Wikipedia:Teahouse

Welcome to the Teahouse...                        

A friendly place to learn about editing Wikipedia.

Click here to
ask a question

David notMD, 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

Sikhareswar Jena

Esteemed sir, I have submitted a write-up on Sikhareswar Jena under Talk which is not yet uploaded.How much time it takes to upload the same.Will be highly obliged,if the same is considered for uploading. Warm regards, A K Jena Jena Amiya Kumar (talk) 06:15, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jena Amiya Kumar. If what you're referring to is User:Jena Amiya Kumar/sandbox/SIKHARESWAR JENA, then unfortunately that is nowhere close to being ready to being upgraded to article status anytime soon. My suggestion to you would be to read Wikipedia:Notability (people) to first determine whether the person who would like to write about is Wikipedia notable enough to support a stand-alone article. After doing that, if you still feel that a Wikipedia article about this person can be written, then please read Wikipedia:Your first article for some general advice on how to write a proper article. For what it's worth, writing a proper Wikipedia article is much harder than it seems, and many people misunderstand what an article is intended to be and what the purpose of Wikipedia is intended to be. New editors such as yourself seem to feel that the only way to help build Wikipedia is to create new articles. Content creation is of course very important, but there are many other ways to contribute to Wikipedia as well. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia fpr some ideas onother ways yo can help out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:32, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Sir,

I have gone through guideposts of esteemed wikipedia.Draft article on Sikhareswar Jena,a notable personality in Fire Engineering,a first Presidential awardee,a pioneer in rural Fire Stations in Odisha in eighties etc,is edited for kind consideration for upgrading to a proper article on wikipedia.

Warm regards,

Jena Amiya Kumar (talk) 22:10, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Your draft really has no chance of being approved as an article in its current form. The formatting and layout errors, etc. are things which can be fixed, but it's still not clear (at least to me) whether the subject of your article staisfies Wikipedia's notability guideline for a stand-alone article to be written. You might try asking for help at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics because the editors belonging to Wikipedia:WikiProject India might be able to provide some more specific advice. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:35, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Dear Mr.Marchjuly,

Sikhareswar Jena ,decorated Fire Engineer of Odisha, was the first Odia officer to receive the award of President of India for Meritorious service in 1980,available on websites of State and Central Governments..He is the pioneer in setting up Fire Stations in villages/blocks in eighties .Earlier,they were confined to District Headquarters in Odisha/urban areas only.He was heading the Odisha Fire Service for nearly a decade. He is very notable in his field having far-reaching consequences for general public.He has set up first co-educational High School in Baladiabandha,Dist. Dhenkanal.He meets notability and verifiability criteria.It is requested to consider the revised write-up.Hoping for a favourable response.

Warm regards,

Jena Amiya Kumar (talk) 06:14, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I've posted at WT:INDIA#Discussion at WP:THQ#Sikhareswar Jena to see if there's someone belonging to Wikipedia:WikiProject India who might be more familiar with the subject matter and be better able to help you out. To be honest, your sandbox is a bit of a mess, and the sources you've provided don't really make a strong case for Wikipedia notability. Maybe other editors will feel differently, but I'm just seeing enough to justify a stand-alone article.

Just for reference, there are probably lots of people in the world who have done some really great things thorughout their lives and have helped lots of people, but who don't have Wikipedia articles written about them because they're not considered to be Wikipedia notable enough for such an article to be written. Wikipedia's definition of "notability" might be different from way you define the word, but it's Wikipedia's definition which matters when it comes to creating articles. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:34, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

@Jena Amiya Kumar: Do you have any press-clippings etc on Sikhareswar Jena, or know of any articles/books that may have discussed him or his work?

As Marchjuly said, while in the real-world it's usually qualifications, credentials, awards won at a job etc that go into a resume and determine ones notability, on wikipedia the standards are different. Here it is (roughly speaking) how much independent sources have written about the subject that matters and by that standard many persons who have had illustrious and impactful careers, don't yet qualify for a wikipedia article. Abecedare (talk) 13:39, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

@Jena Amiya Kumar: Your name, especially as signed in your initial post— "Warm regards, A K Jena"— suggests that you are related to Sikhareswar Jena. If so, you should not attempt to author an article on this person. From Wikipedia:Conflict of interest:

Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships. Any external relationship can trigger a conflict of interest. That someone has a conflict of interest is a description of a situation, not a judgement about that person's opinions, integrity, or good faith.

COI editing is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. It undermines public confidence and risks causing public embarrassment to the individuals and companies being promoted. Editors with a COI are sometimes unaware of whether or how much it has influenced their editing. If COI editing causes disruption, an administrator may opt to place blocks on the involved accounts.

Editors with a COI, including paid editors, are expected to disclose it whenever they seek to change an affected article's content. Anyone editing for pay must disclose who is paying them, who the client is, and any other relevant affiliation; this is a requirement of the Wikimedia Foundation. Also, COI editors should not edit affected articles directly, but propose changes on article talk pages instead.

Please {{Ping}} me to discuss. --Thnidu (talk) 18:15, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

'H.L.A. Hart' Biography Entry - Article 'Law and Fact'

A team called 'Hartteam' edited the wiki page on H.L.A Hart, and added some information to his biography. There they added four articles he published during his early time. 3 of them I can find, but the 4th, titled 'Law and Fact', I cannot find mentioned anywhere. Is there a possibility to contact the person who made the addition to the wiki page, to ask for a citation or the article itself?

Thanks in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1c01:2f07:3f00:48e9:a2b7:46ac:2e29 (talk) 17:23, 7 August 2018‎ (UTC)

Musician article

Hello there!

I'm writing a wiki page for Musician that has many links from other artists, but he doesn't have his own page. I want to know the best way to create the verifiable Discography and fix the connections to those links that reference the artist I'm publishing the page for. For the Discography do I need to create a separate page for each work in the discography? If so, how do I do that while the main page is under review? Any help would be appreciated. Thanks so much in advance.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sorensongs (talk • contribs) 16:06, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Sorensongs. The first thing you should do is take a look at Wikipedia:Notability (people) and WP:MUSICBIO to see if the person you want to write an article about is Wikipedia notable enough to do so. This is important because one of the main reasons an article get deleted from Wikipedia is because the subject is not considered Wikipedia notable enough on its own to justify a stand-alone article. It's important to understand that "Wikipedia notable" has a specific meaning in this context which might be different to how you or others define "notability" in an every day context. Assessing whether a subject is Wikipedia notable is sort of a self-assessment based upon whether you feel the subject has received the significant converage in reliable sources necessary to establish Wikipedia notability. Someone whose name is mentioned alot in other Wikipedia articles might indicate possible Wikipedia notability, but being mentioned alot is not sufficient in and of itself because Wikipedia notability is not established by association with other Wikipedia notable subjects. Since you've not given any specific information about who you'd like to write about, that's about all I can suggest. You can try asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians for more specific advice.

Regarding discographies, you need to be able to meet WP:SAL. A separate Wikipedia article for each entry should only be created if the entries themselves meet WP:NALBUM or WP:NSONG. As to whether each individual entry has to have its own stand-alone article, please take a look at WP:LSC. It's possible that a discography section might be OK to add to the musicians article, but there might not be enough of back catalog to support a stand-alone article. You can try asking for feedback at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Discographies.

You can start a draft article by going to WP:DRAFTS and following the instructions there. You might also want to read Wikipedia:Your first article for some general advice on writing articles, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music for advice on writing music-related articles, and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for relevant policy related to writing about living persons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:47, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

@Sorensongs: Also please see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Definition:

Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships. Any external relationship can trigger a conflict of interest. That someone has a conflict of interest is a description of a situation, not a judgement about that person's opinions, integrity, or good faith.

If you have any personal or professional connection to this person, request advice here before starting an article. Please {{Ping}} me to discuss. --Thnidu (talk) 18:23, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

For the record, the article in question is Gary Schutt, which was created on 9 August 2018 by Sorensongs. I definitely concur with Thnidu's advice above, especially if you have any relation to Gary Schutt—familial, financial, or otherwise. If you simply know of him, or have met him in passing before once or twice, that is probably not sufficient grounds for considering it a COI; what is important is whether a past or present relationship or vested interest of any kind existed, exists, or is likely to exist in the near future.

If you think you do have a COI here, it's important to disclose it, which can be done by adding {{UserboxCOI|Gary Schutt}} to your user page. If no COI exists here, then you have nothing to worry about. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 21:46, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Article / draft singled out, maybe due to COI declarations?

Hello -

I'm looking for advice into a sticky situation. Let me be right up front: I am a paid editor. I have always tried to be above board in my COI declarations, putting them up everywhere I can think of. You can see my COI declaration history on my User page. Even though I'm being paid by clients, I have always tried to abide by NPOV requirements in all of the articles I've worked on, and have received supportive messages from other non-paid Wikipedia editors.

I recently rewrote the Kelly D. Brownell article because the original editor wasn't as conscientious about adhering to NPOV (or even declaring a COI, for that matter). I also recently submitted a draft article on behalf of another client, and did get some feedback from an editor but it was somewhat non-constructive. I'm working on trying to fix what I think are the issues with the draft, but since the feedback was non-specific, it's a bit slow going.

My concern now is that anything I submit might be being singled out because of my COI declarations. Again, yes - I am a paid editor. I have and will continue to be very transparent about this. That being said, I have also tried very hard to maintain NPOV and adhere strictly to not only Wikipedia's rules for paid editing, but to the MOS. The original version of the Brownell article had two flags on it - a COI flag and a neutrality flag. At the time, both were warranted (see comment above about the original editor). After the rewrite, the flags were removed by another editor who thought the article passed muster. Now, the article has been edited by the same editor who objected to my draft, and the flags are back.

Would anyone like to suggest how I might help resolve these issues? Or if I'm way off-base about my COI triggering my submissions to singled out? I want to work with the editing community, not against it. I hesitate to enter a dispute of any kind because I'm fully aware that paid editors are frowned upon. I'm trying to be the exception to the rule, and be a paid editor that actually leaves Wikipedia a better place than she found it.

So...any suggestions? Any input is warmly welcomed and very appreciated.

Mdrozdowski (talk) 20:51, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Hey Mdrozdowski. I'm not sure there really is much good advice to give here. Paid editing is an issue on which the community is deeply divided, and one with fairly exceptionally strong feelings on all sides. Most paid editing does not leave the project better off, and more so, requires a significant amount of volunteer time just to put things back the way they were. There are no shortage of community members who would like to ban the practice outright, probably an equal amount who wish we could, but who feel that it will only drive the problem under ground, and comparatively few who feel that it can be corralled in some way into being a net-positive way to improve the encyclopedia.

I try to give people a fair shake regardless of what their background is, and that includes what is often fairly obvious conflicts of interest. But even then I don't seldom find myself on the side of being curt, because so much of it is such poor quality and because the intern at the office tasked with writing their Wikipedia article is among the most motivated of editors to be persistent if nothing else.

Simply put, your edits are probably being given a considerably higher degree of scrutiny, and there's probably nothing you can realistically do about it that would be within policy and acceptable by the institutional culture here.

Maybe the best thing you can do is to be honest with your clients, that you are not really writing a piece for them; you are growing something on their behalf, and then setting it free into the ocean, where its ultimate fate is always going to be beyond your control. If you want to continue to do paid editing, then dealing with the institutional culture here is, unfortunately for you, part of the service you are providing. The flip side of that is that this institutional culture has built something so valuable that people are willing to pay to be a part of it, and without it you would have no clients and nothing of any value to contribute to. At some level, you have to take the part of that which makes your life harder, along with the part of that which gives you a personal benefit. GMG^talk 21:30, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello, GreenMeansGo -

Thanks so much for your insight; I appreciate it. My position on paid editing is that Wikipedia is a living ecosystem - easy to damage, hard to repair. I totally understand and even welcome the elevated level of scrutiny my contributions get because, hey, I'm a paid editor and it goes with the territory. I'm not angry about it at all.

My big concern is, what do I do now? One of the editors in this situation actually says quite clearly on his/her talk page that he/she "detests paid editors editing". Again, I can understand why. I believe the majority of my paid editing brethren don't take the time to understand or abide by Wikipedia's culture and MOS / NPOV / other requirements. But, my submissions are also being edited, even though I believe they actually meet the criteria for good edits.

Because of the institutional dislike of paid editors, I hesitate to enter the dispute resolution process. I'm fearful it'll just make things worse. We don't do a huge number of Wikipedia articles, but when we do undertake them, I try to be as careful and as law-abiding (for lack of a better term) as possible. I'm just at a loss as to how to handle this situation. It's the first time I've encountered a problem. :(

In any case, thank you for your reply; I appreciate it. I'm still not sure what the next step is to take, other than dispute resolution. I've reached out to both the editors in question but haven't received a response. Hopefully, they do respond at some point.

