Wikipedia:Teahouse

Welcome to the Teahouse...                        

A friendly place to learn about editing Wikipedia.

Click here to
ask a question

331dot, a Teahouse host

Question forum

Host profiles

Guest profiles

Experienced editor? Become a host!

Learn more about the Teahouse

Articles to improve

Question archive

Guest archive

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

Help Wikipedia

help with tagged page

since May 2018 a page, I contributed quite a bit, contains an {{Excessive citations}} tag. I have no idea how to handle this and added some questions about it on the talk page, but I don't know how to draw a little bit more attention to it. Treutwein (talk) 13:17, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello Treutwein and welcome to the Teahouse. You may read Wikipedia:Citation overkill#How to trim excessive citations. Regards —AE (talk • contributions) 13:23, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

@AE: thanks for the pointer. I do not see any necessity for removing citations. My opinion and the opinion of another contributor to the page is that this tag given by Accoun1, who has no talk page and appears to be a tag bomber, can be ignored. In the meantime the other contributor deleted the tag. Treutwein (talk) 09:40, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Addendum: Accoun1 was active between May/9th and July/27,2018 and no more contributions since then.Treutwein (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Feedback on article draft

Hello,

My first article posted to AFC was denied, and a note on my Talk page suggested that I ask for help here. Here's the article and reviewer notes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Justina_Blakeney I'd love feedback on how to make it more neutral. I tried to just stick to the facts and use neutral language, so maybe a more experienced editor can help me figure out what went wrong. Thanks, CharlieIsOrange (talk) 17:39, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Upon looking at it, I believe there's a bigger problem than the promo tone. That tone can hardly be avoided with the sources you have. Save one, all the sources are based on interviews with the subject of the article. And the one that isn't is a blurb from her Alma mater's newsletter. Notability is required to have an article on Wikipedia, and notability requires independent sources. Interviews are not independent. One's alumni newsletter is not independent. John from Idegon (talk) 18:11, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, John. I see that most of the sources do have a Q&A portion or seem to be based on one interview by the subject. However, most of the notable information in the sources appears before the Q&A. I would think that publications such as Forbes and the NYT would fact check that information. Is it still not allowed? Is information that appears alongside an interview automatically disqualified because it isn't third-party? Or, if she is interviewed and quoted for an article, does it mean that article is not third-party? Just trying to understand the rules.

Here are some sources that I don't think are interviews, but that could change depending on your answers to the above:

• https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/23/realestate/justina-blakeney-feel-good-home.html
• https://www.laweekly.com/arts/designer-justina-blakeney-says-welcome-to-the-jungalow-6878477
• http://www.homeaccentstoday.com/article/546390-justina-blakeney-creates-patternrich-home-fabric-collection/
• http://www.lonny.com/Scout+Out/articles/_gM2Nxp1oxg/Yes+Justina+Blakeney+Launching+Kids+Collection

And then this Forbes article, which contains an interview but has a lot of information before they get to the Q&A: https://www.forbes.com/sites/karineldor/2017/12/05/how-jungalows-founder-cultivated-an-online-following-of-over-2-million-fans/#e911cda10fd3

Thanks for your guidance, CharlieIsOrange (talk) 18:18, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

CharlieIsOrange - You were close, but a few things got you dinged for promotionalsim. I did some minor clean up, removed the most promotional info, added some additional info with sourcing, and resubmitted the draft. Word of caution - there's a bias here against social media follower counts being used for notability, so it's better to leave that info out. It will also help if you create a user page so your name isn't redlinked. If you're rejected again, it'll be for needing more sourcing, but what's there now looks sufficient. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:16, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Timtempleton, thank you! This is incredibly helpful information. I've reviewed your edits to my article and I understand why you made them. Thank you for taking the time. I will put something on my user page. CharlieIsOrange (talk) 18:29, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Fredericka Foster

Re: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fredericka_Foster Hello, I published this article awhile ago. The first iteration was taken down due to issues so I reworked it. Just went back to check on the article and cleaned up the old external links. There are three maintenance template notices at the top of the article about issues that I addressed, all but the one about the external links, before I even published the second version. In fact I thought I had removed the first two notices with the rewrite but I guess not. So now all three notices are no longer valid and you can see that I noted the changes in the revision history. I went through the instructions on how to remove the notices at wiki/Help:Maintenance_template_removal twice. Still can't figure out how to remove the maintenance template. Could someone help me with that? Thank you. Ogmany — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ogmany (talk • contribs) 19:40, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Ogmany, welcome to Teahouse. I haven't checked whether they still apply because I don't think you're asking about that, but to remove the notices you just need to remove the three lines at the top of the article, here:

    {{notability|Biographies|date=October 2017}}
    {{COI|date=October 2017}}
    {{external links|date=October 2017}}

Hope this helps › Mortee _talk 21:51, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

BUT, yes capital letters, the person who created the article that led to other editors adding templates is NOT the person who should be removing the templates. If the article has been enough improved, someone else will do that. In this case, 'The' removed one template. You should not remove the other two. David notMD (talk) 00:33, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I take it "The" above means Theroadislong and "you" means Ogmany. I agree that COI templates certainly shouldn't be removed by the subject of the WP:COI claim. If I'd looked at this more closely than offering purely practical advice I'd have said the same. Notability, probably the same because any claimed COI is a suggestion that one might over-value a subject. Purely in practice, if you see inappropriate maintenance templates on subjects you're not [suggested to be] related to, and you're confident in your judgement, that's the way to do it. › Mortee _talk 00:50, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

The "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject." tag can be removed once the apparent conflict of interest has been managed (see WP:COI) and the article has been checked for neutrality by an unconnected editor. The editor who performed the check can then remove the {{COI}} template. The {{connected contributor}} template that I added to the talk page can be to keep track of such checks for neutrality. Vexations (talk) 02:06, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Yikes! I just realized that I was the one who added the maintenance templates back in. This is what happens to a dyslexic on text and wiki. Did it yesterday. You can see it all there in the history. Have been Wiki obsessing lately because I was getting slightly more facile with it and trying to improve my articles. Somehow I mixed up the maintenance template notices from the earlier Foster article and added them back in, you can see it on my second edit of yesterday, August 27. You can also see where I had originally addressed the maintenance templates on October 6, 2017. Went back and changed it but the conscientious editor Vexations (talk) removed it. Could you check this out and revert it back? You can see the last version, before I went all cockeyed, on June 27. The tag or whatever you call it in brackets, Orphan|date=June 2018, is right there at the top of the article, like it should be and it had been reviewed earlier. Am pretty sure that works it all out but I reserve the right to to double check this tomorrow. Sorry about this. Thank you for the help and patience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ogmany (talk • contribs) 02:46, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Ogmany I'll have a look tomorrow. Please note that If you've been paid two write Fredericka Foster you must declare your conflict of interest. See WP:PAID. If you do not have a conflict of interest, could you please explicitly say so? Some of your contributions look like paid content. --Vexations (talk) 03:11, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Vexations I have no conflict of interest. Actually, I have had that issue come up before. Early on in Wiki I thought it was due to my writing style and that I used too many qoutations. Why would you ask? What is it in my writing that is of concern? Would appreciate the insight so I can correct it.Ogmany (talk) 14:12, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Ogmany Thanks for clarifying. I've removed the tags. As for why I asked, I think that saying that someone has a COI is describing a situation, not a judgment about that person's state of mind or integrity. It can be managed if dealt with properly. Why I thought that might apply to you is simply that the tag was there, and I thought I'd ask. As you note, other editors may have raised similar concerns because some of your writing has a promotional tone. Jean-Pierre Boccara for example, says things like "seminal clubs", "groundbreaking acts", "excellent cuisine", "critically acclaimed", "notable accolades" and "covered in media outlets". Regarding that last point; I'm not a fan of pointing out that a subject has been covered in the media. I'm interested in what the media have to say, not the fact that they have been covered, which is a basic requirement for an article, not something that is in itself notable. I often see things like that in articles about subjects that are not or marginally notable, and it's sometimes used by paid editors to hide the fact that the sources don't really have anything substantial to say about the subject. Vexations (talk) 21:21, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Inserting photo into the infobox with informal license from the author

