to look at various things. Allow the structure of the article to speak for itself. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:45, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

@Girish.l:: you may also want to read this video links related essay althoug, I'd recommend you checking out these help pages as well: Your first article, Referencing for beginners and Citing Sources. Oh, and Manual of Style/Lead section. Also, try to use the most neutral point of view. And "each video featured a Rwandan genocide survivor speaking about their positive stories of survival and growth following the 1994 genocide." taken from the cited study it's a bit different from "Prompted by the observation that there were few opportunities for Rwandans to share positive stories of survival and healing" [1]. I'd probably (don't take my word, it's just how I'd rephrase it) say it something like: "[...]each video featured a Rwandan genocide, according to a [The Name of the Study] conducted by [who conducted the study, when] [referencing the quotation]. Or something similar. Don't hesitate to come back if you have more questions and good luck with your article..Robert G. (talk) 01:27, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Celso Fonseca's Wikipedia Page

Donner60, I am new to the editing process, but I tried to make a correction on musician, singer/songwriter, composer Celso Fonseca's page as someone phished his identity substituting their own website instead of Celso Fonseca's original website (if in fact he has one), at the end of the page under "External Links". That was not a test. When you click on any links that reference the musician, it turns out it is someone else by that same name's website. So that is all I was trying to do. Trying to inform further readers not to even click on the phishing link. It was an inappropriate use of someone's identity.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:558:6036:49:3587:E78C:4919:2D2B (talk) 03:16, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello, anonymous IP, welcome to our Teahouse. Don't worry - you were clearly acting in good faith. The only thing you did that wasn't Ok was to annotate your concerns about the wrong website link within the article itself. We don't do that; we either leave our concerns on the article's talk page so another editor can act on it, or we simply remove the offending content with an explanation as to why in the edit summary. That was why Donner60 left an explanation on your own talk page. This is quite standard for new editors. It can be a good way to learn the right way of doing things, and you've no need to feel upset by it. I should also point out that if you want to reply to that editor, you've no need to come here to the Teahouse to do it. That editor won't see your reply here unless you format it in a particular manner which sends them an automatic notification that you've mentioned them. The best way would simply to have replied beneath their edits on your talk page. You can also contact any editor from any page (except articles!) by writing their name in a special way, but I won't bore you with the details (but see here if you want to know more). Do come back if you need any further help on editing in any way. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 07:09, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out the error. The two misleading links have now been removed. Dbfirs 07:02, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes:, @Dbfirs: Thanks for the ping and the response here. I am not sure why this needed to be brought here but I suppose a new user might find this the best place to ask a question. Also, I messed up my attempt to strike my first message and might have been a little clearer with my second one, which may have contributed to the idea that another opinion was needed. In any event, I thought you would like to know that I just left the following additional message on the IP user's talk page. "I had intended to strike the first message and note that it was a technical mistake, not an intentionally disruptive one. I did not format the first tag correctly nor mention that I was striking through the first comment, showing that even experienced editors will make mistakes. I did follow through and delete the link after I looked at it and agreed with your conclusion that it was either fake or someone with the same name. If there was yet another link that should have been struck, I did not see it referred to or notice it on my own. I am sorry my additional message here did not contain the correct strike code and may have been not fully complete. Donner60 (talk) 07:17, 10 May 2018 (UTC)" I saw from Dbfirs message that I did in fact miss a bad link. I'm not sure how there were two left to delete because I recall only two external links; perhaps one was in the text. That is not important now because what is important is that the bad links are gone. My purposes were to leave a message about comments in the text, strike the bad external link(s), strike my original template message because the comment in the text was the real point and leave some helpful, welcome page-like Wikipedia page links for reference. I evidently did not completely achieve that purpose but I thank you for completing the task and notifying me so I could leave another brief further explanation with the user and complete striking my original message. I think an IP can not be pinged so my further message, repetitive here, should suffice to convey the same points. Donner60 (talk) 07:31, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Number of edits

How do I find out how many edits I've made? Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:39, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi and welcome Jenhawk777. Click here: [2]. Chetsford (talk) 06:02, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

For the running total you can also click Preferences at the top of the page when logged in. ー「宜しく 」 クロノ  カム  08:23, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you both so much! Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:36, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

What is the criteria for notability of a place (temple)

I want to create a new article, there are very few sources, so I want to understand what are the guidelines for notability of place? --G (talk) 09:56, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:RELIG/N covers the notability of religion and religious buildings.

WP:GEOFEAT covers buildings. Hope these help. - X201 (talk) 10:32, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. --G (talk) 05:40, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Sudip Mazumder

Hello,

whether anybody can create a wiki-page? For example, I'm talking about Sudip Mazumder's page. I know this person quite well. He is an IEEE fellow. That's correct.

There are lots of IEEE fellows around the world. Whether they have wiki-pages? The answer is no. Because, I presume a wiki-page means something noteworthy. Is not it? Being an IEEE fellow, does not mean, the person will appear in wiki. Am I Clear?

Please do verify his credentials at UIC and then create his page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sribose (talk • contribs) 10:00, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

@Sribose: It is not acceptable to post unsubstantiated accusations about any person on Wikipedia. Users doing so may be blocked from editing, so please treat this as a warning. Am I clear? To answer your question, yes, your are correct: only people who meet our criteria for Notability, based on reliable sources, and not hearsay, personal gripes, gossip, or their own website, are likely to have a page about them remain on Wikipedia. Being a member of the IEEE or any other similar institution is not going to be sufficient on its own. Volunteer hosts at the Teahouse rarely get involved in creating articles for others, though there is a process to request an article if someone believes they merit it, but have a good reason for not doing so themselves. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:50, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning. I just wanted to know whether any body can create a wiki-page. I got the answer. Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sribose (talk • contribs) 12:23, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Anybody (who is not banned for previous infractions) may (is permitted to) create a Wikipedia article, but it is not an easy thing for an inexperienced editor to do, so whether a given person can (is able to) or cannot depends on them. However, any such article must comply with Wikipedia's standards and policies, and may be removed (possibly quite rapidly) if it does not. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.204.152.127 (talk) 15:35, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Melania Trump

According to Wikipedia:

She is the first naturalized U.S. citizen to become First Lady of the United States.[6]

According to:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/first-ladies/louisa-catherine-johnson-adams/

Louisa Catherine Adams -- the wife of John Quincy Adams, the sixth president (1825-29) -- was born in London to an English mother and an American father who served as U.S. consul, according to the White House. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:148:200:91D5:1988:C9CC:A602:204A (talk) 11:53, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Its semantics, but its correct. Trump is the first naturalized U.S. citizen to become first lady. The main section of the article about Trump as first lady explains it. Adams was born outside the US, but wasn't a naturalised citizen, she had citizenship of the US by birthright. - X201 (talk) 12:18, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Advice for improving a submitted page

Hi there! I crafted my first wiki page but was not accepted due to 'This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources.'.