EDIT: I also wanted to say that I love the way you phrased the message for clients. I'm absolutely stealing that. Thank you!

EDIT EDIT: fixed the erroneous statement attributed to Theroadislong.

Mdrozdowski (talk) 21:41, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Please don't misquote me I said "I detest paid editing' I do not detest you! Theroadislong (talk) 21:48, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Well Mdrozdowski... trying to collaborate as much as possible with editors with whom you disagree, and the steps in the dispute resolution process are probably the only options open to you, because they're generally the only options open to anyone. Personal biases, while ostensibly governed by WP:NPOV, are ultimately adjudicated by the institutional culture, and there isn't much in that culture that is going to be favorable to a bias against paid editing. That's why it's important that you have your edits vetted by a volunteer, who can go to bat for the changes if another volunteer takes issue with them. Even if you're in the right, if a dispute escalates to the highest levels, like WP:ANI, you're probably going to find limited success unless you have an endorsement from a third party that is willing to defend that endorsement, and put their good name on the line for it. GMG^talk 21:49, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Hey, again! Thank you both for responding; I do appreciate it. Theroadislong, I'm not taking it personally, I promise. I know paid editing has historically been a bad deal for Wikipedia, which is why I'm trying very hard to not be one of those editors. I actually would be editing just for personal enjoyment, but I think that would probably open up a whole new can of worms, so I haven't done so.

While I disagree with some of the comments on the Brownell article, I understand why they were made. Is there a way though, that we can maybe resolve the flags? Again, I've tried really, really hard to be transparent about who I am and what I do. If there are edits I can make so that the article is more in line with NPOV, I'm happy to do that too.

As always, any input or comments are welcome. Thanks you again.

Mdrozdowski (talk) 22:01, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Hey Mdrozdowski. I suppose if Theroadislong and Jbhunley are unwilling or unable to participate in further discussion on the article talk page, then presumably they will not be a party to something like a WP:DRN. You may look at opening an WP:RfC to seek further outside input. In the future however, it might help avoid these types of issues if you were to use Template:Request edit and suggest the edit on the talk page. That way you already have a third party involved in someone takes issue with the changes, and they can explain why they felt, as a disinterested editor, why they felt the changes were an improvement. GMG^talk 12:47, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks again, GreenMeansGo, for the sage advice. I do understand why they made their edits and have advised the client that the changes weren't unreasonable ones. My biggest concern now is getting the flags removed. A different editor originally removed the flags after reviewing the article, and noted that the COI was properly declared (he also didn't have an issue with NPOV, as shown in the History notes). What's the best step now to get this reviewed for consideration of removing the flags again? Any suggestions definitely welcomed!

Mdrozdowski (talk) 13:41, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, like I said, probably just the steps in WP:DR. Specifically, WP:3O and WP:RFC. GMG^talk 13:55, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Mdrozdowski As per User:GreenMeansGo's suggestion if you were to use the Template:Request edit and suggest your proposed edits on the talk page, I would be amenable to the removing of the COI tag. Theroadislong (talk) 18:31, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Theroadislong, thanks very much. I'm happy to use Template:Request edit. I'm also definitely open to tightening up the article further, so please do feel free to send any more comments and feedback my way. I'm always happy to listen and learn.

Mdrozdowski (talk) 22:15, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Since I was pinged: I am taking a quasi-break and I am not really interested in diving into a PAID/COI article right now. It is still on my watch list though. @Mdrozdowski: if there is a WP:BLP concern (not just 'I want my edits checked') you think needs prompt attention {{ping}} me from the article's talk page and I will take a look but WP:BLPN would probably be quicker in that case. Jbh ^Talk 13:00, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I don’t have anything to say here; I just want to thank you for disclosing your paid editing. It is a step that a lot of paid editors unfortunately do not take, and I'm glad that you are setting a good example with regard to Wikipedia policy. — pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 22:23, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Inquiry on a delayed update

Hi. My name is Sophia Ghim (user name Scc Ghim). I have submitted a new entry page for Dr. Paul Sung-Ro Lee sometime back in the beginning of this year, yet I do not see any update on this. I'll appreciate your swift and attentive responses. Could you kindly check on it and also please let me know in case anything else needs to be done? Thank you for all your hard works in helping people share their precious information and knowledge for this day and age.

Blessings, Sophia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scc Ghim (talk • contribs) 15:16, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

You placed the content on your user page, and that is not what a user page is intended for. I have moved it from User:Scc Ghim to User:Scc Ghim/sandbox, and added a {{userspace draft}} template to allow you to submit it for review. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:39, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, David Biddulph, for your prompt reply. In fact, I was getting worried because there was not any update nor feedback on my page entry for quite a long time. Your answer gave me peace of mind and was indeed appreciated. And thank you for moving my entry to Sandbox on my behalf, which I had no idea how to go about it. Now, I have followed your instruction and pressed "Submit your draft for review" button. It was taking me to a screen where I was asked to press "Publish changes", which I did. I'm wondering if I did everything correctly because I did not see any further notification afterwards. Kindly reply to me if there is anything further I need to do to successfully upload my page. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scc Ghim (talk • contribs)

@Scc Ghim: You have not saved any edit to the page since January. The instructions say "Press the Publish changes button at the ⇓ bottom ⇓ of the edit box". Did you press it at the bottom? Do not press it at the quoted text. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:08, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, PrimeHunter, for your swift reply. I think I made it properly this time. Following your guideline, I pressed "Publish changes" at the bottom, and it reads "This draft has been submitted and is currently awaiting review" and "Review Waiting" this time. Many thanks indeed! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scc Ghim (talk • contribs)

@Scc Ghim: The page is now waiting for review. Please add posts to existing discussions by clicking edit at the section heading and not by starting a new section. Help:Talk pages says more, including how to indent replies with : and sign with ~~~~. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:44, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Scc Ghim (talk) 03:28, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I got it. Thanks!

Requirements for Using Twinkie

Hello, my mentor is unavailable right now so I'm here to ask about the requirements (or the recommended requirements) for getting to use Twinkie in terms of experience. Thanks. Yanjipy (talk) 20:25, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello again Yanjipy, fancy seeing you here at the Teahouse!

Twinkle is set in your Preferences and if the option is available to you (it should be), you can turn it on.

When using Twinkle, you need to be aware of the various actions it takes on your behalf. One way to do this is to take a look at your contributions list after you've done a Twinkle action. A lot of the time, it's a single edit, but some actions post more than one. When you're first using Twinkle, I recommend looking at the diffs.

Start out slowly and for those actions that have the option for a page name or for you to enter additional text, make use of those options – they make the messages more specific and can help personalize what otherwise comes off as a somewhat robotic action. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:18, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Amendment – There are entries on your talk page that tell me I should emphasize something about Twinkle. When it offers a list of options, sometimes with summaries, it is not okay to pick an option that seems "close" to what is needed. The summaries of the various speedy categories are very short and do not include all of the nuances. The summary is a only short reminder and you are expected to know the actual criteria for that kind of CSD action, not just think that Twinkle "must know what it's doing". Believe me, I've made that mistake and Twinkle will happily PROD things that can't be PRODed and post level 4 warnings on a page where there have not been any warnings before. So, at the risk of repeating myself, start out slowly. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:29, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you jmcgnh. I'll definitely be very cautious with Twinkle. And by the way, I guess the tool is called Twinkle and not Twinkie (as I thought it was)... My bad for that. – Yanjipy (talk) 19:08, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

If it's any consolation, Yanjipy, "Twinkie" might be an excellent name for fat-fingered mistakes when using Twinkle and the poor rationales sometimes used to defend those mistakes. But yes, Twinkle is definitely not a piece of cake. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 22:36, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Adding pictures

Hello, it's me again. So sorry again. Anyway, I was just wondering about adding pictures to articles. I expanded the page on Gail Honeyman a little and made a new category in it (named books) and well I wanted to add a picture of her onto the page as she doesn't have one and I find it a little offensive :D I looked on commons and there were no images of her on there. Do I have to take images off of commons only or can I use the internet? (I'm not sure what the policy is here but I'd be happy to learn (: )

Aesthetic Sunset (talk) 20:55, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Hey Aesthetic Sunset. The way the rules work out, for living people, a picture has to be free to use it on Wikipedia. I look around some and didn't see any existing free photos available on the internet, on sites like Flickr. Probably your best bet is to find a good email address for her or someone who works with her, and ask her to license a photo for free use by following the instructions at WP:CONSENT. Folks are often happy to give at least one photo away for free use, since it's in their best interest to help us improve their Wikipedia article. GMG^talk 21:10, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks GreenMeansGo it means a lot for your reply. Cheers for looking too, I think I'll be writing that email :)

Aesthetic Sunset (talk) 21:13, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

No worries Aesthetic Sunset. If you run into any problems feel free to reach out to me, either on-wiki or by by email. If Ms. Honeyman has issues licensing or uploading the image, I'd be happy to help. GMG^talk 21:16, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

GreenMeansGo Again, thank you :D

Aesthetic Sunset (talk) 12:35, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

PLEASE HELP : Draft:Peace Treaty on Korean Peninsula

Hi, PLEASE ADVISE ME the necessary revision of the contents to be updated. From my understanding, it meets the three rules Wikipedia:Notability Neutral point of view, Verifiability. examples, changing the subject -> The Peace Treaty on Korean Peninsula or other shorter versions, I updated the subject part on the content "A peace treaty" to "The peace treaty" as per the advice from the experienced Wikipedia user Goodtiming8871 (talk) 00:52, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

• Hi Goodtiming8871. There's a backlog at Articles for Creation so it may be a while before anyone reviews your article thoroughly. Thank you for being patient. Looking at it quickly, it seems to be fairly well structured and it has lots of wikilinks and references, which is good. There are some problems with grammar but those can be fixed. The big question for someone reviewing this will probably be whether an article about this treaty is the right place to put this information, since there is no treaty and no clear sign that there will be one. That might mean the reviewer sees the subject as speculation. Maybe the same information can be added to existing articles, e.g. 2018 North Korea–United States summit, if it's not already covered there. There's no requirement to wait for AfC, necessarily, but given the earlier discussion about deleting "Peace Treaty with North Korea", it's probably best to wait for a full review. › Mortee _talk 20:18, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
• : Hi Mortee Thank you for your kind and professional advice. I fixed some grammatical mistakes by reading it carefully (examples: Dangling Modifier, article ) Regarding the previous issue- WP:CRYSTAL, I believe that it could be extracted as per the current public statement of the leaders of the five major countries: US, China, Russia, DPRK and South Korea. All of them now support the ending the Korean war and establish the Peace Treaty on Korean Peninsula. Especially, it is now all documented officially on the two documents which are Joint Statement and Panmunjom Declaration. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 03:23, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Color in Wikitable

Can I use a 'color' in the headings of a wikitable in an article? It is not for any special cause, for only fair appearance. Can I use? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnkurWiki (talk • contribs)

Hi AnkurWiki. The only guidelines I see about this are Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Tables § Appearance, which says not to use color in tables "gratuitously", only to add information. If you're using color to distinguish two or more types of information, that's totally reasonable. If you just want to add color to the heading of the table to make it look good, that's probably discouraged by the manual of style, but you could try it anyway if you think it's an improvement. Is there a particular table you're thinking about? › Mortee _talk 20:01, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

AnkurWiki Please also keep in mind that color may not be the only way that some particular information is indicated. Some users of Wikipedia depend on screen reader software to access articles, and such programs do not distinguish meaning by color. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:26, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Relatedly, AnkurWiki, please keep in mind that many readers and editors are color-blind to some extent, so the color scheme you choose might cause difficulties for them if the contrast between the text and background is insufficient from their perspective. The Manual of Style's accessibility guidelines on color are important to consider in this regard. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 07:49, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

My Draft has still not been published

Hello,

It has been more than three weeks since I composed an article on Anton Stevens. Still, the draft has not been hitherto authorised and published. I am missing any feedback, what is wrong, please? It is my first article and I don't know whether shall I continue to not waste time.

Draft:Anton Stevens

Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simonix (talk • contribs) 08:59, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello Simonix and welcome to the Teashouse.

I'm sorry to tell you that while you have been waiting for us, we have been waiting for you.