Hello all, I am editing my first wikipedia article in a decade (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Judit_S%C3%A1ndor), and I want to insert a photo of the person into the infobox on the right. The author of the photo (https://vegeldaniel.com/portrait) has given me permission informally, in an email, but has not uploaded the image into the Wikipedia Commons for easy and officially licensed use. This is where the photo appeared in public, it says "Image credit: CEU/Daniel Vegel" – How should I proceed? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miksa.v (talk • contribs) 03:28, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Miksa.v. To be frank, this informal authorization by email is worthless on Wikipedia/Wikimedia projects. By far the easiest solution is for the copyright holder to upload the image to Wikimedia Commons under an acceptable free license. It is possible to do this on paper, but that process is tricky, very slow and will be rejected for any errors in the paperwork. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:43, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

• Just for refrence, the same question was also asked at WP:MCQ#Inserting photo into the infobox with informal license from the author. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:39, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you both. I have prepared the formal email letter in the name of the author of the image – he responded positively but has not yet sent it to the Wikimedia Commons email address. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miksa.v (talk • contribs) 19:00, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Batchas, Questions About Draft, and a Rant

I reviewed Draft:Batchas and declined it, saying that the draft did not specify how the subject met musical notability. I noted that, although there were footnotes to the discography listings, there were no sources for the description of the artist’s career. User:Myringa then replied on my talk page: “Hello I'd like to know what makes the page I created for an artist I admire, less elligible than this one:Deutsch Nepal? Could you help me please understand. Thank you in advance Best regards Morda”. I have a request, which is for other experienced editors to review the draft and comment on whether it should be accepted, and a comment that is sort of in the nature of a rant.

Many new editors come to Wikipedia and want to contribute to the encyclopedia by writing one new article. This may not be the best way to get involved in Wikipedia, because writing a new article, with its references, is the hardest task that there is for an editor. It would normally be more prudent to take on some role in improving some of the 5.6 million articles that we already have rather than providing one article that we do not have. (Actually, many of those editors have a reason for focusing on one article, and that is a conflict of interest. However, many good-faith editors also think that writing one new article is the way to become involved in Wikipedia.)

Also, some new editors, having decided that they do want to write one new article, decide to use an existing article as their model or prototype. They then ask why their contribution didn’t pass and the existing article did. It may not be the best approach to try to model a new article after a specific existing article. There may be some subtle difference that a new editor doesn’t see. Or the existing article maybe really shouldn’t have been accepted. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which is not an argument in favor of accepting or keeping an article. Sometimes the other stuff shouldn’t exist. In the case in point, the existing article has no references, and should be tagged as having no references. Using an existing article as a prototype or model isn’t always the best strategy.

So what I can help the author to understand may be, first, that the draft is inadequately sourced, and, second, that using an existing article as a model is not always the best approach.

Thoughts?

Robert McClenon (talk) 19:04, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Looking at other articles can be a good way to get ideas for how to structure an article, but that's not the issue here. The article looks pretty good. It was rejected because it doesn't show how notable the subject is. Comparing with another article is a risky way to judge that. In the case of Deutsch Nepal, it was begun in 2006 when things were (I assume) quite different. If it came through AfC in its current state it would be rejected too, for having no references, either to establish the facts or demonstrate notability. I agree with your rejection of Draft:Batchas on similar grounds. While it does have references, they're only for the discography section. All but two of the references are to Discogs which, because it's crowd-sourced, is not reliable. One is to a Wikipedia article, which has the same problem, as well as being circular. The last is this, which is a bare mention. It might be OK for verifying a fact, but it can't establish notability because it's not in-depth and, as it's from a record label, it's not independent of the subject. I don't see anything in the article that, if referenced, would in itself prove notability under WP:MUSICBIO, so the author should be looking for in-depth coverage in newspapers, reliable websites and so on (WP:GNG). Hopefully this helps them to understand the issue, and they'll be able to solve it. › Mortee _talk 19:31, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I will mildly disagree, as I have often advised an editor to take a look at other articles as a model. However I usually direct them to find something relevant at GA. If they pick something that just barely meets our guidelines and follow a little short they will be understandably disappointed, or worse, if they choose something as a model that should've been deleted but has escaped our attention. Obviously, a new article doesn't have to live up to GA standards to be acceptable, but if you aim high and miss a bit, you probably will create something that's worthy of inclusion.

I do agree with the advice that a brand-new editor starting to start their editing career by creating a new article from whole cloth is a bad idea. I'm trying to come up with the ideal metaphor, but I'm thinking of something along the lines of saying this is like deciding to take up jogging, buying a new pair of shoes and entering yourself in a marathon. Not the right way to start.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:26, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I assume that you mean buying a new $200 pair of shoes and entering a marathon. Buying a new $80 pair of shoes isn't a bad idea, at least if you don't try to run a 15K in them. You need shoes anyway. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:46, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that User:Sphilbrick and I disagree about existing articles. I think that we agree that if you pick a random businessperson or musician or small company, you will likely be picking a topic that will never be a Good Article, because you can't make a Good Article out of a marginally notable subject. The editors that I have dealt with who picked a model article typically picked a marginal subject for the article. I don't think that we disagree much. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:46, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, as I suspected I think you and I are pretty much on the same page regarding use of existing articles as models. I was just mildly concerned that your statement could be read as implying that looking at an existing article is never a good idea and I think it can be, but one should avoid marginally accepted articles as models.