I was just wondering if possible to get advice on what sources were or weren't reliable within the article, so I can replace them with more appropriate ones.

Page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Skillnet_Ireland

I don't want to have to change every source if some are okay and I just need to update a few of them :)

Thanks, Ray — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raylonergan1234 (talk • contribs) 11:55, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

You will need to establish that the subject is notable, by citing several reliable independent published sources with significant discussion of the subject. In my view, the article currently cites one such source, #2. #1 is a listing only; #6 does not mention the subject; #3 #4 #5 #7 #8 are all based on press releases and interviews with employees, and so are not independent. Maproom (talk) 12:47, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Responsibility for providing citations (WP:BURDEN) in a RFC

In a RFC about a certain topic to gather support and oppose votes from users, does it require all participants to have some knowledge about the topic being concerned (WP:BURDEN) ?

Does it require all supporters and opponents to explain clearly why they vote as such ?

Thanks Gustmeister (talk) 12:13, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Q1: no. When we write an article, we should base it on the sources it cites; prior personal knowledge is probably a disadvantage. Likewise with an RfC, prior knowledge of the subject is irrelevant, what helps is familiarity with Wikipedia policies.

Q2: it's not required. But the closing admin is likely to attach much more weight to votes that are justified by valid reasons. Maproom (talk) 12:52, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Charles de La Rochefoucauld draft

Hi everyone, I created a draft article on Charles de La Rochefoucauld on 30 April, using an Article Wizard template and clicking on 'Publish' when all my references were complete. I fully understand the process for new articles is driven by volunteers and that there are a lot of articles needing to be reviewed, but is there any rough rule of thumb, please, as to how long it might take for something to be seen? Also, I can't find the draft in Category: AfC submissions by date/30 April 2018 - does that mean I haven't submitted it properly? Would I need to add the code {{AFC submission|||ts=20180510135344|u=Markmiseldine|ns=4}} to the article, or is that unnecessary if using an Article Wizard template? Many thanks! Mark — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markmiseldine (talk • contribs)

This is about Draft:Charles de La Rochefoucauld. I don't believe it has ever been submitted for review. The "Publish changes" button is misleadingly named; it used to be called "Save changes", and that is what it does. Another editor has added a button to the draft, which will allow you to submit it for review. 14:44, 10 May 2018 (UTC)Maproom (talk)

Hello, Markmiseldine. You haven't submitted the page for review. I have added the AFC template to it so that you can do so if you think it is ready for review. Unfortunately, the Wikimedia Foundation recently changed the "Save" button to read "Publish". I believe they did this because they wanted people to understand that everything saved anywhere in the encyclopaedia is visible to the entire world (some people thought it was private to them until they formally "published" it); but now other people think, as perhaps you did, that "publish" means "make this a part of the main encyclopaedia". By the way, on talk pages, and project pages like this one, please sign your contirbutions with four tildes {~~~~). --ColinFine (talk) 14:48, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Submission Individual Master File denied

My submission was denied until notiriety policy (I'm new here so enjoy explaining things to a newbie) Why? I included sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syntaxsynapse (talk • contribs) 14:04, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Draft:Individual Master File. --ColinFine (talk) 14:23, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Syntaxsynapse. When an editor rejects a submission, the best person to ask is that editor, in this case 1997kB, normally on their user talk page. However, I agree with them: of your four references, two are not independent, and the other two just mention the IMf without saying much substantial about it. The requirement for notability (not "notoriety") is that several people unconnected with the subject have thought it worth writing in some depth about the subject, and been published in reliable places. It's not enough that they have mentioned the subject in an article about something else. (It is possible that they could cover it in depth in an article that is mainly about something else, but that is not the case here, in my opinion). By the way, please sign your posts on talk and project pages, with four tildes (~~~~). --ColinFine (talk) 14:36, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Account login

I have been notified that someone has tried to log into my account. I do not know who it is and I have not been on Wikipedia for some time. However I have changed my password but I don't think this is enough. I have never been hacked or had some one try to login without my knowledge. Can someone ether tell me how to add better security or can someone or a bot watch my account to see if it will happen again as I think the person might try to get into my account again. Thanks CanadiaNinja 14:17, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi CanadiaNinja. Lots of users get such messages. Somebody probably tries random passwords on random accounts. They are not targeting you personally. If you have a strong password and don't use it at other sites then don't worry. Just ignore the notifications, or disable them at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-echo. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:44, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

@CanadiaNinja: If it happened on May 3, 4, 5, 7, or 8, it happened to thousands of other users. The graph can be found here. There is a thread at WP:VPT#"a failed attempt to log in to your account" alerts and a Phabricator task at phab:T193769. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:01, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Forbes

Hello. Can we give reference of scott mendelson of forbes article. Because someone gives it on a wikipedia page.DCEU (talk) 14:20, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi DCEU. Forbes is considered a reliable source by Wikipedia. Whether it's suitable to cite a specific Forbes article for specific information in a specific Wikipedia article would depend on the circumstances, and editors may disagree. I don't know what you have in mind but Scott Mendelson writes a lot about box office predictions. Wikipedia is not a news site and often prefers to wait for actual information instead of discussing predictions. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:54, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Note Forbes / forbesmagazine.com is an RS, but the related website forbes.com hosts blogs which are not. MB 16:41, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, but yes after actual numbers not predictions, one can reference Forbes's articles written by any writer on Forbes, or articles written by some specified writers on Forbes are referenced.DCEU (talk) 16:45, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

@DCEU: - most often, raw box office numbers are sourced from Box Office Mojo, which I find to be a perfectly thorough and serviceable source. If you are citing Mendelson for his analysis/predictions, you may encounter the issue which PrimeHunter has alluded to above. Stormy clouds (talk) 19:13, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

General Question on Page Improvement

Hello,

Ran across this page clicking through random:

MANTRA-Rajbhasha

Seems to be in need of some TNT, but I'm out of my depth for notability guidelines for an article like this or knowing where to ask for improvements. Am uncomfortable pushing to AfD as well.

Punting here since I'm not sure what to do.