Your draft has not been submitted for review. If someone had looked at it anyway, they would have assumed you were still working on it, since it has empty sections and no references, in the usual sense, only the one book mentioned in the bibliography section. I also strongly suggest that you request some copyediting help, since the draft has a number of errors and awkwardnesses. Your helpers might come from WP:WikiProject Visual arts or WP:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors, where you could ask for help on the talk page. When the article is closer to being ready, your helpers will tell you how to submit it. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:31, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Ligma (meme)

can someone move this draft Draft:Ligma (meme) into mainspace. although it was widely debated, this draft has been in good shape. Superabnoxious (talk) 11:38, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

@Superabnoxious: - the article has been submitted through the Articles for Creation process, and will be reviewed in due course. However, I would disagree with your statement that this draft has been in good shape. I hold serious concerns regarding the citations used in the article, many of which are not reliable - the use of the Metro, for instance, doesn't seem encyclopedic. This fact is currently hidden as the citations are not fully in-line. Moreover, notability, and particularly recentism, seem to be issues - the draft as written currently seems more fitting for KnowYourMeme (from where a lot of the draft appears to have originated, with some lines directly copied) than Wikipedia, and may be better merged into the existing article about Ninja. Nonetheless, the answer to your question is to be patient, and await a review. Hope this helps, Stormy clouds (talk) 12:16, 11 August 2018 (UTC).

working of wikipedia

members of wikipedia are to edit an article for which they spend time so they must get some sort of profit in return

Snikitha raj Welcome to Teahouse. All editors who perform any edits on Wikipedia are volunteers and not payments have been made to them as this is one of the main reasons where Wikipedia has been created to share knowledge to the word without charge the readers. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:13, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

While what CASSIOPEIA stated is generally true (it is for me and probably over 95% of editors), a minority of users are paid to edit. Such users must disclose their financial conflict of interest (FCOI) and follow certain guidelines, such as only submitting edit requests in the talk pages of articles for which they have a conflict of interest (COI) instead of editing directly. Failing to do so, including failing to disclose conflicts of interest, can result in being being blocked and banned from editing. Such paid editors are rare and paid editing is disliked (to say the least) by large parts of the Wikipedia community, though. Consequently, being paid to edit may not be not worth the costs.

When it comes to the vast majority of editors on Wikipedia, we are as was said above: unpaid volunteers who contribute to the project for reasons that have nothing to do with financial gain. Our "profit" is the satisfaction we gain from having our edits published, the joy of seeing our efforts reach countless readers and inform them about the world, the experience we develop in writing and editing and collaborating, and much more. Every editor has their own motivations for editing Wikipedia, but rarely does it have to do with financial gain. For the few who are motivated by money, they tend to be banned here; those that remain are already restricted in their editing because of that motivation.

So, Snikitha raj, what is your motivation for editing here? What "profit" do you gain? Your answers to those questions will likely help you understand why others edit here, too. Welcome to Wikipedia! —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 20:35, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

new technique for editing

each member of wikipedia can get an article for a week or month by which we can know their work and edit articles and know stamina of our members

Snikitha raj edit count, article created and among other record would be found by using Xtools by typing the user name. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:20, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Request a translation of a page from the French Wikipedia

Dr. Georges Viau was a notable french art collector and significant donor to several French museums. He does have a page on Wikipedia.fr . He was also close friends with Paul J. Sachs and Herman Armour Webster. It is very difficult to find information about him in English. I could probably translate the page, but I would rather that someone with a greater proficiency in French than I possess do so. When that is done I would be happy to add the Webster, Sachs material which comes from the Harvard Fogg Museum Archives

         How does someone request such a translation?.Nicodemus (talk) 16:01, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello Nicodemus4 |I have started Draft:Georges Viau Vexations (talk) 17:10, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

@Nicodemus4: looks like Vexations and I ended up doing the same thing in different places . I've made a stub article at George Viau (not Georges, at least according to the sources I saw), which let me tag it for expansion from the French article (see Wikipedia:Translation). You could also extend the stub based on Vexations' helpful work. I haven't looked through all the info at WikiProject France but they may offer ways to request this sort of thing, should other topics like this crop up. › Mortee _talk 18:09, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

References

Death date not showing in infobox

Hi - I'm working on the page of Arda Green and I put in an infobox using the infobox person wikidata template (fetchALL) but it's not showing the death date and so is showing she's 119... I went to the wikidata site and the birth and death dates are both there so I'm not sure what the problem is/how to fix it. Thanks! Biochemlife (talk) 16:55, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I think it is because the birthdate is specified as Gregorian but the death date isn't. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:18, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks User:Emir of Wikipedia! Biochemlife (talk) 11:23, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Reliable sources problem

Hi I am writing an article about a ceramicist (Julie Apap) from a small island state, she was a very low key person but she influenced a whole generation of ceramicists with her teaching and her open studio. The sources that I found are mostly from a newspaper and some articles on wayback machine. Wiki send me a message that the sources are unreliable. Any ideas why a newspaper would be an unreliable source ? The article in the paper was not an opinion piece

help would be appreciated

Letta — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lettashtohr (talk • contribs)

Convenience link: Draft:Julie Apap. Maproom (talk) 17:58, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello Lettashtohr and welcome to the Teahouse. In examining your draft, it appears to me that two of the sources offered are the artist's own website and just document her exhibitions, one is her obituary, and another is a website of some kind that she seemed affiliated with. I may just be missing it, but I'm not seeing any evidence of newspapers being used as a source. If you have them, please offer them. Please note that in order to merit an article here, the artist would need to have in depth coverage in independent reliable sources that indicates how she meets the notability guidelines for artists listed at WP:NARTIST. 331dot (talk) 18:17, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

hi Yes the obituary is an article from a newspaper.So won't that work as a reliable source ? Thanks

The obituary is okay as a source, but you will need more than that. Multiple independent sources are needed to establish the notability of the subject. 331dot (talk) 18:27, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Actually, not. Although the website calls it an obituary, the content is actually a repeat of some interview content with Ms. Apap, and with acquaintances. It is not clear from the content whether the studio was hers versus just a place she taught classes. David notMD (talk) 18:35, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Deleting/adding pictures

Hello,

I have recently noticed that the picture for the Jonah crab's Wikipedia page (Cancer borealis) is actually one of the species it's most often confused with, the Atlantic rock crab (Cancer irroratus). As someone who barely edited Wikipedia years ago (and did it poorly), my simple question is how I would go about changing the picture? A new one with a verifiable source will be necessary, I'm sure. I'm interested in adding pages as well as enhancing existing ones for Brachyura (i.e. crabs), so this is step one of many.

Thank you,

MJD

If you think that commons:File:Jonah_crab_(11823580556).jpg is misidentified then you need to change the description of that file (and rename it) on Commons:. You can discuss this change on Commons:Help desk. Ruslik_Zero 20:10, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Can't add Languages link

eo:Et* is a DAB page on the Esperanto Wikipedia. Its title doesn't identify it as such, but the header template says

Ĉi tiu paĝo estas apartigilo: listo de artikoloj kun sama aŭ preskaŭ sama titolo.

Translation:

This page is a disambiguator: a list of articles with the same or almost the same title.

Like ET, it lists articles with several different punctuations and capitalizations, including

• the Esperanto diminutive suffix "-et-"
• the ISO 639 code for the Estonian language
• the ISO 3166-1 country code for Ethiopia
• the TLD for Ethiopia
• the Spielberg film "E.T."

So I'm trying to add [[eo:Et]] to the list of (versions of this page in other) "Languages" sidebar section of ET, but I keep getting an error. I'm not familiar with the process or with editing Wikidata, and I can't figure out the problem.

1. I click the "Edit links" button at the bottom of the sidebar in ET.
2. It takes me to ET (Q537953) in Wikidata.
3. I scroll down to "Wikipedia(27 entries)" and click the "Edit" button.
4. I type eo in the Wiki field and "Et" in the title field. (These aren't labeled, which confused me at first.)
5. I click the "Publish" button.
6. I get the error message

   Could not save due to an error.

   • The save has failed.
   • The link eowiki:Et is already used by item Q16088678. You may remove it from Q16088678 if it does not belong there or merge the items if they are about the exact same topic.

Wikidata does indeed have a page Et (Q16088678), which covers [[eo:Et]] as well as the corresponding pages in Cebuano, Finnish, Dutch, Serbo-Croatian, and Swedish. Dutch and Swedish are also listed in ET (Q537953), and at least Dutch cross-refers from [[ne:Et]] to [[ne:ET]]. [[eo:ET]] redirects to [[eo:Et]], so I tried to add [[eo:ET]] to ET (Q537953), but that brings up the same error.

Is there any way of getting [[eo:Et]] into the sidebar for en:ET?

* I was typing the title here as [[eo:Et]], but it's not showing as anything in the page preview. When I type "eo:Et" into the "Search Wikipedia" field at the top right of this or another English Wikipedia page, it takes me right there, so I don't know WTF is wrong with that either.

Please {{Ping}} me to discuss. --19:44, 11 August 2018 (UTC)Thnidu (talk)

@Thnidu: You could remove the link to eo:Et from Q16088678 and add it to Q537953. Vexations (talk) 20:04, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

@Thnidu: Write [[:eo:Et]] with a leading colon to make an inline link. [[eo:Et]] makes a link under "Languages". There are separate Wikidata items for ET (Q537953) and Et (Q16088678). eo:Et is in the latter. Three languages nl, sh, sv have separate disambiguation pages for the two capitalizations so the Wikidata items cannot be merged. In such cases Wikidata does not have a method where nl, sh, sv use the right link for their capitalization while languages which only have "ET" can link to languages which only have "Et" and vice versa. But you can add interlanguage links directly to the pages per Help:Interlanguage links#Local links, e.g. adding [[eo:Et]] to the bottom of ET, and also [[ceb:Et]] and [[fi:Et]]. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:41, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

speedy deletion

My article has been marked for speedy deletion. What am I doing wrong. How do I publish without any issues? — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Boahini (talk • contribs) 16:58, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

@David Boahini: - Your article has been deleted, and can only be viewed by administrators. Two pages of your creation have been (nominated to be) deleted, by Serial Number 54129 and Viewmont Viking respectively. I imagine that they had good reason to do so, but would state that its deletion likely results from a violation of Wikipedia policy. In particular, they cited the fact that the content was promotional in tone, and non-encyclopedic, both of which mean that it should not be published on Wikipedia. Please read this page about your first article and take its advice on board to ensure that your article is accepted in the future - in particularly, adhere to the general notability guidelines and neutral point of view to facilitate publishing. Hope this helps, Stormy clouds (talk) 21:10, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Stormy clouds, you sure about that? Neither of the users you named are admins and cannot delete articles. John from Idegon (talk) 23:02, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Actually, appears 54 and VV did Speedy deletion nominations (one for User page, one for Sandbox content) and an Admin did the deeds. End result same - what DB wrote not appropriate for Wikipedia. Suggest he looks at other articles to get idea what Wikipedia is about. David notMD (talk) 23:55, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

David Boahini I think you have a common misconception about what a "user page" is, the messages that were left on your talk page very clearly explained why it was tagged for speedy deletion. User pages are not articles, they are a place to share a little bit about yourself with other WP editors. For more information on "user pages" you can read: User pages. Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages and at the Teahouse with four tildes: ~~~~ Best wishes. Coryphantha Talk 00:05, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, David Boahini. You were developing an article about a choir on your userpage. As others have pointed out, that is the wrong place to do that. But a more significant problem is how you were writing it. All of our content must be written from the Neutral point of view. This is a mandatory core content policy.

As an administrator, I can read your deleted content and it included such highly promotional phrases as: "unique sound", "excellently arranged accompanied by potent and inspirational lyrics", "continues to enjoy massive airplay", "great revolution of praise and worship", "free and unrestrained atmosphere of worship", "has birthed wonderful testimonies in the life of many", "good praise and worship culture", and "this project was wonderful, beautiful and yet stressful at the same time". Please read and study Your first article, and write in a rigorously neutral tone in the future. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:15, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

images

I need help! I have been told I need a US public domain tag on four of my images and I don't know how to do that. I have also been told one of them needs a better source--???--one needs the copyright specified--and one has an unknown author--and I don't even know what to ask about that one! How can an image have an author?! I have read up on images--what I can find--and am still as clueless as I was before. Can someone simplify this for me? Or just shoot me--whichever is easiest. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:05, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Jenhawk777, don't despair. Copyright is complicated. In order to help you, you'll need to help us. Can you link the titles of the images? And yes, images have authors. Assuming it is a photo, the author is the one who pressed the shutter button on the camera. John from Idegon (talk) 23:00, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

John from Idegon Praise God Hallelujah Amen! Thank you! Yes! Thank you some more! These four are all in need of a US PD tag:

• [1] has (File:Johann Jacob Griesbach.jpg|thumb|left|alt=Black and white engraving of Griesbach sitting at a desk with bookshelves in the background |Johann Jacob Griesbach (1745–1812), an influential German textual critic).
• This section [2] has (File:Gunkel.jpg|thumb|upright |alt=Head and shoulders photograph of Gunkel in a formal suit |Hermann Gunkel)
• [3] has (File:WilliamRobertsonSmith.jpg|thumb|left|upright|alt=photo of young William Robertson Smith|William Robertson Smith, a conservative who also supported biblical criticism early on) needs the tag and it needs a better source the commenter said
• same section , different pic: (File:Marie-Joseph Lagrange.jpg|thumb|upright|alt=photograph of Père Lagrange wearing a white monk's hood |Marie-Joseph Lagrange was instrumental in getting Catholicism to accept biblical criticism.) needs tag and 'author'. How do I find that?
• [4] has an image with a dead link--what is that? this image: (File:Northrop Frye.jpg|thumb|left|alt=photo of Northrop Frye standing by a wall|[[Northrop Frye) and they want to know who holds the copyright--where do I find that?
• and last but not least, [5] has (File:Julius Wellhausen 02.jpg|thumb|upright=0.7 |alt=Head and shoulders photograph of Wellhausen, looking directly at camera |Julius Wellhausen, one of the originators of the documentary hypothesis) and they want to know when and where the image was first published.