Regarding my metaphor I guess I have to work on it. As someone who has run marathons, although very much in my past, I have poked fun at people who decide to run a marathon and get a new pair shoes for the big event. Choose a much better today than they were when I was running marathons but back then one definitely needed to break the men and you didn't want to break them in with a marathon. However, that wasn't my point. I'm thinking about somebody who doesn't run at all and decides to take up running. One ought to start with short distances and a slow pace. You don't decide to take up jogging and pick a marathon for your first attempt at running. Maybe I should drop the reference to the shoes as that was misleading.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:53, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I think Robert hit on the problem in his OP. A new user who comes here with the desire to write an article on a specific subject most times is motivated, whether due to COI or more pure motivation, by a desire to in some way (again not always bad-faith) to publicize the subject, not improve the encyclopedia. Hence, when searching out an article for a model, they purposely choose what we would call a poor article, as they are looking for the lowest bar they can jump to get their article published. Is there a solution? Maybe. Language could be added to MFA about how to choose a model article. Perhaps language should be added to the automated rejections for notability discussing the concept of OSE. John from Idegon (talk) 22:55, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure it helps to suggest an editor isn't motivated by improving the encyclopedia, much less that they cherry-pick bad examples. I expect they're trying to make an improvement, they just don't understand what it takes to meet the bar we insist on about provable noteworthiness [edit: and that not all existing articles have been properly vetted against it]. I like the idea of adding to WP:Your first article. I've only skimmed it recently, but I don't see any suggestion there about looking at other articles for inspiration. That would be helpful, and it could include advice about which articles to choose, and the WP:OSE issue. › Mortee _talk 23:17, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

S Philbrick, I agree with the nuance you added about looking at Good Articles. The article's presentation benefited a lot from looking at the (not Good) article mentioned; the notability claim didn't because there was nothing to benefit from. As for the metaphor, I like it (maybe without the shoes). I'm sure chefs are another option... maybe trying to bake a soufflé without getting some egg-breaking practice first? Doesn't quite work, but I swear there's something there. A surgeon working on live bodies before cadavers would be apt but unnecessarily grisly... it's harder than I expected to come up with a golden one. › Mortee _talk 23:17, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, no, live articles would be more like live bodies in that situation. Maybe a builder trying to make a house from scratch, without trying DIY improvements. › Mortee _talk 23:52, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm, I like the souffle example, and maybe the builder example.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:25, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Sphilbrick - I agree that breaking in a new pair of athletic shoes in competition (e.g., running shoes in a 10K or marathon) isn't a good idea. Break them in in practice before competing in them. Of course, buying a new pair of walking shoes is seldom a bad idea, and you can always use your running shoes or basketball high-tops or cross-trainers as walking shoes. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:39, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

How to create/translate an official wikipedia page from an other language?

To whom it may concern,

I'm writing to enquire about how to create an official wikipedia page for a Hungarian youth association, Fekete Sereg. This association has very good fame in Europe due to works with the EU. I had already created a Hungarian article about it, and I decided to create an other one in English. I tried to translate with the official page, but it didn't work.

Sorry for the disturbing, and thank you for your help in this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Csasza28 (talk • contribs) 21:35, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Also posted at Wikipedia:Help_desk#How_to_create/translate_an_official_wikipedia_page_from_an_other_language? Meters (talk) 21:51, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Csasza28, Welcome to the tea house. Have you looked at: Wikipedia:Translation and Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English?--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:56, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

@Csasza28: I've worked on a few articles translated from their other language counterparts. You may simply create the article, and translate the contents while inquiring for the assistance of WikiProject Hungary using this template Template:Expert needed, and place this template Template:Expand language on the top of the article as well. Rosalina2427 ^{(talk to me)} 22:31, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Csasza28, and welcome to the Teahouse. It might help you to understand what is going on if you realise that there is no such thing as "an official page for" any organisation on English Wikipedia. (I suspect the same is true of other Wikipedias as well, but they may have different rules.) If English Wikipedia has an article about your organisation, it will not belong to the organisation, it will in no sense be "official" for the organisation, and it will not necessarily say what the organisation wishes to be said. Rather, it should be almost entirely based on what people who have no connection with the organisation have chosen to publish about it - including material critical of the organisation, if that happens to exist. If you have a connection with the organisation, you should read about editing with a conflict of interest before you attempt to work on the article. --ColinFine (talk) 09:08, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Many edits?

If I'm making heavy editing on an article, can I make many edits or is it better to do just 1 or two edits? AGF (talk) 22:30, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

@Agf2: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. While it's personal preference, you should save periodically to make sure the edits are saved, especially if there is heavy editing by other users on the article as well. Rosalina2427 ^{(talk to me)} 22:33, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much. AGF (talk) 22:40, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Agf2, two further thoughts: 1) making lot of small edits can also help if disagreements arise. It makes it clearer what your thinking was (through edit summaries) and if you do get reverted, it will be a small part of your work, not the whole thing. 2) Your user name happens to be very similar to a commonly cited Wikipedia guideline, AGF. Your signature looks confusing because of that. Might you consider picking a different name, or at least changing your signature to include the 2? Welcome to Wikipedia, and all the best. › Mortee _talk 23:23, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Extreme example, but in effort to bring Luna moth to Good Article status, about 100 edits before the review started and 100 after. David notMD (talk) 01:23, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

@Agf2: While I would encourage newer editors to make small edits while they learn their way around Wikipedia, it's really a matter of personal preference between making small or large edits. One consideration when making a major overhaul or expansion of an article is that the intermediary stages may be a bit messy, disorganized, or contradictory. This may lead to edit conflicts as other editors try to clean up the intermediary stages while you're still working on the article. One solution is to put a template like {{under construction}} or {{in use}} at the top of the article (or section) so readers and editors will know you're working on it and that it may not not be entirely accurate moment-to-moment. Another solution is to do the editing in a sandbox, moving it to the article when you're finished. With the sandbox approach, you can also invite other editors to check your work and build consensus for the changes, if they might be controversial.

I hope this helps! – Reidgreg (talk) 13:22, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much for all answers, I got it clearly. AGF (talk) 23:31, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Article's rating query

I came across a very short, two paragraph, article that is "B CLASS" rated how can this be corrected to Unassessed or another appropriate classification, here is the article: Bhadreshkumar_Chetanbhai_Patel. Vwanweb (talk) 07:02, 30 August 2018 (UTC).

Welcome to the Teahouse, Vwanweb. Article ratings are assigned on each article's talk page. You can edit the wikicode at Talk:Bhadreshkumar Chetanbhai Patel to change the rating. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:30, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Question

Can we create our own page at wikipedia if so please leave the answer for me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samar Baniya (talk • contribs) 07:05, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Samar Baniya. Please read and study Your first article. You should not think of your work here as "our own page" because any article you write can be edited by other people at any time. Take a close look at Conflict of interest as well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:24, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

@Samar Baniya: Your sandbox also appears to be an autobiography, which is something we highly discourage. Please realize that Wikipedia is not social media or a personal website. However, you can write a little bit about yourself on your user page. The user page guidelines detail what type of content is and is not considered acceptable. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:40, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

How long it take for an Article to be approved?

I have Published an article on 27 Aug and then made few minor changes on 29 Aug, the page is still in my sandbox and not visible in Wikipedia search. Can you tell me how long it takes for an article to be approved and actually gets published? Is there any way to expedite the process?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Omar Mahmood Hayat (talk • contribs)

You didn't publish an article, you wrote a user sandbox draft. You removed the {{User sandbox}} template in an edit in July. That template includes the button to submit the draft for review, so I have reinserted the template. Before you submit for review, please read the advice at WP:Your first article, and also the advice against trying to create an autobiography. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:26, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

@Omar Mahmood Hayat: The process takes roughly 8 weeks, but doesn't start until you have submitted it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:14, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Which references are notability references and which references should be deleted.