Thanks,
Hwdirre (talk) 17:54, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi, @Hwdirre: and welcome to the Teahouse. You helpfully tagged the article for 1) no footnotes and 2) peacock terms. Within minutes an alert editor noticed and rightly nominated for speedy deletion because of a fatal complication, copyright violation. Welcome to Wikipedia! ;) See: WP:COPYVIO Copyright violations are absolutely not acceptable.

The article's content is now, or soon will be, history, but its subject may still meet notability requirements for a new version, a mere stub, preferably about a paragraph or two, no more than the sources will bear. Start with Google Scholar and ask if these sources are 1) independent of the software developers and 2) published in reliable sources: Google Scholar results for "MANTRA-Rajbhasha". You might quickly draft a stub in the Talk page of the article or your own User space. Hope that helps. Feel free to ask any followup questions. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 20:43, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I see the article has been deleted for copyright violation. Follow the redlink above (your post) for a helpful link to creating a draft in your user space. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 20:58, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Please can you provide some advice?

Hello,

Please can I ask for some advice?

I am quite new to this but have already managed to create a few apparently acceptable articles without any issues. I have become a little confused about an issue.

While working on articles and looking at others, I found that although many include the term 'Lordship of Bromfield and Yale', none of them are linked because no matching page existed on Wikipedia. I have created a new page and added it to the mainspace. My intentions for the article are mentioned on the talkpage, but simply I want to connect the articles that include the term, including those less obvious to find. The page will develop as links are added by myself, and hopefully others. After completing this lengthy task, it is my intention to find other sources about potential links, if required to research them, and create additional pages. The topic is so big it would be similar to writing the history of North East Wales but by using the links on my new page makes any research on this Lordship much easier for wiki users. Due to a polite message I received, as a newbie, I am worried that the page will be deleted. If that is the case I do not want to spend too much time on it. Any advice about the usefulness of this page, or if I am doing this task correctly is much appreciated.

Regards,

--WPCW (talk) 18:01, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello, WPCW. Welcome to the Teahouse. Creating any unreferenced or poorly-referenced and only partly-completed Wikipedia page (even about a notable topic) is never the best approach to take because it's always likely to attract people who want to delete it. For that reason it's never a great idea to create a page and assume you can develop it later. Instead, develop it in your sandbox or as a draft (as you did), and then only move it over when it's in a state to stand on its own two feet. I think the best approach might have been to have 'red linked' all the examples of that term whenever you encounter them. Adding a wikilink to a term that doesn't yet exist as a standalone page is quite acceptable, so long as there's a very good chance that page would, eventually, be created. That way, when it is finally created, all the articles which previously had red wikilinks in them are suddenly linked to it with blue wikilinks that work.

I'm no historian, but I think your article topic is definitely notable. The problem I have with it is that it doesn't work as an encyclopaedia page should. I want to be able to read any article and understand, clearly, by the first sentence what that topic is going to be about. Yours fails that at present because you assume the reader already knows what you know - and most wont. Because I didn't understand any of the terms that followed it, I was unclear if the Lordship was a person, a pubname or a parcel of land. A trick to writing a good first sentence is to imagine yourself giving a talk to a group of Womens' Institute ladies in England. They're terribly interested and keen to hear you talk on your favourite subject, but you're a visiting speaker and you need to ease them in gently, and simply. You wouldn't dive in expect them to understand all the technical terms or even where it actually is, would you? Do they even know you're talking about a part of Wales? As I haven't got time to research the details, I'm going to have to make this up, but nevertheless I'd suggest structuring it more like this (I've ommitted the wikilinks):

The Lordship of Bromfield and Yale is a 13th century term applied to a large area of land in mid-Wales. Extending across an area of approximately 75 square miles (190 km²) it was formed in 1282 from the merging of the medieval commotes of Marford, Wrexham and Yale. That merger took place because of the 1282 Act of Parliament that impacted on all landholding across Wales. The Lordship of Bromford and Yale remained in existence for xxx years, owned by the Fitzalans (the earls of Arundel) until 1415, but in 1483 ownership eventually passed to the Crown. (here's a useful reference)

Of course, unlike my made up waffle, you need to be able to support everything you say with a reliable reference, and you should already have done that before moving anything into the main encyclopaedia. Inline references don't have to be in the lead paragraph, providing you do expand on content you've mentioned in the lead (lede) further down, where the references can be then be inserted, if you wish. There seems to be a lot of mentions of this land unit online, and I see there's even a map on page 248 of this reference. So you should have no difficulty dealing with establishing notability. Don't randomly link back to other articles just because they happen to mention it, or be places falling within it. I think 'Related articles' should be renamed 'See also' and should bullet-pointed, or you could (in due course!) consider creating a new category to link related articles together. I might guess that 'People linked to the Lordship of Bromfield and Yale' could reasonably be expanded into a paragraph relating to key people who owned/managed it. Does any of this sound like a sensible approach? Regards from the [[Hundred (county division)|Appletree Hundred), Nick Moyes (talk) 22:37, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

My first thought was that the "Lordship of Bromfield and Yale" must be a heritable title, like the Earldom of March, and therefore surely notable. But it seems it isn't like that. In fact I'm not sure quite what it was. Was it a geographic region like the County Palatine of Cheshire? Or a set of landholdings, bestowed by the monarch but without being heritable? The article ought to say. A Google search finds many reputable-looking hits, so I think it must be notable. But while it's not ready for mainspace, I've moved it to Draft:The Lordship of Bromfield and Yale. That way, you can continue to work on it without danger of its being deleted. Maproom (talk) 22:04, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

@WPCW: After a bit if an edit conflict, I see Maproom has very sensibly converted your article back into a draft, where I genuinely think you should continue working on it. I would be upset if you felt disillusioned by these actions and the (hopefully, helpful) feedback you've received. In fact, I've taken the liberty of removing your author-requested 'speedy delete' request that I see you've just added whilst I was preparing my response to you, above. I really, really don't think you should delete it because I am convinced the topic meets our guidelines for Notability - but I'm sure you can see it still needs some work. If you're able to address that, I think it would be a very valuable addition to the historic geography section of Wikipedia, counterbalancing all the rubbish about minor football quarterbacks, insignificant companies that want to advertise themselves, and myriads of non-entity non-celebrities that get written about in far too much detail by the mass media of today, but that no-one will care one iota about in a century's time. Keep up the good work, and if you need any further advice on creating great content here, don't hesitate to ask. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:57, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks for your advice, kind words, encouragement, it is much appreciated. Changing from academic papers to wiki is quite a change, I'm only a newbie at this but I'm sure I'll soon get my head around it! Wayne