What I know how to do is locate an image at Wiki-commons, click on the 'use this' button and copy and paste--that is the sum total of my skill with images! I don't know any of this! I am trying not to panic--so far failing... I am genuinely grateful for any help you can give! Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:33, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm having some issue with formatting

I put in a singles section for the band Scarlet Sails, but for some reason there's a ton of blank space showing up right above the table. Any ideas?

--Alexmarie (talk) 00:11, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm taking a look. What's odd is that the template works correctly in other articles (that I checked), but there is nothing obviously wrong in Scarlet Sails. Chris857 (talk) 01:59, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

P.S. I think it might have something to do with having no chart column, but I don't know yet why that's causing a problem. Chris857 (talk) 02:03, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello Alexmarie and welcome to the Teahouse.

I think Chris857 was pretty close to the mark - when no charts were specified, the template handling individual singles titles was generating some stray whitespace that was somehow being promoted up out of the table markup. I did quite a bit of experimentation on a copy of the templates in my userspace until I tracked down the culprit. Thank you for coming up with such an intriguing problem. I also made some changes to the example in the documentation for the {{Singles discography}} template so it once again shows code that actually corresponds to the displayed output and now includes this no chart example.

I met Brian from Scarlet Sails once, back when he and Amanda Palmer were doing the "Onion Cellar" show as the Dresden Dolls. Good to know what he's been up to. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:19, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Need advice to improve Performance fabrics

Hello, Teahouse Greetings of the day! I am here to seek your help once again for suggestions and your kind advice forPerformance fabrics, copying here some recently exchanged messages for your immediate understanding of the concern.

Hi Roxy, appreciate your observations.i have added the required references to the chart, The basic difference between Fabric and Performance fabric is performance.which is enhanced in these fabrics. Don't hesitate to ask me again ThanksRajiv Sharma (talk) 17:44, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I have moved this reply to Rajiv's talk page, where I opened the discussion. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 19:45, 11 August 2018 (UTC) Roxy, the dog. hello, I will add more sources, and for your queries 1. You asked ..So exactly what performance do you mean...and enhanced from what state? @@Performance, it is about the attributes of the fabrics totally opposite in a manner to achieve added functionalities (Interestingly these added attributes enhance the scope of use of those fabrics) @@enhance from what state....The added properties/performances do not belong originally to those fabrics but they are enhanced by different things see the definition.And properties of fabrics basically belongs to their origin and their polymers and polymer structure etc. But in this case, these properties are engineered to achieve added advantages. Examples of Polyester which is hydrophobic becomes water-loving(makes it useful for sportswear) and cotton is possible to behave water repel(You must have seen types of denim claiming rain guard, stain repel ) I tried to answer everything but you are welcome any time, don't stop asking, One last thing should we improve the definition part, please advise thanksRajiv Sharma (talk) 01:57, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

User:RAJIVVASUDEV, you have used a lot of words to say almost nothing. The only meaningful remark is that these fabrics purportedly make polyester hydrophilic, and cotton hydrophobic. Please address Roxy's concerns in a more direct way. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:02, 12 August 2018 (UTC) Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk)Hi let me elaborate it little more without repeating what is performance and enhancement, Performance fabrics they are purposefully manufactured to meet the conditions(sometimes extreme) with a predetermined objective. The originally owned properties of those fabrics also remain important in the whole consideration. Allow me to redefine and add some more relevant sources,Drift from Nike is a more convincing example anyway thanks, Please advise me about definition part which is revised now.Thanks again. Rajiv Sharma (talk) 02:39, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I give up. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:49, 12 August 2018 (UTC)— Preceding text originally posted on User talk:Roxy the dog#Performance fabrics

I know my explanations are technical and not understandable easily,need your help and Roxy to improve the things,that is why we are here.I have added sources,hopefully more convincing and reliable.Please comment .ThanksRajiv Sharma (talk) 06:40, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello RAJIVVASUDEV and welcome to the Teahouse.

I think you need to go back to the talk page of the article, at Talk:Performance fabrics and work out with other editors what sort of references should be added to the article. As best I can tell, you are inserting references that, at best, relate only tangentially to the statements that you are intending to support. If you want to improve the definition, and are finding some resistance, the talk page is also the place to put forward your suggested improvement and justify it. If you are not getting enough participation on the talk page, you may need to start an RfC or other steps to get more widespread input. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:55, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

RAJIVVASUDEV: the problem with your explanations of the term performance fabric is not that they're "technical and not understandable easily". It's that they're vacuous, they don't say anything.

If someone writes of a "performance car", he's probably referring to its acceleration and top speed, and not its capacity or comfort. But I've no idea what you mean by "performance fabric". Maproom (talk) 08:02, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

@RAJIVVASUDEV: I was looking to find an article named Engineered fabrics for contrast but such a page does not yet exist. A Google search indicates that this term is frequently used for fabrics that have been treated with chemical coatings to alter their characteristics. I realize that you started the Performance fabrics page a couple of years ago, but it remains problematic. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:58, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Well noted all,Thanks for your adviceRajiv Sharma (talk) 09:09, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

— jmcgnh @jmcgnh you are right! actually there are few things which are recently introduced in textiles like wearable technology,e-textile, And Perfomance fabrics is one of them.henceforth information,knowledge and sources are limited, and the available information is very much confusing and misleading.I sincerely want wikipedia as an authentic source of knowledge for the concerned readers.Hopefully you got my point.ThanksRajiv Sharma (talk) 10:08, 12 August 2018 (UTC) Maproom (talk)@Maproom got your point but primarily fabrics are for comfort and protection only.Please identify and inform what are the other areas to be improved except definition?ThanksRajiv Sharma (talk) 09:58, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

R - please, no bold text. What I see at the article is that you worked on it a lot in 2015, and recently (August) lengthened it significantly. I expected to see more discussion at the Talk of the article rather than individuals' Talk pages and here at Teahouse. Please be civil. Writing "I know my explanations are technical and not understandable easily" is condescending toward the people who are/were trying to help. David notMD (talk) 11:19, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

David notMD (talk) Got it,Bold was unintentional.correcting the same and for technical and all..I was never meant like that. ThanksRajiv Sharma (talk) 12:03, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

creation of FSCG page

FSCG means fast selling consumer goods and there are many chances that people ask for that page so, that page must be created as soon as possible and we have a project on that so even many of people use it as it is the current topic of projects to be done.there are many types of that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snikitha raj (talk • contribs) 08:19, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. You may request at WP:Requested articles. Another editor will create it for you. However, the backlog there is very huge, so the waiting time will be a bit long. If you find enough reliable sources about it, you can create the article yourself. See WP:YFA. Regards ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 08:28, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Snikitha raj, we already have an article about this subject at Fast-moving consumer goods, an alternative title. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:38, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

And fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG) is certainly the common name. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:57, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Sebastian Niemann

Hi, someone hanging around being able to clarify? The wikidata reference fore Sebastian Niemann is Q103898. I was in the very honest opinion that would mean it is okay to have the draft accepted on the English Wikipedia. Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 11:27, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Lotje. The inclusion criteria for English Wikipedia is quite strict, and mostly boils down to the fact that all articles need to have content that can be verified in reliable sources. This is where the notability guidelines, such as WP:GNG come in to play. To be considered for inclusion, your article should cite sources that show that the subject of your article is remarkable, unusual enough to have received significant media attention. The guidelines at WP:NBIO and WP:DIRECTOR specifically are especially relevant, and the stricter rules at WP:Biographies of living persons also may come into play.

Basically though, it boils down to citing independent, reliable secondary sources that discuss the person you're writing about in enough detail that you can write an article with only what those sources say (paraphrased of course), because fundamentally, Wikipedia doesn't make new information, it just collects trustworthy information in an accessible way. If you're able to find the sources, then you should be able to have the draft accepted, if not, then perhaps the man will receive more media attention in the future, and you can submit a new article then. Thanks for making a good attempt though, and good luck for your contributions in the future. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:55, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

To answer your specific point, Lotje: no, the existence of a Wikidata entry gives no information whatever about whether the subject is considered notable by the standards of English Wikipedia. It may be that there are articles already in other Wikipedia which have less strict standards. (Sometimes there may even be an article in English Wikipedia, which nevertheless fails the criteria, and is liable to be deleted). It may even be that somebody has created a Wikidata entry for a subject which has no hope of meeting the criteria. --ColinFine (talk) 16:02, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

@Alpha3031: and @ColinFine: thank you ever so much. Lotje (talk) 07:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

how do i create an article

how do i create an article— Preceding unsigned comment added by Abamwesiga_mike (talk • contribs)

• @Abamwesiga mike: You may want to start by using WP:The Wikipedia Adventure to learn more about using the site. If you're going to write an article about anyone or anything, here are the steps you should follow:

1) Choose a topic whose notability is attested by discussions of it in several reliable independent sources.

2) Gather as many professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources you can find.

3) Focus on just the ones that are not dependent upon or affiliated with the subject, but still specifically about the subject and providing in-depth coverage (not passing mentions). If you do not have at least three such sources, the subject is not yet notable and trying to write an article at this point will only fail.

4) Summarize those sources from step 2, adding citations at the end of them. You'll want to do this in a program with little/no formatting, like Microsoft Notepad or Notepad++, and not in something like Microsoft Word or LibreOffice Writer.

5) Combine overlapping summaries (without arriving at new statements that no individual source supports) where possible, repeating citations as needed.

6) Paraphrase the whole thing just to be extra sure you've avoided any copyright violations or plagiarism.

7) Use the Article wizard to post this draft and wait for approval.

8) Expand the article using sources you put aside in step 2 (but make sure they don't make up more than half the sources for the article, and make sure that affiliated sources don't make up more than half of that).

Doing something besides those steps typically results in the article not being approved, or even in its deletion. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:53, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Publishing Article

I recently became autoconfirmed and I have been working on an article but it is in draft state, is there a way I can publish it or will it be published only after someone review it. This is the article I am referring to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Kenny_Sebastian — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharonsv123 (talk • contribs) 12:05, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Kenny Sebastian has not been submitted for review. If it is submitted in its current state it will be rejected, as it cites no reliable independent sources to establish that he is notable. Maproom (talk) 13:57, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Sharonsv123, and welcome to the Teahouse. I have added an {{AFC submission}} template to the draft, but better sourcing is advised before submitting. Sam Sailor 14:10, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Unable to use email feature

I have no idea how the WP email feature works. When I tried finding out, I read I have to confirm my email first. I vaguely remember doing that, but regardless, the old link I got in my email is expired. So, I clicked the send "confirm email request" in my preferences a couple times. I received nothing. Is anyone here able to help me with the button not working? If not, where do I report this to? --GDP (talk) 12:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi GDP. If you do not receive an email after clicking "Confirm your email address" at Special:Preferences then check any spam folders in your email service or try another email provider, e.g. one from Comparison of webmail providers. Many mails are stopped by filters. I always get Wikipedia mails in seconds. It's optional to set an email address but you need it if you forget your password or want to contact an editor privately. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:54, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

User Abbasulu and Cinestaan.com

Hi! I'm a new editor here, still learning the ways of things, not quite sure if this would be the right place to raise this issue. Since Bollywood and movies are my area of interest, I've been noticing a number of new pages created by the user with the same template, lacking information, and all carry just one link, to a Cinestaan.com - also, the links are mostly dead links.