Hi,

I have a draft on Jasmin - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jasmin_(website) and I would like to know which of my references are notability references and should stay on my draft and which have to be deleted immediately from the draft due to them being press releases (or other reasons). Additionally, in addition to the notability references, I have also added some links from where I have taken some information for the draft. However if you objective is to publicise a subject, you should instead use a site such as Facebook where that would be acceptable.

The links that I am using are as follows :

http://www.blikk.hu/sztarvilag/sztarsztorik/titkairol-vallott-a-magyar-milliardos-gattyan-gyorgy/kt0slmk

https://avn.com/business/articles/video/class-of-2017-the-new-inductees-into-the-avn-hall-of-fame-707363.html

http://popcrush.com/flo-rida-hey-jasmin-video/

http://www.itone.lu/actualites/gyorgy-gattyan-simple-recipe

https://civilhetes.net/a-playboy-tv-t-veri-gattyan-uj-csatornaja

https://www.channelnomics.com/channelnomics-us/news/2370385/figure-the-odds-sex-site-offers-it-cure-for-jezebel-s-porn-problem

https://www.ivy.com/events/la-art-night-a-private-preview-meeting-jasmin

https://redhot-society.com/meeting-jasmin/

http://www.payoutmag.com/event-calendar/

Now i have some major queries as I have been getting different advice everytime I log on to live chat.

Some told me that I need to have 2-3 notability references and the rest of the articles can be other articles in case I need to attribute certain sentences to a source. Some told me that each of my references need to be anotability reference. Additionally I am having some trouble figuring out if some of the articles are press releases released by organizations other than ours. I would really really appreciate if someone could actually help me on this rather than giving me generic or conflicting advice. Many thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by BelliniGirl (talk • contribs) 09:59, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

BelliniGirl: what you write above shows confusion on your part. If your objective is to improve Wikipedia, I suggest that you choose a simpler task than trying to create a new article, particularly one on a topic of doubtful notability.

I'll try to answer some of your questions. Every questionable statement in an article should by attributed to a reliable independent published source. Ideally, every statement should be attributed to a reliable published source. To establish notability, you will need several references to reliable independent published source with in-depth discussion of the subject (not like the second one you list above).

You also appear confused about what you're trying to write about. Some of the sources you list above are about a person, some are about a web site. Maproom (talk) 10:42, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

"...released by organizations other than ours." To me, this indicates a paid relationship to the company in question. if true, have you complied with WP:PAID? It appears that you have tried to put that on your User page, but need formatting help. I recommend that PAID also be added to the Talk page of the draft article.

I agree with Maproom that many of the references in the draft do not meet Wikipedia's definition: a rapper's song, a mention at a list of AVN awards, an artshow... David notMD (talk) 11:10, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Is it a good idea to publish wikipedia page for "Aubrey Chernick"?

Aubrey Chernick, 68, is a Canada-born, recognized software entrepreneur in the United States. He is the founder of Candle Corporation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Momentouspov (talk • contribs) 10:09, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

These sources 1 2 3 suggest to me that he's notable enough to justify creation of an article. Maproom (talk) 10:52, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Excessive non-notable list

It is becoming obvious that there is a COI at this article: Sally Struthers in the section Stage. Not every appearance is notable; and now that the BLP's career has been reduced to "summer stock" at a theater in Maine (Ogunquit), someone keeps listing every show she does there. I'd like to clean up this section (and maybe the other 2 as well); but would like the WP policy to support cleaning up the unnecessary listings. Not sure if it is simply undue weight? Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 11:50, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Maineartists. You can be WP:BOLD or WP:CAUTIOUS, but before you do either you might want to take a look at WP:LSC for general guidance and also check to see if this has been previously discussed at Talk:Sally Struthers (you may need to dig through the archives if there are any). If a consensus has been previously established to include all of these mentions, then you should be CAUTIOUS and try to establish a new one if you feel there's a need. A consensus can change over time per WP:CCC, but you shouldn't just unilaterally decide to void it without a really strong policy/guideline based reason for doing so. At the same time, if all of this information has been just recently added without really any discussion, then maybe being BOLD is best. Just make sure you leave a clearly worded edit sum explaining why (best to cite a relevant policy or guideline if possible) and then possibly following up with a talk page post as well. If another editor comes along and reverts your change, follow WP:DR and avoid edit warring no matter how right you think you are. Sometimes a good place to ask about these kinds of things are on the talk pages of relevant WikiProjects, so you might want to try asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Theatre, etc. for opinions. Even better would be to use {{Please see}} so as to keep all relevant discussion on the article's talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:31, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Marchjuly Wow. Thanks so much for taking the time to explain all this. I will certainly take your advice and study my options before proceeding. Thanks again. Maineartists (talk) 12:58, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Draft: Zidane Hamid

I had created an article of a child prodigy Zidane Hamid on July 13 2018 and it is still not published. I want it to be reviewed and want to know its status that how long it will take to publish.

I have deleted the draft. It was, I am sorry to say, utterly unsuitable for inclusion in Wikipedia; the entire page was one of the most horrific examples of puffery that I have seen in all my years here. While Zidane Hamid might be a suitable topic for a Wikipedia article, what you had written was unsalvageably promotional. It would require a complete re-write, from scratch, to stand any chance of being reviewed and accepted. Yunshui ^雲_水 14:08, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

New Article after deletion

I have just created a new article of child prodigy Zidane Hamid after its previous draft deletion. I want to know its status that how much time it will take to be published — Preceding unsigned comment added by Missionary Muslim (talk • contribs) 14:50, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello Missionary Muslim and welcome to the Teahouse. Since it is in the mainspace, it is considered "published" as an article. —AE (talk • contributions) 14:58, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

But i dont find it in google search when i type article name and wikipedia. And it is not found in wikipedia search suggestion when i type inside wikipedia search. When it will be visible in google results and wikipedia search suggestions — Preceding unsigned comment added by Missionary Muslim (talk • contribs) 15:19, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Missionary Muslim It takes time for search engines to index pages. Please be patient. Is there a particular reason you are eager for the article to be seen? 331dot (talk) 15:23, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes because the subject of article is such an exceptional kid who is being searched in wikipedia frequently.