WPCW (talk) 23:12, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

@WPCW: No worries, Wayne. I recently adopted a retired and antarctic scientist/geology professor - he had exactly the same problem adjusting to our wiki-ways. One really important thing to remember is that Wikipedia is only a collation of what other good, often academic, sources have already stated, and that its most valuable (but most misunderstood and sadly-overlooked) element is its use of good, reliable references to support everything said here. Unlike academia, where you're expected to do it, we never present original research here, nor synthesise other works to draw our own conclusions. Don't be put off by all our guidelines and style rules - we do often leave unintended curt messages for editors who've erred a bit in good faith. Eight years on and I'm still learning from my mistakes! Come back anytime (and don't forget to sign each post with four tildes, like this: (~~~~). Nick Moyes (talk) 23:34, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Federal grant money (under the arra)

I am a vietnam vet that is from and residing currently in calif.Who would like to know if there any options available to me to obtain aFederal grant for low income individuals who are over the age of 65yrs.Have not signed up for S.S. yet I do receive a very small income from a pension from being on active duty during the vietnam war. That pension is $1000,which is not even enough to live on per month.Not to mention mortgage payments,property taxes,amd all the rest of expenses that go along with owning a home,a home that was left to my brother and I by my parents.Who were both in their nineties when they died.Currently my brother is handicapped for almost 20yrs.now.My point being that,we don't want to have to give the hm.away,with it still being a buyer's market.Yes the realality market is going up,but it will still take some time to become even between,buyer and seller.Anyway to my point;Is there any type of grant money that I could use to at least do some hm.improvement,outside and inside. . Also,help with overall costs.As I said before we atr living below poverty level. Thank you,Rick Hennig — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricster4252 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry for your straitened circumstances, Bicster4252, but I'm afraid this is the help page for editing Wikipedia (and nothing else), and we cannot help you here. Sorry. --ColinFine (talk) 22:31, 10 May 2018 (UTC)}

Google is mixing up two actors with the same name. Only one has a Wiki page

Please advise. I've noticed that over the past few years Google has been merging the profiles of two different Ben Davies actors into one. The Ben Davies who has starred in the Sony film COURAGEOUS and 10 other films plus been an All American athlete, is being confused with Ben Davies a British actor who Wiki has listed as Ben-Ryan Davies. The American Ben Davies has many more credits, but he doesn't have a Wiki page.

Please advise who to get a Wiki Page established for Ben Davies of COURAGEOUS and I'M NOT ASHAMED so that Google will stop mixing their profiles.

With appreciation FORD — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ford10 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Ford10. We have articles Benjamin Davies (actor) and Ben-Ryan Davies, (though as the latter has not one single independent reference, it does nothing to establish that he meets Wikipedia's criteria for notabililty, and may get deleted), but not apparently one about the Ben Davies you are talking about. If he meets those criteria (basically, that a couple of people unconnnected with him have been interested enough to write in some depth about him and been published in reliable places), then there can be a Wikipedia article about him. You are welcome to try writing it, though I would caution that writing an article that sticks is not easy - start by reading your first article.

But if he does not meet the notability criteria, then Wikipedia will not accept an article about him, irrespective of how Google may be mangling the information. A standard response about Google's Knowledge Graph follows:

Are you by any chance referring to a photo or text shown to the right of a Google search? Google's Knowledge Graph uses a wide variety of sources. There may be a text paragraph ending with "Wikipedia" to indicate that particular text was copied from Wikipedia. An image and other text before or after the Wikipedia excerpt may be from sources completely unrelated to Wikipedia. We have no control over how Google presents our information, but Google's Knowledge Graph has a "Feedback" link where anyone can mark a field as wrong. The same feedback facility is also provided on Bing and some other search engines. --ColinFine (talk) 22:49, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

There's a recent AfD - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Davies (American Actor) - that concurs. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:24, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Ganavya

Hi there, hope all is well. We're working on a draft for an article called "Ganavya" with a friend. The original review got rejected on the basis of it sounding too much like an ad; we removed more information and were wondering if we could get advice on whether it looks appropriate enough yet. This is the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Ganavya We're trying to write more about women of color and represent our musicians well on Wikipedia! So trying to learn the best tone to write in. Many thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vittalvihar (talk • contribs) 00:03, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Vittalvihar. The biggest problem that I see with your draft is the lack of references to independent, reliable sources that devote significant coverage to Ganavya. What I am seeing are brief passing mentions of a sentence or less in secondary sources. In its current form, the draft does not clearly establish that Ganavya is notable, as Wikipedia defines that term. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:18, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Lead section fix/improvement

Hello! While reviewing Epigenetics of anxiety and stress-related disorders and fixing some formatting minor issues I tried to figure out how to improve the lead section to comply with WP:MOS. I'd like to fix this instead of just labeling it. Someone with a broader range of knowledge in medicine can help. Thank you! Robertgombos (talk) 04:12, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

@Robertgombos: It certainly could be made a lot more accessible, per WP:LEAD. WP is not a specialized medical encyclopedia: WP:MEDMOS is an integral part of WP:MOS, not a separate style manual. Accessibility to a lay audience is paramount for all WP articles: technical, medical, or whatever. Keep these links handy if your good edits get reverted without good reason. The reader comes first.

As you admirably wanted to do this yourself, I will only say where I might start. First: Feel the pain of the lay reader. Make it real. Imagine yourself as a confused sufferer of some epigenetic anxiety or stress-related disorder. You are nervously hovering over the article's wikilinked title from another relevant article: you will quickly scan only the first sentence or two before deciding whether or not to click through - try it now yourself. Ugh! Ouch! Awful, wasn't it?

To make it clickworthy, you might start with translating the article title into plain English, in one or two sentences at most. Keep the wikilinks where they matter, just after being introduced properly. One starts explanations from the familiar and ends a clause or sentence with the less familar - wikilink that last. Next clause or sentence picks up on last of previous and continues pattern. Repeat until done. E.g.:

"Common words are used to introduce the lay public, including all readers of Wikipedia, to technical terminology or jargon, often used for precision by professionals such as scientists, engineers, and doctors."

Start with making the opening noun - "epigenetics" - accessible in an opening clause ending in wikilink of "epigenetics". Add a comma and then quickly downshift to its prepositional modifier - "of anxiety and stress-related disorders". Are those terms in need of paraphrase, or can they be introduced simply with a wikilink? Depends on where you go with next two sentences. Probably use these latter two to give more detail on epigenetics as specific to these conditions. Your call.

How does the Epigenetics article begin? Is that helpful? How do the anxiety and stress-related disorders articles begin? Is that helpful? If not, don't imitate bad models of lay explanation, look for alternatives. Try a dictionary or two.