I'm not sure of the process here as I have patrolled and corrected some however these are past films and lacking additional information, and are in fact largely non notable. Can an experienced user guide on the next steps here? Here is the user's contribution history, I have noticed (s)he got called out on it earlier as well but is continuing the same practice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Abbasulu — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheOneWorkingAccount (talk • contribs) 13:37, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

If the pages meet any of the criteria outlined at WP:CSD, for example, clear advertising, personal attacks, only a few words that don't make sense, you can tag the page with the templates listed under the relevant criteria, like {{Db-''whatever reason''}}. Else, if you think nobody will object to the deletion, use {{subst:proposed deletion|concern=''your reason''}} and an admin will come and decide whether to delete or not in 7 days. AfD, for possibly controversial deletions, is a bit more complicated, and how to do it is described here, though you can use a tool to automate nominations for all 3 methods.

Finally, it is usual, though not compulsory to notify the article creator/principal contributors with {{subst:Speedy-Warn|pg=Page|reason='''Reason'''}} for SPEEDYs, {{subst:Proposed deletion notify|Article title }} for PRODs and {{Afd notice| ARTICLE NAME }} for AfDs, though it's not necessary if you feel it might be harmful to do so. Also, before you nominate, consider some of the alternatives listed at WP:BEFORE. Good luck. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:33, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Is there a template to mark trivial corrections per MOS:SIC?

Like Template:Typo or Template:Text, it would have no visible effect, but would notify other editors that the discrepancy between the quotation and the source is a deliberate correction. Does such a thing exist? 209.209.238.189 (talk) 13:56, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

{{Sic}} in itself is not what you are looking for? Sam Sailor 14:03, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) According to {{sic}}'s documentation page (permanent link), the template has a |hide=y parameter, which hides the [sic] when piping content. For example, "{{sic|tyop|hide=y}}" renders as "tyop" rather than "tyop [sic]". It also has an |expected= parameter for documenting the problem and its expected correction. Is that sufficient? Beyond that, I am not really aware of one. {{sic}} was developed for this specific purpose. I personally see little reason to hide the template, though, so I have yet to use that parameter. A more basic alternative would be to add an invisible comment documenting the issue for editors, but |expected= already covers that. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 14:13, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

@Sam Sailor and Nøkkenbuer: {{sic}} is the opposite of what I'm looking for. [sic] means "this is an exact quotation of an incorrect (or heterodox) original". I want the opposite: "this is an inexact quotation because a trivial error in the original has been corrected. This correction is not an flaw in Wikipedia, but justified by MOS:SIC."

The warning is not addressed to readers, but to editors who might notice the discrepancy and "fix" it. It might be nice if a hidden parameter let me include the exact original text so a later editor can see and judge the correction.

To give a concrete example, the press release at https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=5174 is titled "Mcnamee Chosen to Head NASA's Outer Planets/Solar Probe Projects". Within the body of the press release, the name is consistently spelled McNamee. The lack of a capital N in the title is clearly an oversight, and not contextually important, so per MOS:SIC, "should simply be corrected without comment". 209.209.238.189 (talk) 01:15, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Apologies for the misunderstanding; the original question was somewhat confusing, admittedly, since I have never seen anyone request what you have, so I assumed that interpretation (which turned out to be the intended one) was mistaken on my part. What you meant is unambiguous now. To the point: {{sic}} is not used in CS1 and CS2 templates due to COinS metadata pollution, anyway, so that alone precludes using the template if you are using it in a CS1 or CS2 citation. In such circumstances, I usually leave the original capitalization and add an invisible comment specifying as much, such as:

Mcnamee<!--Should be "McNamee", but original text retained--> Chosen to Head NASA's Outer Planets/Solar Probe Projects

If you wish to correct it, then you can do the same, only change the note to something like:

McNamee<!--Miscapitalized as "Mcnamee" in original text--> Chosen to Head NASA's Outer Planets/Solar Probe Projects

Either work and if someone else changes it later on, that's their decision. As for the applicability of {{sic}}, it is indeed not appropriate for post-correction annotation. There is usually no need to note anything in such circumstances, though, so anyone who does uses an invisible comment. Hopefully, this helps. As for whether a template exists for this, I'm aware of none. You can request for one to be made to add to the {{Not a typo}} suite, but I honestly doubt it will have much use, even compared to the others in that suite. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 11:04, 13 August 2018 (UTC); last two sentences added at 11:20, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

finding the talk page

When I click on the "Talk" button on the upper right hand of the article page, I get taken to my own talk page. How do I reach the talk page proper to the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Obugov (talk • contribs) 15:47, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Click on the talk tab at the top left of the article. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:52, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

A photo that i took and edited on my phone has been flagged for copyright issues - can anyone help?

Five Islands music. jpg was taken by me - not sure what I need to do to show that — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elizabeth1225 (talk • contribs) 16:22, August 12, 2018 (UTC)

See Commons talk page and example deletion to see that they are copyright violations as declared in that file's exif data...i.e. your phone is automatically tagging it as copyrighted by you which precludes its use because it is incorrectly licensed.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:39, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

@Elizabeth1225: Be aware that the good people over at Wikimedia Commons who deal with image matters - as well as here on Wikipedia - do tend to look at an editor's other contributions when judging whether a user has acted in good faith or not. So far, you talk page over at Wikimedia Commons appears to suggest you have already uploaded another copyrighted image (Chap and Daisy Bernet Five Islands music.jpg) taken unlawfully from a website, and attributed to Tamytha Cameron). And then, over here, on Wikipedia, your draft article (Draft:Five Islands music) has cut and pasted copyrighted text from this webpage. I am about to delete those offending bits - though you are, of course, free to add the same information again, provided it is written in your own form of words, and does not closely paraphrase the original). So this is just a friendly piece of advice to make you aware that editors, once warned, who repeatedly use copyrighted text or images do tend to get blocked from editing here, or uploading pictures overt at Commons. Just be careful in future that you don't repeat these mistakes that it's so easy for newcomers to make. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 17:03, 12 August 2018 (UTC)   

Nick Moyes - I don't know if I'm responding properly, but the piece you mentioned that was copied and pasted was written by me and submitted by me to the website. The images uploaded were taken by my friends and myself. I feel that I'm doing this all wrong! How do you advise I proceed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elizabeth1225 (talk • contribs) 2018-08-12T19:52:06 (UTC)

Hello, Elizabeth1225. Almost all the content of Wikipedia is required to be freely reusable by anybody for any purpose, the condition being only that it be attributed. When you edit a page and hit "Publish changes", you are thereby licensing any material you have contributed, according to a licence such as CC-BY-SA. This requires that you have the power to do this.

As part of the principle of Assume good faith, Wikipedia editors normally start from the assumption that an editor does have the legal power to license whatever they add. However, if it is found that the material has already been published somewhere, this raises concerns. If the source explicitly licenses the material under a licence compatible with CC-BY-SA, that is fine: as long as the editor acknowledges the source (for example in the edit summary) the licence is complied with, and Wikipedia may retain the material with a clear conscience.

But if the material has been published before, with an inconsistent copyright claim, or no claim at all, Wikipedia editors will assume that it is copyright and may not be used in Wikipedia: they will typically remove it on sight. In order to use material in Wikipedia which has already been published (anywhere) without an explicit declaration in that source that its copyright is consistent with Wikipedia's requirements, the holder of the copyright material must go through the process outlined in donating copyright material: which will release the material under a suitable license, so that anybody can reuse it in any way for any purpose.

This process is mostly used for images. It can in principle be used for text, but is not often so used for a couple of reasons. One is that it is usually easier to paraphrase the text in one's own words than to go to the effort of following the donation procedure. The other is that in many cases (though not all) the text is unsuitable for Wikipedia in any case, being either non-neutral, or not in encyclopaedic tone. (Remember that Wikipedia is essentially uninterested in anything said about themselves by the subject of an article, or by their relatives, friends, agents, employers, or associates. It is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject have chosen to publish about them in reliable places).

Finally - on a discussion page like this one, please remember to sign your contributions (with four tildes ~~~~. --ColinFine (talk) 20:00, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Owner of a new business. Google Verified and pre-existing knowledge article on Google.

COI for me to state what is already on Google. I would like someone to write the article for me? Please. Thank you. I will only reference one link and this is not self-promotion-and-marketing aka spam.. this is because i have been contacted to verify my identity and distinguish the Business Entity from my business persona.

I have a tremendous amount of respect for the platform and knowledge base kept here. My entry to the site was not an attempt at cyber-virology. thank you

References

Wally Komodo (talk) 16:30, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Wally Komodo, and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is basically uninterested in anything that the subject of an article says about themselves, or their friends, relatives, or associates say about them. In an article about your business, Wikipedia is not interested in anything that you say or want to say about it: it is only interested in what people who have no connection with the business have chosen to publish about it, in reliable places. If there are few or no such independent pieces about it, then it is not possible at present to write an acceptable article about it, because there is absolutely nothing which can go in the article. Please read about notability and reliable sources. --ColinFine (talk) 19:39, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks moderator! However I feel it uncharacteristic of the collective wisdom of Wikipedia to not maintain information you could find on Google. I feel like fostering a lack of interest is —slightly more personal. I am quite sure Wikipedia is interested in Google, which is not a person, but a concurrent knowledgebase, and also has no connection to my business. Published information on Google will make it to Wikipedia eventually. Thanks for all your help! Have a great day, narrative controller! Wally Komodo (talk) 19:49, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Google is a search engine rather than a publisher, Wally Komodo. Wikipedia only covers topics that have received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, and a search for this topic suggests that this threshold has not yet been met. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:59, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Most of Wikipedia's policies are made by consensus among editors, Wally Komodo, and one central policy is that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. All of its policies are in principle up for discussion, and you are welcome to go to the Village pump and start a discussion; but in all honesty, I don't think you have much chance of getting that one changed.

By the way, I am not a "moderator", or even an administrator: I am just an ordinary editor, who chooses to spend time answering questions here and at the Help desk. --ColinFine (talk) 20:08, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Picture license

Hi! What license does a picture have to be under to make it able to go on a Wikipedia page? I guess it has to be 'free' but free and what? The options on my google advanced search are: - Free to use or share - Free to use or share, even commercially - Free to use share or modify - Free to use, share or modify even commercially

Aesthetic Sunset (talk) 18:54, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Aesthetic Sunset, it's the last option; Free to use, share or modify even commercially as those are the basic terms of the CC BY-SA 3.0 License. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:18, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Roger (Dodger67) Thank you, it is a lot trickier finding pictures with the correct license than I thought! Aesthetic Sunset (talk) 20:36, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi again Aesthetic Sunset, what image are you looking for? Certain types of subjects can qualify for a "fair use" exemption, though the image must then strictly comply with all of the conditions stipulated by the non-free content rule. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:53, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Roger (Dodger67) I was looking at a picture on the article on Jessica Keenan Wynn and in general for some other people on here. Aesthetic Sunset (talk) 20:56, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

@Aesthetic Sunset: it's particularly hard to make a fair use argument for a picture of a living person, because in principle you could take a picture of them yourself and release that freely. Fair use needs you to argue that there's no free alternative (see also WP:NFC#UUI). Sometimes editors will write to the subjects of articles asking if they could make a picture available under a suitable license (typically one of these), but of course that needs to be done considerately and with due caution. I haven't done it myself. › Mortee _talk 21:07, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Mortee Thanks for all the info. Hmmm this is a lot lot lot trickier than at first glance, I really am getting into this now! I'll have a look at the links now and get back to you if I have any questions on it? Is that alright? Cheers! Aesthetic Sunset (talk) 16:02, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

@Aesthetic Sunset: sure. I'm no expert, but you can ask at the Teahouse or on my talk page. › Mortee _talk 16:09, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Mortee WWell you still know more than me, eh? :D Thanks again Mortee! Aesthetic Sunset (talk) 16:11, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Can the infobox picture of a BLP include more than one person?

I found a picture on Wikimedia Commons to potentially use in the infobox of a female celebrity's article. However, the picture shows the woman with her husband. Can the picture still be used in the infobox of her article even if there are two people shown? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lupine453 (talk • contribs)

Yes, though it's not ideal. The caption should then say something like "Mrs. Celebrity, with her husband". Or, if they're not standing too close together, you could use a cropped version of the image. Maproom (talk) 20:24, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

@Lupine453: I would agree with what Maproom says, and would just add that, should you choose to download, crop and then upload an image of just the female celebrity, you should ensure you do credit the author who created the original work, and who released it under a licence for others to use or modify, providing credit is acknowledged. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:41, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

If you do decide to use a cropped image, there's an effective but little-known alternative to downloading, cropping, and uploading. You can use the image as it is in Commons, but display it cropped. There's an example of this technique in this old version of an article (long since replaced by a better picture). Maproom (talk) 20:57, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Is Assessing an Unassessed Article Considered a Minor Edit?

Greetings Teahouse, I am back, and this time I'd like to ask, are assessing an article that hasn't been assessed yet is considered a minor edit? Thanks. Yanjipy (talk) 21:48, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I see nothing in Help:Minor edit which would make an article assessment minor. --David Biddulph (talk) 22:09, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Hello Yanjipy and welcome back to the Teahouse.