Please sign your comments by typing four of ~ at the end. What 333.dot was hinting at was whether you have any connection to Zidane Hamid. Do you know the child personally? Are you a family member or manager/promoter? David notMD (talk) 15:29, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I have no personal connection. I found on search engine this keyword has been searched frequently like Zidane Hamid Biohraphy, Zidane hamid Wiki, that's why I created this article when i thoroughly searched about him Missionary Muslim (talk) 15:37, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I have created an article of child prodigy Zidane Hamid who is notable for wikipedia biography. It was published yesterday, now it has been nominated for deletion. I want to know its reason and suggestions for its improvement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Missionary Muslim (talk • contribs) 08:08, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Missionary Muslim The user who nominated the page for deletion gave their reason in the deletion discussion. Please contribute to the discussion if you have questions. 331dot (talk) 08:12, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Images in Infobox Company template

What Do I need to do to add images in the fields in the Infobox Company template? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cofeebk23 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Cofeebk23, welcome to the Teahouse. If it's a logo, you need to add |logo=, |logo_alt=, |logo_caption=. If it's a different image, it's the same but with "image" instead of "logo". But note, only images hosted on Wikipedia or on Wikimedia Commons can be included. Images on Commons need to be free-use, i.e. not copyrighted. The Commons FAQ page is useful for that. For Wikipedia, fair-use images are allowed, including logos. You need to be careful to explain the fair-use rationale. See also WP:Image use policy and WP:Uploading images. Hope this helps. › Mortee _talk 22:01, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Unsure why my article was rejected

Hi, I am a new editor and wrote an article on a fairly new organization that seemed interesting to me. I utilized all the information I could find about the organization online and I was wondering if I can get some assistance in getting the article accepted. Please see the draft below.

thank you, Kareem

misplaced draft

Draft Overview The International Association of Innovation Professionals (IAOIP) is the world’s only innovation certification body, providing members with the knowledge, skills, and opportunities to deliver real change in their industry or field. IAOIP is the only innovation certification body following the “requirements for certifying bodies” as prescribed by ISO. The GISH (Global Innovation Science Handbook) is internationally awarded handbook. The Body of Innovation Knowledge (BoIK) was developed and is maintained by members through a transparent and democratic process that assures everyone the opportunity to contribute. The BoIK is the scientifically-anchored worldview of your peers and professionals from the community of practice. The Certified Professional Innovator (CPI) - Base Level exam, the Certified Design for Innovation exam, Tools and Techniques, Certified Chief Innovation Officer, and Certified Manager of Innovation exam are currently offered, with additional certifications under development within the working committees. Members are can sit for these on-line exams at their convenience. History Innovation has been a buzz word thrown around by industry and academic professionals alike, however there’s been no scientific evidence to support their claims. For over 10 years, Dr. Brett Trusko (Texas A&M), Dr. Abram Walton (Florida Institute of Technology) and Dr. Joseph Nadan (New York University) founded and edited the International Journal of Innovation Science, where they curated research papers pertaining to the art, science and practice of innovation. During this period, they noticed that there were many individuals claiming to be innovation professionals at a time when there was almost no university training in the discipline. During the summer of 2012, they debated on the idea of creating a stand-alone handbook that contained the scientific information that every innovation practitioner should know. The book is based on the contribution of a community of innovators and everything that enters the book must be vetted before entering. Due to the success and interest of the Global Innovation Science Handbook, in 2013 the trio founded and launched the International Association of Innovation Professionals. The association was created to maintain a standard for innovation knowledge across the world. With this goal, in 2015 their Certified Professional Innovator (CIP) certification was launched in February of 2015. To date, they have over 10,000 members in over 100 countries. Over 400 members currently hold certifications in various disciplines of innovation and the organization continues to grow. Global Innovation Science Handbook The Global Innovation Science Handbook(GISH) was developed by the editors of the International Journal of Innovation Science and features contributions from more than 40 innovation experts and thought leaders. The GISH presents a proven approach for understanding and implementing innovation in any industry. This pioneering work is based on a defined body of knowledge that includes intent, methodology, tools, and measurements. It challenges the popular paradigm that "learned" innovation is impossible, and lays out a systematic process for developing innovation skills. Each chapter can be independently read and utilized in the daily practice of innovation. Real world case studies from financial, governmental and educational sectors illustrate the concepts discussed in this definitive resource. Authors of the GISH, include Richard B. Green, Steven G. Parmelee, Praveen Gupta, Brett Trusko, Laszlo Gyroffy, Michael Grieves, Ellen Di Resta, Heather McGowan, Melissa Sterry, Klaus Solberg Soilen and Jorn Bang Anderson and many more. Credentials Since being founded in 2015, IAOIP was chartered to follow the requirements of the ISO 17024 standard for bodies operating to certify individuals. IAOIP, is the only innovation certification organization that is qualified to be an ISO accredited certifying body for innovation. The organization is currently preparing for ISO accreditation under this standard. Current Certifications Include: Certified Professional Innovator Certified Management of Innovation Design Thinking Methods and Tools Certified Chief Innovation Officer Other Programs The IAOIP Academy The IAOIP Academy was developed for IAOIP members to receive education in innovation utilizing an on-line format. To date, there are approximately 100 courses in the system, but can only be accessed by members of the IAOIP. Education Program Accreditation (EPA) IAOIP Education Program Accreditation is a peer-review process which confirms that an institution’s innovation education or related program has been carefully assessed and that its scale, scope, and quality conform to a comprehensive international standard. It makes a public statement about the deep commitment of the institution and its faculty to ongoing evaluation and continuous quality improvement. Preferred Education Provider The Preferred Education Provider Program was created to establish a global network of qualified education providers for individuals and organizations seeking innovation education training. Preferred Education Provider s are given the rights to the use of IAOIP intellectual property when teaching innovation education. Preferred Education Providers can help individuals and organizations prepare for IAOIP’s certification exams. They can also help organizations and professionals earn Professional Development Units (PDUs). Working Groups IAOIP working groups continue to define innovation capabilities, improve our professional Global Innovation Science Handbook (“GISH”), and create and administer overall and specialized certifications in innovation. Our call to action is based on the desire of organizations to qualify employees and new hires, and for academic and other training institutions, and consultants to prepare individuals to undertake management and leadership positions in innovation. Webinars IAOIP also produces several webinars, that are lead from some of the most sought out consultants and speakers in the industry. These webinars are pre-recorded and are posted periodically on their website. Previous speakers include Robert B. Tucker and Evan Shellshear. To sign up for current webinars, please visit the IAOIP website: - https://www.iaoip.org/store/ListProducts.aspx?catid=528971 Conferences IAOIP has an annual conference, called Innova-Con, that celebrates innovation. Innova-Con allows for communication and collaboration among the best and brightest in the field. Where would the world be without the innovations that keep us moving forward. From smart phones, to taxi-disruption, to curbside grocery pickup, to the next big idea -- innovation continues to fuel our world and how we live in it. The goal is bridge the gap between the science and practice of innovation. The conference is focused on providing attendees with proven tools and techniques to launch, quantify and scale innovation in their organizations. Innova-Con allows for communication and collaboration among the best and brightest in the field. Together, we can continue to shape the field of innovation and move it forward as a recognized and structured discipline in business and academia. Previous Innova-Con speakers include Doug Collins, Langdon Morris, Brian Buckley, Dawn Gregory and Neville Thompson. References Category:Innovation

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kpjackson27 (talk • contribs) 16:57, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

This is about Draft:IAOIP - International Association of Innovation Professionals. Maproom (talk) 17:08, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Kpjackson27: your draft was rejected because it fails to demonstrate that its subject is notable. Indeed, it cites no sources at all. Please click on that blue link, and read Help:Referencing for beginners. Maproom (talk) 17:14, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