I would love to see that opening paragraph earn a click from the casually curious, perhaps those most in need of it, and not only medical professionals. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 05:38, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

One thing that makes the article hard to follow, even for someone equipped to understand the biology and biochemistry, is that the word "stress" is used in two different senses, without explanation. The stress a soldier suffers, sometimes causing PTSD, is not the same as what biologists call the stress produced by depriving an embryo of a nutrient. Maproom (talk) 10:04, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

How to remove template messages on articles?

I've updated Seattle Foundation's Wikipedia page to add more sources and categories, but I'm not sure the right way to remove the template messages at the top. Please advise? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by NicoleMN6 (talk • contribs) 05:00, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, NicoleMN6. One of the templates says that the article relies too much on primary sources. When I look at the list of references, I see a lot of primary sources, specifically references to the foundation's own website. So, the way to remove that tag is to address the issue that the tag identifies. In other words, replace the primary sources with reliable, independent secondary sources. By the way, do you have any conflict of interest regarding this foundation? If so, please declare it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:24, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Kenyan actor

Hello, I want to write the biography of a Kenyan actor and i cannot determine if she's notable according to Wikipedia's standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stitch Blaze (talk • contribs) 06:18, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Stitch Blaze. Please read our notability guideline for entertainers, and also Your first article. The quality of the reliable sources that you cite and summarize is all-important. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:27, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Need citation help

Article Joshua Giddings, note 2, I cannot figure out how to include the author (Joshua Giddings) of the book Thompson wrote an introduction for. Thanks. deisenbe (talk) 09:48, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done, @Deisenbe: this is what the contribution and related tags are for in {{cite book}}. --Gronk Oz (talk) 10:16, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Need to change article name - I´m a new user

Hello, I need to update the article name of this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyndham_Grand_Chelsea_Harbour as the hotel is not part of Wyndham chain anymore. The hotel now is owned by Millennium hotels. Here is the official website: https://www.millenniumhotels.com/en/london/the-chelsea-harbour-hotel/ How can the article title be updated with the new official hotel name without Wyndham? Thanks for helping. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VeruskaDina (talk • contribs) 11:00, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

The article name is the very least of it's worries. It needs major work to even get to notable. - X201 (talk) 11:44, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi VeruskaDina, welcome to the Teahouse. Pages can only be moved by accounts which are at least 4 days old and have 10 edits. I have moved Wyndham Grand Chelsea Harbour to Chelsea Harbour Hotel. The article was created in 2009 by an experienced user. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:48, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

How to automatically archive my talk page

User Talk:Deisenbe It’s too long. I could archive it manually, but isn’t there a script that does this automatically, or semi-automatically? Thanks. deisenbe (talk) 15:08, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Deisenbe, and welcome to the Teahouse. The "Archiving bots" section at the bottom of Template:Warchivenav gives bots and scripts to automatically archive your talk page. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:31, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately I am so ignorant that I do not know how to follow the instructions there. There are apparently four archive bots there and I do not understand which one I should use. I tried the first one and so far as I couLd tell nothing happened. (I have erased what I did.) The third one loooked promising, User:HBC Archive Indexerbot, but the first instruction is

• “First create a destination page (the one you want the index to be written to)”. I know how to create a page, but what page should I create?
• “<mask> is used to describe how to find your archives, see below for details.” I cannot figure this one out either. “Below” says “Your mask is simply the path of your archives with the numbers replaced with <#>.“ But I don’t know what the path is.
• “<zeros> is the number of leading 0s in your archive title, "Archive 01" would be 1 leading zero, "Archive 1" is 0 leading zeros.” I don’t know how to answer this either.

If this is a simple task for someone who knows how I wouLd be grateful if you just set it up for me. deisenbe (talk) 11:57, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

@Deisenbe: See Help:Archiving a talk page#Automated archival. It has complete code you can copy directly to your talk page if the archiving parameters are OK to you. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:20, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Articles of Topic

Hello, you can call me Vital. I don't work with football but watch the game everyday, and I like to create articles of players within my expertise, I have now started some in my sandbox. However I have two questions/requests. 1. - How do I create multiple drafts for every single player and, 2. I read that I have to be autoconfirmed to publish them, and I don't want to wait 4 days, may I ask that an Admin give me this right so that I can publish my articles? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by VitalPower (talk • contribs) 15:10, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello, VitalPower, and welcome to the Teahouse. You can use the draft namespace to better organize your drafts. In your case, you can move your works to Draft:Kenny Doublette, Draft:Sergei Jarkovsky, Draft:Julius Kaljo, and Draft:Edmund Karp. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:27, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

NotTheFakeJTP Thank you, I have done that. May I get the autoconfirmed right to move pages into article space, an AfC would be a waste and football is kinda my expertise, I would really need the right to publish my articles, thanks --VitalPower (talk) 15:36, 11 May 2018 (UTC)--VitalPower (talk) 15:36, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

@VitalPower: If it were me, I'd go through AfC. It decreases the risk of deletion upon movement to mainspace, or ask a reviewer from WP:WikiProject Football to look over it. You won't be able to become autoconfirmed for four days, and I don't think your reason for wanting confirmed status early will fly with the administrators. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:42, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello, VitalPower. Those drafts are all stubs with a single cited source each. They are really not ready for mainspace. Indeed if they were moved in the current state, they might be nominated for deletion. I urge you to find and cite additional sources in each of them, and add additionl content, before asking that they be moved to mainspace. By the time you are done with that, four days may well have passed. As an admin, I will not grant confirmed status in these circumstances, although you can apply at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:47, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

DESiegel Hello, hope you're having a good day: I 1. have not finished the articles, I soley created a draft, I also know much about football and I am good with Estonian football players, it would take me perhaps 10 minutes to write a good standard football article or atleast a good stub article. I would hope you could give me this right so that I 2. can move my pages into or out of drafts, 3. to use the bot WP:Twinkle which I have read you'd need the confirm right also. - Thank you, I hope you understand my reasons, --VitalPower (talk) 16:52, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello again, VitalPower. If it will only take you a few minutes to "finish" the drafts and create a good standard football article out of each of them, then please do so and show us rather then tell us. It is normal for pages to be developed to a much more finished state than these are while still in draft mode, befofre being moved to mainspace. I myself, when creating a new article, usually have dozes of edits or more before moving to mainspace. I am sure you know much more about football than i do, so please make use of that knowledge. If you can get all three to a decent Class-C status or better, it will add some weight to your request. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:00, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