I assume you are talking about adding class and importance values to a banner on the articles's talk page, where no such values were previously added. If you're adding class "start", "C" or "B" and importance=low, you could probably do that as a minor edit and nobody would complain. Of course, nobody would complain if you left the minor edit box unchecked. It would still be considerate to include a proper edit summary with the edit.

As best as I can tell, no very great weight is attached to these particular assessments below GA, but if you are persistently over-rating unrated pages, you will likely get some pushback.

I think it's a great exercise to go through all of a WikiProject's unassessed articles and give them your best shot. You get exposed to a lot of pages and will probably find other things that need additional work beyond just an assessment. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:23, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I'll bow to David Biddulph's expertise, but if the banners are grouped in a banner shell, the changed assessments make no change to the initial appearance of the talk page. The spirit of Minor edit is that it is an edit extremely unlikely to be controversial. I'll say that for my own practice, setting the minor edit checkbox is too much trouble and I don't feel I can rely enough on what others claim is a minor edit to ignore them when looking at edit histories. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:30, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Private Spaceflight, 1971 early "Project Harvest Moon" NEED A MENTOR.

I am 87 years old, was the instigator of this project, and feel it should be recorded on Wikipedia. There is a Wall Street Journal article verifying its existence, but I don't know how to upload it.

Any assistance would be appreciated.

Thanks, George Van Valkenburg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quickscan1 (talk • contribs) 22:15, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello User:Quickscan1 and welcome to the Teahouse.

I found a couple of mentions, including this one Lost in Space: The Fall of NASA and the Dream of a New Space Age By Greg Klerkx p175 which could be the starting point for an article. This other mention, at CollectSpace.com probably can't be used. Someone with access to a newspaper database could probably track down the WSJ articles you remember. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:43, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

How do I put my pictures in the dinosaur articles?

Hi everyone I finally finished some good pictures of different dinosaurs that I want to put in articles. I just don’t know how to do it. I took pictures of them and I have them on my computer but I don’t know how to put them in. Can anyone help? Thanks, Ethan

Also I remember some people gave me some advice before but I had to go back to school and I can’t find it in the tea house any more. Sorry if I’m repeating myself :(, Ethan

Hi TrexEthan, the best place to upload images is the Wikimedia Commons if you're happy to make them freely available for anyone to use. Wikipedia articles often use pictures from the Commons. Lots of Wikipedia articles like Tyrannosaurus already have diagrams and photos of fossils. A drawing you've made yourself might not be the best choice for them, since there's not always a lot of room and scientific pictures are more often more useful. You could go to the 'Talk' page for one and suggest it if you like, but if its an article that lots of people have worked on they may have strong opinions. Thank you for wanting to help out Wikipedia. Please do ask again here if you'd like more help with editing. › Mortee _talk 23:28, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

You can find questions & answers which have been archived by putting your username into the archive search box towards the top of this page. --David Biddulph (talk) 23:45, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I think it’s fine because there’s another editor who has lots of drawing of dinosaurs in different articles here. - Ethan — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrexEthan (talk • contribs) 23:38, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi David Biddulph, I am sorry that I forgot about signing (you scared me and sounded like my stepdad on my page when you said “You were told this back in April. Please do something about it.”) I haven’t been on Wikipedia in a long time and like I said I forgot about a lot of the advice and tips people gave me. I didn’t remember about signing my comments so I hope you can forgive me for forgetting. I promise I didn’t mean to insult you or anything. I hope you don’t block me for forgetting. I don’t know that much about computers yet but I hope I can learn more soon. TrexEthan (talk) 00:09, 13 August 2018 (UTC) is that right?

I don’t know how to make the link work like it does when other people do it... I’m sorry David Biddulph I’m still learning please don’t block me. TrexEthan (talk) 00:15, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi again TrexEthan. To mention another editor you have to write something like {{u|TrexEthan}}. Square brackets like [[David Biddulph]] are links to articles, but we don't have one about David yet. It's easy to forget signatures to begin with, don't worry. Just keep trying to remember to write ~~~~ whenever you talk to someone here. I'm still a bit cautious about encouraging the dinosaur pictures, but I appreciate you wanting to help with Wikipedia. › Mortee _talk 01:07, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

This seems to be related to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 759#How do I add pictures?. I think the suggestion made by Odysseus1479 about asking for help at Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Image review is a good idea. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:46, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

That's good advice. › Mortee _talk 02:24, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

لماذا لا تستعمل الأرقام العربية علي ويكيبيديا؟

أريد أن أعرف لماذا تستعمل الأرقام الأوروبية 1234567890 (المعروفة أيضاً العربية الغربية) بدلاً من الأرقام العربية ١٢٣٤٥٦٧٨٩٠(المعروفج أيضاً بالأرقام الهندية أو العربية الشرقية) علي صفحات ويكيبيديا العربية ؟ رأيت علي صفحات ويكيبيديا الفارسية أنهم يستعملون الأرقام الفارسية ۱۲۳۴۵۶۷۸۹۰ فقط. و علي الصفحات الهندية، يستعملون الأرقام الهندية १२३४५६७८९०. يجب أن نعتز بلغتنا أيضاً و نستعمل أرقام لغتنا. فكيف يمكننا تغير ذلك؟ كيف نغير الأرقام الأوروبية إلي الأرقام العربية؟ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 7amada Sheikh (talk • contribs) 23:51, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia, so messages need to be in English. You may be looking for the Arabic Wikipedia. --David Biddulph (talk) 23:56, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

scam

I'm not sure this is right dept to submit this issue.

The profile and photos of the articles on one of our high ranking military officers is being used on a scam profile on the Plenty of Fish Website. I don't see any place where I can attach the profile.

the user name on the POF online dating page is " dcrunner2" with the heading: is there any real ones out there?

There are so many scam profiles on this site impersonating military members and even though we contact the site on the issues. the problem is escalating.

This particular scam profile is using your article on Malcom B. Frost. It even shows his name tag.

I hope there is something that can be done to stop this.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.138.189.55 (talk • contribs) 20:45, August 12, 2018 (UTC)

So your saying that people are posting fake profiles on Plenty of Fish, and basing these fake profiles on information in wikipedia articles? Tornado chaser (talk) 00:50, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. It seems that you are saying that this dating website PlentyOfFish contains a fake profile based on Major General Malcolm B. Frost. This is a matter that you must pursue with the management of the dating website. The photo you mention is in the public domain as an official work of the United States government and Wikipedia has no control over that photo whatsoever. Similarly, the written content in that Wikipedia biography summarizes information on military websites and in major newspapers. Accordingly, Wikipedia editors can do nothing about this situation except to encourage you to be more forceful in reporting the fraudulent activity to the management of the PlentyOfFish website. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:41, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

How to delete history of an old revision

Hi there, I'mm wondering if it is possible to get an old revision deleted from the revision history of a particular article. If so how can this be done?— Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Conrad Tanner (talk • contribs) 13:02, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Only administrators can delete/hide revisions as per WP:RVDL. It is only used for "Selective deletion" like copyright violations or insulting, degrading, or offensive material. I'm unsure but if you are trying to hide personal information you posted on a certain article that is only in revision history, you might be able to appeal to ad administrator to hide it but someone more experience than me can answer that. NZFC^(talk) 04:14, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

@Conrad Tanner: Requests for removal of personal information should be sent to WP:Oversight, e.g. via Special:EmailUser/Oversight or oversight-en-wp@wikipedia.org. I believe there is also an IRC channel, and if you contact an Administrator instead they will probably pass it on anyway. As mentioned by NZ Footballs Conscience, other gross violations of the rules can be reported via emailing administrators or other ways listed at WP:REVDELREQUEST. There is also a template for copyright violations. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:13, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Notification: speedy deletion nomination

Hello Teahouse community,

First: Excuse please my English which is not my mother tongue.

Here my question: In 2012, I wrote and submitted an article, my first and only one, to Wikipedia (on "Guy Schraenen"). A few days ago, I dicovered that my article is deleted from Wikipedia, "because the page appears to be an unambiguous". It is said: "It appears to be a direct copy" from an external website". I have to say that I am the author of the article on this external website too, which is also on "Guy Schraenen", because I am the responsible of his archives. So it appears indeed similar to my article on Wikipedia. But it is not "a direct copy"! The Wikipedia article included much more information, exact sources etc.!

What can I do that my submission to Wikipedia appears again?

Thanks a lot for help to somebody who knows (as academic) about copyrights, but has unfortunately not a lot technical editing knowledge at Wikipedia. Mekiedan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mekiedan (talk • contribs) 04:19, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Mekiedan. Here are the basics: the content of the deleted article was substantially the same as the content at this website. Please note that this website does not include any language freely licensing its content to be used elsewhere without restrictions. Accordingly, this content and this website is considered copyright protected. Wikipedia is based on the principle of freely licensed content and our use of copyrighted content must be limited to brief, attributed quotes which must comprise a very small percentage of the content of an acceptable article. In other words, you cannot post substantially the same content on a copyright protected website and also here on Wikipedia where the content is freely licensed. That is legally incompatible. Any Wikipedia article about this person must consist of originally written prose that summarizes what reliable sources have said about this person. Please read Your first article for additional advice. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:17, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your answer, Cullen! I understand perfectly that copyright rules have to be followed at Wikipedia! Of course! But two questions remain: 1. Is my Wikipedia submission completely gone? In the air so to say? As I never thought that somebody could delite it so easily, I didn't make a copy. Or could I retrieve it somewhere? And if, how... If I Then could delete my similar article on the website and give simply a link to my Wikipedia article on the same subject which was much more complete. 2. Isn't there any possibility to give a licence from my text on Wikipedia to free it to be used on the other website which I created? If yes, how would this technicaly to be proceeded? Once more thank you in advance! Mekiedan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mekiedan (talk • contribs) 14:20:47, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

@Mekiedan: If you just want your draft back, and it doesn't contain information that has been Oversighted, you can simply ask at WP:REFUND, and an administrator will likely email you a copy, or restore it if you can release copyright. I am unsure as to how you would go about proving that you are the copyright holder of the work though (I think emailing from a official email associated with the website would be sufficient, but you should clear it with an admin to make sure). A declaration of consent form email for the use of content you hold copyright to can be found here.— Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:49, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Waiting for an article to be published

Hello, About a month ago I created an article, but it doesn't appear anywhere when I search for it. So I assume that it is still not approved, am I correct? How long does it usually take to approve an article and how can I find out if everything is alright with the one I created?

Many thanks! Aflame008 (talk) 08:22, 13 August 2018 (UTC)Aflame008Aflame008 (talk) 08:22, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

You created a draft but you didn't submit it for AFC review. To submit the draft for review, add {{subst:submit}} to the top of the draft. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:26, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello Aflame008 and welcome to the Teahouse.

But, before you submit it, may I suggest that you do some more work on it first? In its current state it will almost certainly be declined at AfC for reasons of promotionalism, lack of references, and not having established that its subject is notable, according to WP's notability criteria for companies. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:30, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Strange alert

Last week I encountered a strange alert. When I clicked the bell icon, on the top of the list an unread prompt popped up, which vanished completely when I clicked the blue dot to mark it as read -- strange!

When I checked my mails, I found a message from "HsfBot‬", referring me to https://id.wikipedia.org, were I am obviously already known as user, and was "invited" to log in (I did not!).

I do not know of any action from my side regarding the Indonesian WP, and feel a bit unsecure about the circumstances of vanishing alerts and unsolicited user pages.