On High School Consolidations

So, let's say there are two high schools in a district... let's call them School A and School B. Now let's say that School A is shut down and consolidated into School B to make School C. Would you modify School B's article to make it about School C and mention that it used to be School B before the consolidation somewhere on the article, or would School C get its own, separate article? I've seen instances of both on here, so I'm unsure of what the general rule for this is. Finchwidget (talk) 17:51, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

• @Finchwidget: The question you have could be asked more generally in many situations of name change or topic scope change. The answer, to my knowledge, is that it depends. I would say that if the articles involved are short enough, and schools A/B do not have outstanding history, the first option (with a redirect from A/B to C) is probably best (e.g. Areva is a redirect to Orano, the new name of the company). On the other hand, if the articles are long enough to warrant a WP:SIZESPLIT, or if the topic is significantly different for some reason, then multiple articles are warranted (e.g. Rhodesia contains the details of a period of the history of the country Zimbabwe). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 09:28, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Adding images to Wikipedia pages

Hello, I am working on improving the pages on the Community Portal. I want to edit pages where 'an image' is required, but when I go to Wikimedia Commons, an image with that name or subject does not exist. I researched and saw that the images for that subject are available on Google. My question is: how do I make those images available on Wikimedia Commons from Google. --AlphaKGN (talk) 18:15, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid the answer is that you probably can't, AlphaKGN. The purpose of Wikimedia Commons is to make resources freely available for reuse, and so they will strictly accept only images that are either in the public domain, or have been explicitly released by their copyright owners under a suitable licence. Some images you find on the Internet meet these requirements, but the majority do not. If you do find a suitable image (it must explicitly say that it has been released under a suitable licence such as CC-BY-SA), you can upload it to Commons: see Help:Upload. --ColinFine (talk) 19:13, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

@ColinFine: thank you for the answer. How will I know that the image on the Internet is explicitly saying that it has been released under a suitable licence such as CC-BY-SA. Shall I look for images that are labeled for free usage?

That's probably worth doing, AlphaKGN; but I don't know how good the searches are on that. What you have to do is, having found an image, look for the copyright information for the image, or failing that, on the site generally. If you can't find any, the default assumption is that the image is copyright and can't be used. --ColinFine (talk) 21:15, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Noted, thanks @ColinFine:. I will try if I can find that information and reach out to you for guidance.

Matthieu LeChevalier

Hi. I updated a Wikipedia page for Matthieu_LeChevalier that was just being forwarded to another page. My Ruin. The revised page was up and running for a day and now it is gone. It does not even appear in my history... However you can see a cached version of it. The pages was cited with many reliable sources. Why is it gone? Does it need to be reviewed first? How do I get it back up?

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:3O1xNEIF0jUJ:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthieu_LeChevalier+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Joey6strings

Thank you, Joey6strings — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joey6strings (talk • contribs) 20:30, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Joey6strings: the article you created was removed by SshibumXZ, with the comment "still doesn't qualify WP:NMUSICIAN". If you want more details, you should ask SshibumXZ. Maproom (talk) 20:43, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

@Joey6strings: hi! Your page on Matthieu LeChevalier hasn't been removed, but redirected to another page viz. My Ruin with this edit of mine, this is so because—at the current moment—Matthieu LeChevalier doesn't meet either Wikipedia's general notability guidelines or Wikipedia's guidelines for musicians; what I'd advise for you to do is to create a draft on the subject and submit it for review if and when you think he meets either WP:GNG or WP:NMUSICIAN. Your stuff about LeChevalier, in its most updated form, can be found at this permanent link, just click on edit and copy the source to draftspace. Have a great one!
Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 23:39, 30 August 2018 (UTC); edited 23:41, 30 August 2018 (UTC).

Sidenote — Thanks, Maproom for the ping!
Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 23:39, 30 August 2018 (UTC); 23:41, 30 August 2018 (UTC).

Can I put a forum on the user page?

The Wikipedia article on what Wikipedia is not says that Wikipedia Article talk pages are not to be used as forums, however the talk page on South African farm attacks is becoming a debate. I was thinking I could move the debate sections to another page, but WP:NOTFORUM does not allow that. then I looked on the user page article, and it does not have WP:NOTFORUM under what should not go there. Could I move this discussion to a user page?Billster156234781 (talk) 20:52, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Billster156234781, welcome to Teahouse. It looks like the debate is about what to do with the article. That belongs on the article talk page. Besides, there are several people involved - whose talk page would you move it to? If it morphs into an argument about the situation itself, not what sources say and, on that basis, what to write, that could be a problem, but having the same discussion elsewhere won't improve it. It might be best to leave them to it for a while. This edit and this, your third and fourth edits on the encyclopedia, are your two comments there so far. It's difficult to resolve an argument between other people (though not impossible), especially when you're new to the project and its policies. Why not find something else to work on for a while, come back in a day or two and see if it's calmed down? If it has, perhaps whatever you'd like to contribute to the discussion will be easier then. If a conversation you are involved with really gets out of hand, see WP:Dispute resolution. › Mortee _talk 21:22, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: I've posted a question regarding this article to Wikipedia:Help desk. This is an ongoing and very charged discussion and may require admin involvement. Rosalina2427 ^{(talk to me)} 21:39, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, I admit i did make some comments about the tucker carlson show on the page, but it might be something to continue on a forum type site, like reddit.Billster156234781 (talk) 17:50, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Update: I've started a discussion regarding the talk page here on the administrators' noticeboard. Also, Teahouse editors, let me know if I'm wrong here, but Reddit does not seem to be an appropriate place to continue the debate, or even continue the attacks regarding the article at all. Rosalina2427 ^{(talk to me)} 02:52, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Is there a way to view a list of pages with issues that need editing?

It will make editing a lot easier for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TamamaTheFrog (talk • contribs) 21:37, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

@TamamaTheFrog: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I can recommend Wikipedia:Cleanup or Wikipedia:Typo Team. The former WikiProject is more for large-scale edits, but you may take a look at pages that require help from either project. Regards, Rosalina2427 ^{(talk to me)} 21:41, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

TamamaTheFrog there are also lots of categories of articles with specific types of problem. Three from my own to do list, in case they interest you: Category:Articles lacking sources, Category:Articles with empty sections, Category:Orphaned articles. There's a much longer list at WP:Maintenance § Maintenance and collaboration resources. › Mortee _talk 22:24, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

TamamaTheFrog I will add another suggestion: Go to Wikipedia:Community portal and scroll down to the Help Out section. There you will find links to articles that need help ("Fix spelling and grammar", "Fix wikilinks", etc.). They are grouped in nine categories, and the articles in each category change frequently. Eddie Blick (talk) 23:37, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Error on the page Asian Paints ltd

On the right hand side summary table , erroneously founders Founders are given as 'Bhupendra Nagrakar,shantam Arora,natu lawda'

while in the history , the correct version is given - The company was started in a garage in Mumbai by four friends Champaklal Choksey, Chimanlal Choksi, Suryakant Dani and Arvind Vakil in February 1945.