DESiegel Hi, yes, I am currently working on Draft:Thomas Panny that should be done in 15 minutes. --VitalPower (talk) 17:19, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

DESiegel see Draft:Thomas Panny now.--VitalPower (talk) 17:47, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

VitalPower Good work so far! You'll still need to replace citations from twice-cited German Wikipedia article. That won't work, per WP:CIRCULAR references. More reliable secondary sources OR less unverifiable content needed to make good stub. Keep going! . -- Paulscrawl (talk) 18:00, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the help ya'll! I have managed to create the drafts and also been at it on a couple AfDs, I also got some help from the help desk. --VitalPower (talk) 23:57, 11 May 2018 (UTC)}}

VitalPower three of the drafts you link tro above are still one-source stubs, and the 4th still has a cite needed tag where I removed a "citation" to another Wikipedia article. Not a convincing display of readiness for mainspace or early confirmed user status. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 04:10, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Should "wikipedia editors" be reaching out to companies to offer to write company entries for them?

Got the following solicitation from a "wikipedia editor." I could respond to find out what the catch (cost) will be, but it seemed a bit inappropriate. Is this something that wikipedia editors typically do?

Hey there,

I hope you are having a good day.

I was searching some reputable companies on my break today and came across your company <insert company name here>.

I see you have been doing a great job with your business. Well, being a Wikipedia editor, I have an interesting proposition for you.

Since <insert company name here> has been the subject of numerous articles in major news sources, I believe it qualifies as a notable company to be on Wikipedia. Would you like me to write a Wikipedia page about your company, reflecting all your offerings and services and a basic idea about your platform in an encyclopedic tone?

A Wikipedia page can give you a very nice looking Google search result. Let me know if interested.

Regards, <author's name goes here>— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:c2:c000:ce2:c067:a304:c0f5:b2b4 (talk • contribs)

These are very often scams. I would strongly advise against sending this individual any money, or showing any interest at all. We've heard about a lot of cases where the individuals offering this "service" doesn't follow our rules and correspondingly the articles get deleted, and then the person who has the money vanishes. It is not something offered or sanctioned by Wikipedia. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:20, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

We'd be very interested in knowing the author's name. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:23, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Firmly agree with Ian.thomson - out the author. If they are a reliable editor, who is compliant with our paid policy, it's fine. If not, things may get interesting. Stormy clouds (talk) 17:28, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Seraphimblade may or may not be right, in this case. Paid editing is allowed, under certain rules, but most people here frown upon it. The overwhelming majority of articles, including on companies, are written by volunteers who have nothing to do with the subjects and for no compensation. See Wikipedia:Who writes Wikipedia?. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:25, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors are encouraged to create articles on notable companies. But if they "reach out" to the company first, they are up to something dishonest, and should be suppressed. Maproom (talk) 22:59, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Geobox River in foreign languages

Hi, Below is the template used for the Mandarin version of Wikipedia. I notice that the Mandarin version uses the English version of templates, but the have managed to adapt the English template to allow for publication in Mandarin! It would be very useful if one could do the same for the Irish Gaelic version of Wikipedia ( https://ga.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pr%C3%ADomhleathanach), given that it lacks many templates. Please help!Ériugena (talk) 17:42, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

The following is the Mandarin version of the Thames infobox! Template:Geobox River

RE: Account login

Hello again i have gotten 4 messages so far and they were both dated may 3 saying someone is trying to get into my account. can someone fix this thanks CanadiaNinja 18:17, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

We think it's an error. See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#"a failed attempt to log in to your account" alerts. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:31, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello, CanadiaNinja, and welcome to the Teahouse. This has bene happening quite a bit lately -- thousands of attempts have apparently been made. See earlier threads here on the Teahouse, and see This thread on the technical area. If your password is strong, and is not used on any other site, you should have no problems and can safely ignore these notices. If your password is weak or is reused on other sites, you should probably change it to a strong and unique password. You can check your contributions. If you made all of them, ther is no problem. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:37, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Using a source more than once

If one source supports multiple claims throughout an article, how should it be cited? Should a citation appear for each claim it supports? If so, should subsequent references be abbreviated? Scd123 (talk) 18:32, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Scd123, and welcome to the teahouse. All significant non-obvious statements should ideally have their own source citations. If you are using <ref>...</ref> tags, then one (often the first ) use of the source should look like <ref name="name">content</ref> and all the others like <ref name="name" />. These are called "named refernces". See WP:REFNAME for more details on how to use them. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:43, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Number of citations

Is there a case when it would be good to have more than one citation to back a fact? I have seen up to three in a row. If there are several sources that I know support a fact, is there any guidance on how many I should include? Scd123 (talk) 18:41, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello again, Scd123. If the sources more or less duplicate each other, then having too many at once may be Wikipedia:Citation overkill. If each supports a different part of the statement, that is a different matter. Having two different sources cited can be a good thing to show that a point is not derived from a single place, although if the point is obvious and non-controversial, one is plenty. Having more than two is often not a good idea, although everything depends on the exact circumstances. Pick the best one or two sources and things will probably be in good shape. If there is an option, choose sources that provide an in-depth discussion of the topic, not ones that simply mention it in passing. Always choose a source or sources that explicitly support the specific fact being cited over those that do not, or do so only by implication. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:58, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Does it matter how often I click "Publish Changes"?

Is there a benefit to publishing sections of my work at a time? For example, I make several punctuation changes, and then I decide to add a paragraph and citations. Would it be better to publish after the punctuation changes, or does it not really matter? Scd123 (talk) 18:46, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Scd123, and welcome to the Teahouse! To answer your question, it doesn't really matter that much how often you publish your changes. When in doubt it's probably better to make fewer edits compared to content changes, but it's not a big deal at all. It would only be a slight problem if, for example, you made one capitalization change, saved the article, another capitalization change, saved the article, and then did that 20 times. But for your case, if you make several punctuation changes and then add a paragraph and citations, either way works just fine. Hope this helps, and please let me know if you have any other questions.--SkyGazer 512 ^{What will you say? / What did I do?} 20:11, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

It is my view, Scd123, that more numerous, smaller changes, are generally better, within reason of course. There are several reasons for my views. First, there is less work lost should a glitch or power outage cause your device or connection to fail. Second, there is less chance of an edit conflict, and less of a problem if one does occur. Third, if you use proper edit summaries (as you should) it will be clearer exactly what your purpose was for each edit. Fourth, should someone object to one of your changes and revert it, the revert will be smaller and more tightly focused, allowing better discussion of just what changes are needed. Obviously the example by SkyGazer 512 of makign 20 separate capitalization changes in one article would be unreasonable. In any case, this is a matter of style and personal preference, and there is no rule requiring you to edit in any particular size of change. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:44, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

is Wikipedia neutral.