I tried to be concise and short, but certainly I am prepaired to give additional details in case they are needed to explain this to me. Thanks in advance. Purgy (talk) 09:21, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Purgy. Your account was created at the Indonesian Wikipedia Saturday [6], probably because you clicked a link to it while you were logged in. Two minutes later HsfBot‬ posted a welcome message on your talk page [7]. This causes a notification at other wikis but after you have read it, it only remains at the Indonesian Wikipedia. Just ignore it. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:47, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation of the automated processes, which I started by inadvertently clicking a link to Indonesian WP. Is there a chance to get rid again of these unintentional remnants? I would prefer to have no userpage there, especially not, if the same password applies. Purgy (talk) 10:28, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

The user page which you can see there is the one which you created at meta:User:Purgy_Purgatorio. That is used in any Wikipedia where you don't have a specific user page. See WP:Global user page. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:45, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! It's too late to regret having thought that contact with Wikimedia might not necessarily be at least regretful. Purgy (talk) 11:41, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

@Purgy: More precisely, meta:User:Purgy Purgatorio is shown in Wikimedia wikis where your account has been created but you haven't made a user page. Special:CentralAuth/Purgy Purgatorio shows where the account has been created. It's common to accumulate many account creations by clicking links to other wikis while logged in. Accounts cannot be deleted but the global user page can be deleted on request by placing {{Delete|1=User request}} on meta:User:Purgy Purgatorio. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:30, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

add new content

I want to add new content. I read [8] . but i can't understand clearly. So i need some help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sardersalimreza (talk • contribs) 11:23, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Which part of WP:YFA do you not understand? --David Biddulph (talk) 11:28, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Not directly answering your question, Sardersalimreza, but please note that creating a new article is not the only way, or necessarily the most helpful way, to improve Wikipedia. We have six million articles, many of them very poor. Improving an existing article is often a much more valuable contribution than creating a new one - especially when the motive for creating a new article is something along the lines of "to tell the world about ... " or "because ... deserves an article". Neither of these motives has any relation to Wikipedia's purposes or policies. Writing a new article is hard, and hundreds of new articles are deleted every day. --ColinFine (talk) 12:52, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Right now you have created a draft: Draft:Sarder Salim Reza which is the right place. Some new editors make the mistake of working at their User page, which is for a brief description of what you are and intend to do as a Wikipedia editor. You also posted two photos of Mr. Reza to Wikipedia Commons. The important question is whether Mr. Reza meets Wikipedia's rules for notability for a biography of a living person. My own opinion is - Not. I suggest you read Wikipedia:Notability (people) as should help. David notMD (talk) 13:00, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Also, given your User name identical to the draft article name, appears you are writing about yourself. As someone else posted on your Talk page, strongly discouraged. David notMD (talk) 15:21, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

New content

Hello everyone,

So realizing the monumental task and responsibility that is editing and contributing to Wikipedia, how does one find someone who will write proper content and is this admissible assuming most folks aren't writing about themselves.

Thank you and apologies should my question be out of line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rofgonc (talk • contribs) 15:05, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Hey Rofgonc. It's not entirely clear what your question is. Most editors on Wikipedia just write about topics they're interested in. GMG^talk 15:27, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

There is a phrase, "Build it and they will come" (which is NOT an exact quote from movie Field of Dreams). Applied here at Wikipedia, if a person becomes Wikipedia-notable while still alive, other people - not connected, related or employed by - will create an article. Wikipedia-notable means that there are published accounts in reputable media (newspapers, magazines...) about the person in question not written by the person. Not interviews. Not press releases. David notMD (talk) 15:36, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

We "find someone who will write proper content" by inviting everyone to edit, Rofgonc. The writers include anyone interested in contributing to Wikipedia. That can include you, as well. We use terms like "editor" because they are technically accurate and sound better than "person with an Internet connection and some spare time to edit an encyclopedia without pay". Most of us are not professionals; all anyone needs to help construct this encyclopedia is a bit of competence and a willingness to engage.

In general, we are volunteers who contribute at our leisure. Sometimes, we do so in topic areas that interest us; for some of us, we do so even on subjects that are unfamiliar to us. If you want to participate in "realizing the monumental task and responsibility that is editing and contributing to Wikipedia", then go for it! So long as you adhere to the five pillars, follow the rules (and sometimes ignore them), and act in good faith, you too can become an esteemed person with an Internet connection and some spare time to edit an encyclopedia without pay.

And yes, autobiographic and other conflict-of-interest editing is generally not a good idea. Be thankful that you don't have an article about yourself; if you ever do, its existence will not be within your control. If you want to begin learning how to edit Wikipedia, the tutorial is a good place to start. The Wikipedia Adventure may also interest you. Welcome to Wikipedia! —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 16:13, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect Link for a co-author of listed book

The book, "Simon & Schuster's Guide to Insects" (Fireside Book)May 4, 1981 by Dr. Ross H. Arnett and Dr. Richard L. Jr. Jacques shows the co-author Richard L. Jacques with a link not to his correct biography, but to one of an Englishman and artist. Dr. Jacques, the co-author was the student of Dr. Arnett at Purdue University when I attended Purdue University as a graduate student with "Rich" Jacques. Someone needs to correct the link, I cannot understand how to edit the material. Thank you, Clarence A. Callahan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CACallahanCAC (talk • contribs) 15:43, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Hey CACallahanCAC. The book does not appear to have its own article, and so it's not clear where the content is that you would like changed. I'm afraid you will need to be more specific. GMG^talk 15:52, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I think it was in Ross H. Arnett Jr.. If it was another article you saw the misleading link in, please let us know, CACallahanCAC :-) --bonadea contributions talk 15:54, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

How to Proceed with Mediation

Recently, I submitted a mediation request that seems to have "vaporized". In following up on this, I was advised by a Wikipedia volunteer to: "I like to urge you to try asking for help with the tea house before resorting to the more formal approach of mediation. (One of the challenges of mediation is that all parties have to agree to participate and that's not always the case.)" Consequently, I am here.

The mediation concern pertains to this Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Handmaid%27s_Tale_(TV_series)#References_to_Trump_and_Pence_need_to_be_deleted.

My user ID is TheBlackMark.

I believe that references to Trump/Pence should be deleted as empty facts. The editor who is the originator of this text does not appear to be willing to modify his text. I do not wish to become involved in a revert war. Therefor I am seeking mediation for resolving this concern.

TheBlackMark (talk) 17:49, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I looked at the content disagreement and the current text and think it's a good compromise.

There was much debate on whether parallels could be drawn between the series (and by extension, the book it is based on) and American society during the Presidency of Donald Trump.

There are numerous sources that point out the timing of the program and the current administration. The reader can read the sources that are listed for more background. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:06, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Question about sandbox policy regarding images

There are articles that I want to work on improving in my sandbox before change them in the main space. When I copy the articles to my sandbox do I need to remove all non-free images? -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 18:29, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

@Millionsandbillions: Yes. Non-free images may only be used in article space. See WP:NFCC RudolfRed (talk) 18:39, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Millionsandbillions: Yes. Nonfree images may be used only in mainspace, and may not be used in drafts outside it. To make them easier to restore, however, you can "disable" displaying the image by putting a colon before the "File". So [[:File:Example.jpg]] displays as File:Example.jpg. That'll make them very easy to put back in once you return the article to mainspace. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:40, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 18:43, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Asking a question in private to avoid revealing personal details?

Hello there,

I have a question relating to a potential COI which I would like to ask a member of the moderating team prior to submitting my first article. I have read the rules and was not able to find an answer relating to my situation. If I was to ask a question in public, I would become identifiable through cursory research by name, address and other contact details due to my association with the subject.

Is it possible to somehow open a private thread for this purpose?

Much obliged,

ThePastoral (talk) 20:32, Wednesday, November 13, 2024 (UTC)

Hey ThePastoral. You may send a private email to info-en-owikimedia.org. GMG^talk 19:26, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Or if you want to get to a specific person, you can email them using the Email this user on the left side oftheir user page. There is no way to open a private thread on Wikipedia. ~ GB fan 19:30, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you both very much. I'm not sure which individual to ask so an email would seem to be the most appropriate course of action. Thanks again. ThePastoral (talk)

Pending Page

Hi,

We submitted a page but was flagged for two images that were said to have been deleted (possibly due to copyright, even though we do own them). I can no longer find the pending page. Was this deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prkkinsella (talk • contribs) 19:29, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Prkkinsella, You created a draft article at Draft:Oscar Heyman & Brothers. ~ GB fan 19:32, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Hey Prkkinsella. Your images were deleted on our sister project, Wikimedia Commons. If you own the copyright, you can release the pictures under a free license, so that they may be used on Wikipedia. You can do this by following the instructions at WP:CONSENT. GMG^talk 19:35, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse, Prkkinsella. Your draft can be found at Draft:Oscar Heyman & Brothers. Your use of "we" is of concern. Wikipedia allows one account per person, and shared accounts are not allowed. When you say "we do own them" regarding photos, then that implies that you may have a conflict of interest. If you are an employee or owner of this jewelry maker, then you must comply with our mandatory paid editing disclosure. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:39, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Please make my page not a draft move it because it's an artist profile bio on wiki for edwin elijah diaz

Draft:Edwin_Elijah_Diaz — Preceding unsigned comment added by 03ducation (talk • contribs) 19:42, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

The article is not ready to be published yet. There are no reliable sources on the article at all. Also Wikipedia is not the place to promote yourself. ~ GB fan 19:51, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

And it has been deleted as unambiguous promotion. I'd strongly encourage 03ducation to read WP:NOTFACEBOOK and My first article. John from Idegon (talk) 21:39, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Footnotes

My article (Draft:Boris Rotman)has been rejected because it needs footnotes. However, the article has 10 footnotes (listed at the end with superscripts 1, 2, 3, etc. Please help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Autoctono~enwiki (talk • contribs) 20:45, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

@Autoctono~enwiki: you may want to ask the reviewer who looked at your draft - Catrìona - on their talk page. I suspect the issue is the Education section, which has no references so far. › Mortee _talk 21:01, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Autoctono~enwiki, the draft Draft: Boris Rotman has references, but they are almost all to works by Rotman and his collaborators. Wikipedia is basically uninterested in anything said, done or published by the subject of the article or their associates except as discussed in reliably published sources by people unconnected with them. An article on Rotman must be 90% based on sources that are not by Rotman or his associates, but are about him, by people unconnected with him. Once such an article has been written, then a selected bibliography can be added; but the bulk of the content of the article must be based on independent sources about Rotman, not by him. --ColinFine (talk) 22:01, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

A quickie Google search yielded no articles ABOUT Rotman. In my opinion there are not grounds for a Wikipedia article. David notMD (talk) 22:49, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Borrowing this from a reply elsewhere: "Wikipedia articles have to meet some very strict criteria to be considered for inclusion, mostly the Wikipedia:Notability policy. Basically, your article needs to cite sources that are independent and reliable, such as a major news publication. To prove notability, there should be multiple citations (at least two), and the citations have to mention have to mention the subject of your article in detail (several paragraphs or a whole article, not just a passing mention)." Content BY the person, i.e., science journal articles authored by the person, do not count. David notMD (talk) 07:56, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Anna Landolt

I would appreciate if one or two other editors would look at Draft:Anna Landolt. It was submitted via Articles for Creation. The most obvious problem to a Wikipedia reviewer is that it has no references, but that can be remedied. A more serious problem is that the draft says that her dates of birth and death are not known, in which case she is not notable unless there is substantial coverage of the middle of her life (and there is none in the draft). The draft says that she is depicted playing the piano in a painting by Henry Fuseli called The Nightmare. We have articles on Fuseli and on The Nightmare. However, the painting does not depict a pianist; it depicts a sleeping woman and an incubus, and the sleeping woman is not wearing a necklace.

Maybe there was another painting by Fuseli in the same year which did depict the otherwise obscure Landolt as a goddess-musician. This seems the best good-faith assumption, but may or may not be correct.

I declined the draft and explained my concern. Will another editor look at it and advise on, first, whether I handled the draft reasonably, and, second, what they think is the explanation for this discrepancy. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:47, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

According to our article on The Nightmare, Fuseli did have an affair with an Anna Landholdt, but if she is the subject of the painting, she is not playing the piano. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:15, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

What a fascinating question, Robert McClenon! I think you were right to decline this, though probably a WP:REDIRECT to The Nightmare is justifiable. A quick look online (and I know nothing of this area, I should say) indicates that the painting of the Nightmare has, on its obverse side, a depiction of a woman thought by one art critic (Powell 1972) to be possibly Anna Landolt. (see here). I really don't think there is enough verifiable information available in the draft to justify a page on her, based on what seems like conjecture by one or more art specialists (see here and here, though I'm not suggesting these are WP:RS). I think there's enough detail in the page on the painting to warrant a redirect, and maybe the article creator (Sylviagindick) could invest time in researching reliable references which support or counter these interpretations, and I hope they will respond with some more information themselves. I also note there is a discrepancy in the spelling of her surname in online references and the Wikipedia page on The Nightmare. This also needs addressing. I certainly wouldn't want to put off a new editor who is interested in the history of art on Wikipedia, but we do need reliable sources and citations to support content. Does this help at all? Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:48, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

how can i change the title of my draft?

I need to modify my draft title. How do I do that?