An obvious error! needs to be corrected 04:18, 31 August 2018 (UTC)165.225.106.65 (talk)

 Done Only edit by an unregistered user. In the future you can always make changes like this yourself, or, if you have a Conflict of Interest, request changes on the article's Talk Page. Rojomoke (talk) 06:19, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Help for resubmitting my article for "Lilium" (the VOTL company from Munich)

I recently submitted an article on Lilium, an eVOTL aviation company from Munich, but unfortunately it was denied. I'm into sustainable companies and trying to expand my skill set by learning how to be a wiki writer and I was wondering what I could do to improve the article so it gets approved next time around. There is already an approved article for the 'Lilium Jet' in German and similar products/companies have an approved Wikipedia page, so this is a topic gaining attention. Basically, the reviewer said it sounded like advertising. I've taken out the section for 'awards & nominations' and information about the team to make it completely neutral. Other than that I'm not sure what to improve and would like some tips about writing about a company/product so it is informative and not promoting the company. Please help! Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huytheca (talk • contribs) 07:57, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

@Huytheca: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The sources in the draft seem to largely be press releases or basic announcements, and not in depth coverage in independent reliable sources. Press releases and announcements are not appropriate for establishing notability per the notability guidelines at WP:ORG. The fact that you use the term "gaining attention" and (in the draft)"startup" suggests to me it is too soon for an article on this company. Companies must already be well known and established in order to merit an article here; Wikipedia cannot be used to increase the visibility of a business.

I would add that other language versions of Wikipedia(such as the German one) are separate projects with their own guidelines and policies, and a subject meriting an article on one does not necessarily mean it will here, too. 331dot (talk) 08:09, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi 331dot, thank you for your insight!

Huytheca I'll note that an article about the same subject already exists, as Lilium Jet. What typically happens is that an article that duplicates an existing topic is converted into a redirect. Sometimes the content is merged. I would add that as a reader, I find the aircraft far more interesting than the company. Perhaps you could focus on that. Vexations (talk) 12:10, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Why I cant create article ?

Hello every one I want create my article but wikipedia dont allow me to do this. Why reason ? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bukan1400 (talk • contribs) 08:15, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

@Bukan1400: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. New users must wait until they are what is called autoconfirmed in order to create articles; your account must be at least four days old and have at least 10 edits. You only have three edits that were all today. You may use Articles for Creation to submit drafts for review until then, or you may edit existing articles in areas that interest you and wait the four days. 331dot (talk) 08:19, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

If the article which you are trying to create is Draft:Kurdish Shepherd Dog, you need to realise that references need to be placed in the article text, see Help:Referencing for beginners. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:26, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I revised the one image gallery at the bottom to two galleries (photos of dogs; photos of bas-relief art), but the referencing still needs to be fixed per David Biddulph's recommendation. David notMD (talk) 15:33, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Change Article Title

I am working on behalf of a journal to update it's wikipedia and the article title only uses its former name before it was changed. How do I change the main title of the article?

Hello Shalaineduffy and welcome to the Teahouse. Before you continue to edit, please review WP:COI. Conflict of interest editing is strongly discouraged in Wikipedia and will usually result in your changes being reverted by another editor upon discovering that you have a conflict of interest. Please don't edit articles where you have these conflicts, as it makes edits to be article impossible to reflect a neutral point of view and will result in inadvertent and unpremeditated bias being added regardless of intent. However, you are welcome to propose changes on the article's talk page. Do you mean Thorax (journal)? —AE (talk • contributions) 08:51, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for that information. No it was no Thorax but another. I will not change any articles that I have those conflicts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shalaineduffy (talk • contribs) 09:05, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

@Shalaineduffy: Tobacco Control (journal), Open Heart (journal), Heart (journal) or Injury Prevention (journal)? —AE (talk • contributions) 09:08, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

The title of the journal is Journal of Family Planning and Reproductive Health Care and the new title is BMJ Sexual and Reproductive Health — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shalaineduffy (talk • contribs) 09:09, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done BMJ Sexual and Reproductive Health —AE (talk • contributions) 09:11, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

No subject

I am having difficulty getting to saved downloads. right now, i am looking for parapsycholoy relaing to the use nuclear weapons by insecure heads of governmemt — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chander perkash (talk • contribs) 08:47, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Umm...Chander perkash...What? GMG^talk 22:44, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Methionine Sulfoximine wrong phosphorylation mechanism

Hi guys, In my research I came upon the "Methionine Sulfoximine" page of wikipedia and noticed something strange in the phosphorylation mechanism (the only picture of the artile). I checked the reference (reference 2, Krajewski, W. W.; Jones, T. A.; Mowbray, S. L. (18 July 2005).) and could confirm that the displayed mechanism of phosphorylation is wrong (A small mistake, but to someone in the field it makes a big difference). I made a correct picture and tried to put in on the "Methionine Sulfoximine" article, but can't overwrite the old picture. I just created a Wikipedia account and never edited anything before. When I just try to upload a picture (google "wikipedia edit picture", first enty: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Upload/Replace_this_image), it says "Permission Error" since I am not an Autoconfirmed user, Administrator or Confirmed user. Can anyone help me to correct the mistake on the article? Thaks for the help! PatrickP94 — Preceding unsigned comment added by PatrickP94 (talk • contribs) 09:19, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

• @PatrickP94: Thank you for your (attempted) contribution. Short version: you should have tried at https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Upload&wpDestFile=Methionine_Sulfoximine.PNG&wpForReUpload=1, but there is better to do!

Long version: You met an admittedly confusing problem of image files, which is that there are two mechanisms to upload them depending on the copyright status. The image in the article is actually hosted at our sister project Wikimedia Commons, where you can upload a new version (on Commons, you can upload as long as you are logged in, no special permissions are needed). What you tried to do was upload locally on the English Wikipedia itself; this should be done only for files which are not freely-licensed (but only for those verifying a long list of criteria).

However, this is the procedure to replace a image with the same format. The old image is in .png format, that is, raster graphics. As the image is a diagram, it would be better to upload it as a vector graphics, in .svg format, if the software you used allows to export it as such. To do so:

1. Upload the .svg image to Wikimedia Commons (follow the instructions at [1]) under a new title (for instance Methionine sulfoximine phosphorylation mechanism.svg)
2. Change the image used in the Wikipedia article. To do so, go to Methionine sulfoximine, click "edit" next to the relevant section (here "Mechanism of action"), and find the image-placing wikicode: right now it is [[File:Methionine Sulfoximine.PNG|300px|thumb|left|Phosphorylation of MSO by glutamine synthetase.]]. The first part of that code is what tells the software which name the image has, so replace it by the name you gave when uploading: [[File:Methionine Sulfoximine.PNG(whatever you named your file at upload.svg)|300px|thumb|left|Phosphorylation of MSO by glutamine synthetase.]]

Please let us know if you have further issues, and feel free to give a look at the image tutorial. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 09:57, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

• @Tigraan: I followed your instructions and uploaded the .svg picture. Happy to have fixed the mechanistic mistake. Thank your for the quick response and detailed answer!