I would like to know if the people here at wiki are neutral when it comes to politics cause in this day and age many people say they are neutral but are not and as a conservative I kind of fear that Wikipedia could get tainted with an all liberal mindset so I hope that you guys here at wiki do not care if a person is conservative or not thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adultcartoonlover56 (talk • contribs) 18:53, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

An editor made a biased edit regarding the Democratic Party. Arbcom marshalled their power, and as punishment confiscated their shell collection - is there no limit to their power?

@Adultcartoonlover56: - Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, as enforced heavily by our policy. With specific reference to US politics, content is under discretionary sanctions from the Arbitration Commitee, ensuring a heavy clamp-down on biased edits. As such, Wikipedia is neutral, reporting on what reliable sources claim. It is worth noting that, if you believe that media is leftist, as many conservatives do, this will carry over, as Wikipedia is built on reliable citations from that self-same media. However, as stated in the policies and measures above, we do our best to remain unbiased. I hope that this assures you as to the fairness of the encyclopedia. Ultimately, we are all here to build an encyclopedia, so political persuasions will not colour peoples' impressions of you. Stormy clouds (talk) 19:01, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

clamp-down? Or can you provide a non-copyright image of a heavy clam? David notMD (talk) 20:08, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

See Cataplana. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:20, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

My joke was funny with Stormy clouds initial misspelling: "heavy clam-down on..." David notMD (talk) 10:49, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

@Adultcartoonlover56: Stormy clouds is quite correct about policy, but in practice Wikipedia articles are written by people. Those people have the same range of biases as any others, and this can affect their writing, deliberately or not. It is surprisingly hard to write a completely balanced article, however hard you try. So distortions do sneak into our articles, and hopefully it will be noticed by other editors who will improve the article. We're not perfect, but we aim to keep improving.--Gronk Oz (talk) 11:08, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

John Battaglia image

Hi,

I dont know how to edit wikipedia and I honestly havent tried to, I was just wondering if someone could change the picture on this wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Battaglia. The man in the photo killed the two children in that photo. Its repulsive that after death they are still included with him. Please can you change it to his mugshot or anyhting else. Thanks the Reddit Community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 56.0.84.24 (talk) 20:22, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I think that is a good point. In my opinion the image at John Battaglia is in very poor taste. But that discussion would have to be taken up on that article's Talk page. Bus stop (talk) 20:36, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

This was discussed at some length at Talk:John Battaglia#Image about 3 months ago. The matter could surely be reopened, however. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:59, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I see. You make a good point. I should have looked at the Talk page. Bus stop (talk) 21:10, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Protected ref desk for newly registered user

Hello! I like the ref desk a lot. I registered because it was semi-protected. But now I once again can't ask a question on there because I'm a new user with few edits. Would it be possible for edits I've made as an anonymous IP to be retroactively applied to this account, or for this restriction to be waived on the ref desk, or something like that? I don't want to go editing pages where I have less than thorough knowledge in order to get past this ten-edit minimum to post questions on the ref desk. (The pages on the kinds of stuff I specialize in are generally quite well-written and sourced.) Thanks for your time. Temerarius (talk) 21:37, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Temerarius: and welcome to the Teahouse. No, an exception won't be made. Period. Sorry.

The busy Ref Desk administrators from time to time place such access limits to help them in their always successful battle against attempted vandalism of those highly visible pages. Soon the wannabe vandals will tire of wasting their own time to absolutely no effect.

In the meantime, why don't you get some risk-free practice (and edit counts!) by introducing yourself on your User page (just click your name. Practice what you learn from the WP:Help resources on a public but temporary Draft:Sandbox (disappears daily) or work on draft questions, edits, and even articles in your private Sandbox pages. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 22:53, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

@Temerarius: - I agree with Paulscrawl - 10 edits is not a particularly high threshold on a platform where many editors have hundreds of thousands, and will afford you a good opportunity to practice editing, as alluded to above. Stormy clouds (talk) 22:57, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Naming of children in an article

I've started to work on the article Webb Simpson, a professional golfer. At the opening it mentions his four children by name and gender. I always thought this was frowned on by Wikipedia editors as a potential endangerment for the child. Is there a "common practice" suggestion that children not be named? I seem to recall a deep discussion (who can remember where) on the topic. ―Buster7 ☎ 00:35, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

@Buster7: this is covered in WP:BLPNAME. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:52, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

vokkaliga

I want to upload notable vokkaliga people and subgroup of vokkaliga how can I upload it to the vokkaliga page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Venkateshhsgowda (talk • contribs) 01:56, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Venkateshhsgowda - As this comes under our Caste/community rules, ONLY people with their own Wikipedia articles, AND a reference from a reliable source that confirms that they are of that caste/community, can be included. Surnames, parentage and places of birth are not acceptable "proof" of caste/community membership. If they are alive, you should provide a source where they self-identify as being members, as people who wish to disassociate themselves from the caste/community should NOT be included. For more information please see User:Sitush/Common#Castelists - Arjayay (talk) 09:49, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Sally Struthers

Long time editor - first time Tea Houser. I'd really like some sound advice and not personal opinion; based on WP policy for writing a good editing on a BLP within the guidelines and content structure based on similar articles. I brought the subject topic to the BLP noticeboard and received no response. Furthermore, the BLPs Talk Page [3] is so poor on traffic, that this is the only topic even brought to it for discussion. Receiving a productive and constructive multi-voiced discussion on this page is next to impossible. I refuse to enter into an edit war; but I feel strongly that with the BLPs notability, this one topic Legal Troubles is not only undue weight (since they have never had any other "legal troubles" to warrant an entire section), but is more tabloid than encyclopedic; and was recentism for its original inclusion. I am sure some editors will say that without consensus, this topic is dead in the water and I should just leave it be; and perhaps I should. But I feel that it is not good writing, and has more cons than pros for a WP article on a BLP. Especially in keeping with other BLPs minor media run-ins that are not mentioned due to non-notable reasons. "Legal troubles" just does not imply a one-time DUI in Ogunquit Maine. I have already removed the overkill citations that included tabloid media. Thank you for your time and attention. I appreciate it. Maineartistsn (talk) 02:03, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Maineartists. I agree with your assessment, and have removed that section of the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:54, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Cullen³²⁸. I really appreciate your weighing in here and also taking the initiative to remove what I have always thought to be wrong for the article. Best, Maineartists (talk) 03:16, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Maineartists thanks for bringing this up, I learned a lot trying to reply. Cullen328 I see you took care of business, citing WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP. Well done. Could you critique my analysis?