User:Theandremira - Please sign your posts. You change the title of a draft by moving it to the new title. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:18, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree that moving the draft Draft:Digital identities, physical spaces would be a good idea. What do you want to rename it to? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:21, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Creating a page about a manufacturing tech entity

Hello, I cam new to the community and tried to create a page that was denied. I am trying to make a page similar to that of "HRE Performance Wheels" and has the page denied for "Draft:Brixton Forged Wheels". Can someone please explain why "HRE Performance Wheels" can exist but recreating a similar page was denied, Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cody.williston (talk • contribs)

Hello, Cody.williston and welcome to our Teahouse. I've taken the liberty of adding links to the relevant pages in your post. We only take individual articles on their own merits, rather than say "well, that company has a page, so why can't this one?" But I tend to agree with you that the page for HRE Performance Wheels doesn't demonstrate notability, just as your draft doesn't at this time. I also note that another editor has recommended that page for a speedy deletion because of that lack of notability. (I might have gone about deletion via a different route myself, but I doubt it will stay on Wikipedia unless is is dramatically improved.) Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:35, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

@Cody.williston: Oh, and by the way, if you're the same Cody Williston who is Director of Business at Brixton Forged, please be aware that you are obligated to declare your Conflict of Interest when trying to write about your own company, and should declare this according to the policy I have just hyperlinked to, and especially to WP:PAID. (Being an employee or CEO inevitably means you are being paid.) Those with such a conflict of interest are strongly advised not to attempt to promote their own company through Wikipedia, but to use traditional means that don't involve using the the time of keen volunteers to sort out their mess. All companies need to meet our notability criteria (you need to read WP:NCORP for this) and basically a company deemed 'notable' must have been written about (in detail) by independent, reliable sources. We ignore company press releases and insider business promo guff. So, best to leave it for others to write about your company, and don't do it yourself, please. Maybe you'd like to contribute to other areas with which you aren't so intimately involve? Wikipedia needs all the keen editors it can get! Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:50, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

When/How will 'Draft' be removed from my new article?

Hello, I'm quite new to editing Wikipedia and I have recently created a new article for the Restaurant chain, Costa Vida. It's been up and finished for a day or two now, but the 'Draft' is still there. Help? Wyatt850 (talk) 23:49, 13 August 2018 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Costa_Vida_(Restaurant_Chain)

Hello, Wyatt850. Thanks for coming to the Teahouse with your question. Your draft will remain in that form until you submit it for review, and then it will stay in the queue until it is assessed (this can take some weeks, I'm afraid). Whilst we could add a 'submit' button to the page for you, I have to tell you that I think no reviewer would accept your draft at this time. Put simply, you need to use references which demonstrate how this small chain of restaurants (amongst tens of thousands of others in the world) stands out by meeting our 'Notability' criteria. All companies need to meet these notability criteria (so you need to read WP:NCORP for this) and basically a company deemed 'notable' must have been written about (in detail) by independent, reliable sources. We ignore company press releases and insider business promo guff - and all the references you have used are of that type, so will not be relevant to demonstrating notability. So, having read those guidelines, if you really feel the restaurants merit an article (and not just because you like to eat or work there), you will need to find a number of reliable sources that talk about it in detail. Once you've done that, you might wish to come back for some further feedback, and one of the hosts here can add a 'submit for review' button to the page. But right now you'd be wasting your time and theirs, I feel. Shout if we can help you further, but recognise that some companies simply won't ever meet these criteria, so won't get a page here - see the post immediately above for a similar example. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:11, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

actor or actress??

I created a page where I labelled the woman (actor) to differentiate her from the other woman with the same name. Someone moved it to (actress). Is there a guide for this? Was (actor) wrong or do we not gender unnecessarily? I thought the term actor for everyone was generally accepted these days? Just want guidance for the future. ☕ Antiqueight ^chatter 01:02, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Antiqueight. This is an interesting and difficult question. General guidance can be found at Wikipedia:Gender-neutral language and the various links there. That deprecates the use of rare and outdated gendered job titles such as "aviatrix". Personally, I agree with you that the word "actor" should be applied to all such performers. The problem is that word "actress" is still common and is used, for example, in the Academy Awards, probably the most prestigious awards for films. I suggest that you use "actor" but avoid arguing if another editor prefers "actress", at least until there is a community consensus to avoid "actress". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:18, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

It is certainly an interesting question, Antiqueight, and I agree with Cullen328 that it is a difficult one, too. I might take the opposite view from him, in that we do already use '(actress)' in a large number of article titles about female actors (over 1,500 uses in the first 5,000 page titles searched for with 'actress' anywhere in the title). IMHO 'actress' simply adds immediate clarity to an article name, and that clarity is preferable to any immediate confusion that a gender-neutral term might add. It's also not yet a defunct nor an offensive or discriminatory term in my view. I spent a while looking for an answer before a more experienced editor replied, and found very little to guide us. However, the page Cullen328 cites, does also state: Where the gender is known, gender-specific items are also appropriate ("Bill Gates is a businessman" or "Nancy Pelosi is a congresswoman"). I see a number of editors have already made changes to ensure categorisation and titling refers to the female form in one of the pages you've edited (Phyllis Ryan (actress)) that I guess you might be referring to. So, as Cullen328 wisely says, it is probably not worth arguing this within one article until such time as a community-wide consensus on the use of that term in page titles is achieved. That said, if all the references referred to her as an actor, and especially if she did herself, then maybe actor might then be the appropriate term to use. Otherwise, I'd prefer to keep it as it is right now. Sorry if this perspective seems a little old-fashioned and in contradiction of the earlier view expressed. But that's Wikipedia for you, and your contributions are valued, however they end up being titled. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 02:13, 14 August 2018 (UTC)  

You are entirely correct, Nick Moyes, that the term "actress" is still common on Wikipedia and in reliable sources in general. That is why I recommended that the issue is not worth fighting about on a case by case basis. I would express my opinion thoughtfully in a broad community discussion on this question, and I expect that you would as well. And I would respect whatever consensus emerged. There is no consensus currently, so I consider it entirely reasonable for editors to call females "actors" in their routine editing, unless they become tendentious or disruptive in their behavior. Regards from the USA. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:27, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Made edits to my previous post's article. Improvements?

New to Wikipedia and I made a new article. Made a new post a little bit ago about my article for Costa Vita. It was pretty bad as stated, but is this an improvement? Still will add to it and work on it. Thanks, Wyatt850 (talk) 01:29, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Wyatt850. The draft in question is Draft:Costa Vida (Restaurant Chain). In my opinion, this draft is nowhere close to complying with Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). The references are mostly to fast food industry insider websites and coverage only in the trade press is rarely considered sufficient to establish the notabilty of a business. Why is this little fast food restaurant chain worthy of an encyclopedia article when such chains are commonplace? It is all about the quality of the coverage in independent, reliable sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:47, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Draft on Namespace: Markuann Smith

Hi there-- I made the necessary changes to a bio about Markuann Smith and posted it in namespace (draft) as I read it will be more visible there for review and other editors can weigh in. Yet, I haven't heard anything or received feedback. Is there another place that someone can suggest, so that the bio is more visible for review/approval?

01:47, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello. It looks like your draft was reviewed and declined on the 29th of July. If you feel like you've improved the article, you can submit it again, but there are a lot of submissions so it can take a long time (around 8 weeks) for your article to be reviewed.

I've looked at the reviewer comments and the draft, and I think that the article might benefit from further improvement before re-submission. The key issues are notability and sourcing, which Wikipedia has very strict rules for. Your article needs to have enough citations to prove that Markuann Smith is notable according to Wikipedia policy (see WP:GNG). This means that there needs to be significant coverage (e.g. full articles), in multiple reliable sources (respected publications like the New York Times are the best). Preferably, each significant claim (important facts like birth date/place, etc. that might be contested) should also be backed up by a reliable source. If you have any more questions, or if you want someone to look at the article again, feel free to contact me, either at my talk page or using one of the reply templates. Good luck with your article.— Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:27, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Citing a source more than once

I note that on many pages a source is cited more than once and the reference number remains the same, but the reference list recognizes the subsequent citations with a, b, c… How is this done? Anobium625 (talk) 02:37, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Anobium625. There are a number of ways to cite the same source multiple times in an article, but the way you7re seeing it done is explained in WP:REFNAME. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:48, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the prompt reply.Anobium625 (talk) 02:50, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Anobium625: there are a few ways to do this. Two ways I use are 1) giving the reference a name: "this is true<ref name="source">{{cite book|...}}</ref> and that is true<ref name="source" /> and 2) using {{sfn}} to give short references to a different page number within a reference I've already used. I'd be happy to help more if I can. You're welcome to ask a question on my talk page or at the teahouse. I've found referencing a surprisingly deep subject and the best way to learn it has been to look at the source of good articles. There are all kinds of tricks to pick up. › Mortee _talk 02:52, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, too! If I'm not successful, I'll get back to you for more help.Anobium625 (talk) 03:03, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Stanford Men's Volleyball Players

Your list of former Stanford Volleyball players omitted the name of John B. Licata. Mr. Licata was the team captain from 1953 to 1955 and the number one setter. He was chosen to play for the US National team in the 1955 Pan American Games in Mexico City.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.80.229.144 (talk) 12:56, 14 August 2018‎ (UTC)

We don't appear to have an article on Stanford University Men's Volleyball. We do have a category Category:Stanford Cardinal men's volleyball players. A category is a collection of existing articles, so someone would first have to write an article about John B. Licata. Rojomoke (talk) 05:54, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Duplicate in draft space

By chance, I noticed that someone's draft page, Draft:Data Mining in Social Media, is the exact topic of an existing article called social media mining. I need some guidance about what, if anything, is appropriate to help a fellow new editor out. Is it good etiquette to leave a note for this author simply calling attention to the existing article? I don't know whether that type of message would belong on the draft's talk page or the user's talk page. Thank you for the advice. Romhilde (talk) 04:35, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. You can just leave a note on the user's talk page. Since it's not submitted or in article space, there's nothing to do at the moment. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 04:36, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Abelmoschus Esculentus, for the incredibly fast reply. Romhilde (talk) 04:40, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome. Happy to help :) ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 04:42, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Performance fabrics

Need Help Hi! greetings of the day, Sir i have made few revisions and improvements,Please review the same, need help how to improve further.ThanksRajiv Sharma (talk) 04:57, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Rajiv Sharma I've moved your question from the Teahouse talk page to this page. The Teahouse talk page is for discussing things related to the running of the Teahouse; it's not really the place for posting questions such as this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:05, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

It appears that you are already discussing this at Talk:Performance fabrics#Performance fabrics with Roxy the dog. Article talk pages are usually the best places for such discussions because it makes it easier for other editors who might be interested in the subject matter to participate in the discussion. However, you need to be patient because editors occasionally get busy and might not immediately respond to your posts. Personally, although I think the changes you made were probably done in good faith, I don't think that huge image gallery you added to the article is really an improvement and actually makes the article worse than it would be without it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:15, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Creating a page

Hello ,

I want to create a page with our holy spiritual teacher from India , last I tried but it denied , why I can not create ??

regards Dave dharmendra — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dharmendra1311 (talk • contribs) 05:21:40 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello Dharmendra1311. Wikipedia articles have to meet some very strict criteria to be considered for inclusion, mostly the Wikipedia:Notability policy. Basically, your article needs to cite sources that are independent and reliable, such as a major news publication. To prove notability, there should be multiple citations (at least two), and the citations have to mention have to mention the subject of your article in detail (several paragraphs or a whole article, not just a passing mention). Consider consulting the guide at Wikipedia:Your first article for more assistance and if you have more questions about article creation, you can ask the experts at the Articles for Creation Help Desk. If you have any more questions, feel free to contact me on my talk page or using one of the reply templates. Good luck. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:36, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

How to improve article to get published

Hi,

I am working on my draft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:PlagiarismSearch

I have personally worked with grading students' papers and evaluating them through different plagiarism detection software. I am working on including various checkers in order to enrich Wikipedia, since I have seen a couple of them presented here like Unicheck, Turnitin and others.

Could you please tell me how can I improve my article? I realize that more full coverages are needed rather than mentions. I have to extend my research. Anything else?

Thank you for your help. Regards, Kelsey.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Kelsey2848939 (talk • contribs) 16:19, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion the article Plagiarism detection, which you link to in your draft, covers the topic adequately without naming any of the companies that make and market plagiarism detection software, so I see no need for an article about one brand. If you must, then the articles about the companies you mention - Turnitin and Unicheck - are good models. Just don't plagiarize. David notMD (talk) 08:05, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

infobox

how can i add the infobox to the article— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rollback95 (talk • contribs) 16:35, 14 August 2018 (UTC)‎

Hi Rollback95. An infobox is almost always template which will display various bits of information depending upon how you fill in its various parameters. There are variouse types of infobox templates which have been created by Wikipedia editors and you can find out more about how they are used at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes and Help:Infobox as well as what types there are at Wikipedia:List of infoboxes. The important thing to remember with templates is that they will only work as they have been set up to work; in other words, you need to use the parameters specifically designated for use with the template as they were intended to be used. If you try to add your own parameters to an infobox or use the designated ones incorrectly, the template will not work properly or at least not as you want it to. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:05, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Need help to correct info on my wiki page

Can Someone recommend who can assist in updating adding to my wiki page and photos PLEASE ASSIST warmly Robert