Sticking strictly to WP core content policies as I understand them, I am struck by the triviality of that two-sentence article section devoted to an isolated - albeit reliably sourced and verified - factoid. It is unimportant. I might flag the sentences while addressing in Talk, just before deleting. Once upon a time x did Y. So what? Adds nothing to knowledge of article subject.

Relevant WP policies I would choose would not focus exclusively on WP:BLP, as these will be irrelevant at time of subject's death. But see first example of that BLP Policy page, section WP:PUBLICFIGURE: "Is the divorce important to the article, and was it published by third-party reliable sources? If not, leave it out. If so ...". I would say the isolated incident in question is not important to the article.

The template "Importance section" usage note reads: "sections in an article that is about a clearly notable subject should themselves be of encyclopedic merit and both relevant to the topic of the article and non-trivial (i.e. "important" in the context). " I am tempted to add it now.

But consider, in addition, the several relevant WP content Policies noted on WP:NOT, which will apply even after the death of article subject. These include WP:NOT#NEWSPAPER: "News reports. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." Many more to choose from on that page, but I see a senior editor has done the right thing already. Perhaps his comment or this content may be useful on the Talk page of that article for future reference, perhaps not. WP:UNDUE certainly covers life after death, but I fear content may yet reappear in future without some closure on article Talk page. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 03:52, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree with much of what you say, Paulscrawl. However, we cannot "lock" the article to prevent future editors from trying to add this incident. Perhaps a very brief mention of the incident might be appropriate if the article was expanded, so that it does not constitute due weight. Consensus can change, as can the structure and comprehensiveness of an article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:41, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Cullen328, that makes sense. I don't see it happening in this particular case (unless Sally takes a serious turn for the worse beginning in her wild and crazy seventies), but a valid point. Thank you for your thoughtful response and presence here. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 05:16, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

All these points are exactly what I attempted to raise on the Talk Page, but since it garnered no traffic, it fell on only one opposing editor's ears that wanted the tidbit included based on personal WP:ILIKEIT views. I have always agreed that: "yes" if the article was vastly expanded and covered much more of the BLP's life and career, perhaps a DUI might warrant a single mention during her Ogunquit appearances in Maine; but even so, the category in which this falls within the WP spectrum does not constitute viable inclusion. Thank you for bringing up these policies that should alleviate future need for entry. Best, Maineartists (talk) 12:30, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

UNIX Shell Username

Respected hosts, How can I get a UNIX shell username. If it is exists, how can I find it. Kindly please help me.--PATH SLOPU ^(Talk) 02:47, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Path slopu You have one on your Ubuntu system: isn't one enough? ;) Sorry, shell access isn't available to mere mortals on Wikipedia. Maybe you can ask after you become an senior admin, but I wouldn't hold your breath - most everything administrative on Wikipedia is carefully scripted to avoid the need for opening up that huge security hole. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 04:19, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Adding to List of social science journals

Dear Sir

I was trying to include a journal in Political Science Journal list but failed. Can you tell me how to include new journal in the list. Journal details is below:-

PEACEWORKS: An Interdisciplinary Journal (www.development-peace.org/journal.htm) is an bi annual (w.e.f 2018) Journal, supported by Indian Council of Social Science Research, New Delhi meant to promote interdisciplinary writings on varied issues of peacebuilding and development in South Asia. The journal invite contributions in form of research findings and original research articles based on any issues related to peace and development. The published articles are peer reviewed by at least two reviewers of the related field.

Thanks Rachana Rachana.narayan (talk) 03:33, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Rachana.narayan, you included it in the list, but I have reverted your edit. The lead of List of social science journals says: "The list given here is far from exhaustive, and contains the most influential, currently publishing journals in each field. As a rule of thumb, each field should be represented by at most ten positions, chosen by their impact factors and other ratings." I'm not convinced that Peaceworks is one of those. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:38, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Ok thanks for replying but We are keen to link our journal, PEACEWORKS: An Interdisciplinary Journal on your Database.

PEACEWORKS: An Interdisciplinary Journal (www.development-peace.org/journal.htm) is an bi annual (w.e.f 2018) Journal, supported by Indian Council of Social Science Research, New Delhi meant to promote interdisciplinary writings on varied issues of peacebuilding and development in South Asia. The journal invite contributions in form of research findings and original research articles based on any issues related to peace and development. The published articles are peer reviewed by at least two reviewers of the related field.

Can it include in any section of journal — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rachana.narayan (talk • contribs) 04:40, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Rachana.narayan, but the purpose of Wikipedia is to cover notable topics (see WP:NJOURNALS), not to help promote your new journal. Please also have a read of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:24, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Adapting English templates for other Wikis

Hi, Below is the template used for the Mandarin version of Wikipedia. I notice that the Mandarin version uses the English version of templates, but the have managed to adapt the English template to allow for publication in Mandarin! It would be very useful if one could do the same for the Irish Gaelic version of Wikipedia ( https://ga.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pr%C3%ADomhleathanach), given that it lacks many templates. Please help!Ériugena (talk) 13:59, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

The following is the Mandarin version of the Thames infobox! Template:Geobox River

Problem

My son accidentally started a GA review ? I cannot review it , so what should I do?.Kpgjhpjm (talk) 14:43, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

@Kpgjhpjm: - thanks for raising this issue. However, it is Wikipedia policy that editors should not blame other editors for edits made on their accounts, and doing so will not go down well. You are responsible for all edits made on your account - no ifs, buts, or maybes. Stormy clouds (talk) 15:06, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

@Stormy clouds:-how can I close the review?. Kpgjhpjm

@Kpgjhpjm: The review's already underway. At this point, you may as well let it run its course. Even if the article fails, you and other editors of the article will get some good feedback on what work still needs to be done to bring it up to GA standards. It's not like there's a penalty for failing GA reviews. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:22, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade:-you want me to leave it as it is.-Kpgjhpjm

Guidance needed for Annette Lee

Dear Editors,

• I had been asked by some editors to make changes to the article of Annette Lee to address the maintenance tag issues
• I have since done so, but an editor had still said these are insufficient
• I wanted to get guidance on how i can further improve, or if my improvements are sufficient.
• To address notability, i had even started a discussion on the talk page
• I will be grateful for your guidance

Iz55 (talk) 16:05, 12 May 2018 (UTC)