  @PatrickP94: Great! A few other pointers if you intend to stick around: you should sign your posts on talk pages by adding four tildes (~~~~) at the end, and have a look at indent to understand how to typeset your posts to indicate who you are answering to. You might also want to take a quick look at Template:Re and/or WP:PING to know how to grab someone's attention (you almost managed to do in the above post, but it did not work due to your failure to sign the post). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:45, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Issues trying to clean up article

I've tried to clean up some of the issues at People's Mujahedin of Iran article, but my edits have been continuously reverted by the same three editors despite me quoting from RS. The three editors that keep reverting me work together in many Islamic Republic of Iran-related topics, and one of them was recently blocked for POV-pushing/sockpupetry. I've added a RfC on the article's Talk page, where two users have supported my proposed edits, and one has opposed. Based on this, I'd like to include this info to the article, but the opposing editor will likely revert me again, as he's done in the past. I want to avoid edit-warring. Any advice? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:22, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

• You should probably let the RfC run its normal course. Yes, it means that a few bad-faith editors can easily derail a discussion and make it take much more time than needed, but a one-week old RfC with no clear consensus should not be decided by one of the RfC participants. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:50, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Tigraan, the RfC was filed on July 30th, and Legobot removed the RfC template as "expired" on August 29th. Thoughts? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:03, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

@Stefka Bulgaria: Oh, I misread the dates, I thought it was filed on August 30th. In that case, it is hard to say. You can try listing it at WP:ANRFC. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 10:19, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Tigraan, reading through WP:ANRFC's guidelines, the first point states that "Many discussions do not need formal closure and do not need to be listed here... if the consensus is clear, any editor—even one involved in the discussion—may close the discussion. The default length of a formal request for comment is 30 days; if consensus becomes clear before that and discussion has slowed, then it may be closed early." Since this particular case seems to meet these requirements (30 days have passed, and there is a majority vote supporting the change), am I right to think that the discussion can be closed and the text inserted into the article? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:56, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikilinks

Hi Teahouse folks, it's good to see you again. I had two general questions - how do I create a wikilink to a specific entry in the deletion log, and how do I link to a specific section of a specific revision of a page? (I'm aware of Special:Diff, which goes some way in helping, but doesn't exactly do the job.) Thanks in advance, Airbornemihir (talk) 13:36, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

@Airbornemihir:

1. AFAIK, it's not possible.
2. You put "#SECTION" after the revision link. Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse&oldid=857393165#Harassment

—AE (talk • contributions) 13:46, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Airbornemihir. A wikilink usually means a link made with [[...]] syntax. If a page is currently deleted then a normal wikilink like Free Cities will show the deletion log. If the page exists then I don't think it's possible to wikilink the deletion log. Special:Log/delete/Free Cities shows deletions by a user called Free Cities (there isn't one). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?type=delete&page=Free+Cities shows the deletion log but not in a wikilink. It can also be linked with [{{fullurl:Special:Log|type=delete&page=Free+Cities}}] which produces [2] but it isn't a wikilink. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse&oldid=857393165#Harassment can be wikilinked with Special:PermanentLink/857393165#Harassment. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:04, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

@Abelmoschus Esculentus and PrimeHunter: Thanks! Airbornemihir (talk) 14:06, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Mobile phone

Am I OK to use Wikipedia even though I only have a mobile phone.?? Thank you. I will be waiting for your answer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by June Commerford (talk • contribs) 15:02, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

June Commerford Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You are welcome to use Wikipedia on whatever device works for you- although editing is usually cumbersome on a phone. 331dot (talk) 15:12, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Don't tell that to Cullen328. See Smartphone editing. Bus stop (talk) 15:18, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick response. I really appreciate it. Have a good day !! June Commerford (talk) 15:34, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

If I can be of any assistance with smartphone editing, just ask me, June Commerford. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:46, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Fedback on page updated after deletion: Draft:Strider_Sports_International

Earlier this year, I submitted a page for Strider Sports and it was noted for deletion. I have updated it and welcome your feedback: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Strider_Sports_International. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SliePre (talk • contribs) 15:52, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi SliePre, welcome to the Teahouse and thank you for working on the draft some more. The simplest way to get feedback on it is to press the "Resubmit" button in the message box at the top so it's a live WP:AfC candidate again. You've certainly improved it. › Mortee _talk 20:10, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Copyright image question with PDF's

I have two separate questions, appreciate any insight.

1. According to disclaimer by Yiddish Book Center in this PDF this is now in public domain and on the third page is an image of Morris Winchevsky. Can I take a screenshot of that PDF and upload it to Commons or are there better practices?

2. In the second case, a recently published (and copyrighted) book Jewish Materialism (2018) published an image from Yiddish periodical Der Groyser Kundes (1912). Can I screenshot the picture of Benjamin Feigenbaum used in that modern book? I emailed the author who wrote me back, but I want an expert opinion from Wikipedia too.

I found the picture of Feigenbaum in the paper itself (to the best of my knowledge that is where it was first published). I took a picture of the paper and used it for the book. The picture is over one hundred years old. I do not see why it would be a problem to publish under fair use. best, elli stern

Shushugah (talk) 19:51, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Hey Shushugah. Is there a publication date included in Yiddish on the second page there? GMG^talk 19:56, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello, GreenMeansGo the date of the Winchvesky publication is 1933, a few months after he died in 1932. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shushugah (talk • contribs) 20:04, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Okay. So far so good Shushugah. Does it indicate where it was published? Or is the only indication of that the reference to Amherst Massachusetts in English on the first page? GMG^talk 20:07, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Shushugah. The second image which was originally published in 1912 is clearly in the public domain so no problems there. Upload it to Wikimedia Commons. Nothing published before 1923 is copyrighted any longer. The disclaimer by the Yiddish Book Center is not rock solid because orphaned works may still be covered by copyright, and it looks to me like the publication date is 1933 (which you have just confirmed). Instead, upload that image here on Wikipedia under our non-free image policy criteria #10. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:11, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Book #1 was published in New York (says so in Yiddish on page 2) and according to the metadata of this page. Amhert, is referring to the present location of Yiddish Book Center itself which did the scanning. Shushugah (talk) 20:13, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Cullen is correct about source 2. But source 1 should be good too. Since the author of the work (who presumably owned the copyright to the image in order to publish it himself) died in 1933. Term of copyright in the US is life plus 70 years. So you can upload it to Commons using Template:PD-old-70. GMG^talk 20:17, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Nesting infobox inside each other

I am trying to add the field birth_name to Uri Avnery's infobox. Currently, it uses {{Infobox member of the Knesset}} which does not have that field. I have a few options.

1. Propose to edit to {{Infobox member of the Knesset}} to include the new field (I don't have template editing abilities) 2. Wrap the template inside another one. I tried this, but it has some styling issue, see enclosed markup and result below, with 'birth_name' being Ostermann Helmut, but there is a duplication of the article name (it says "Tea House" because I posted it here)

Infobox person within Infobox member of the Knesset

Markup Renders as {{Infobox member of the Knesset | image = Uri Avneri 1965-11-01 (cropped).jpg | caption = Avnery in 1965 | birth_date = {{Birth date|df=y|1923|9|10|}} | birth_place = [[Beckum, Germany|Beckum]], Germany | death_date = {{death date and age|df=y|2018|8|20|1923|9|10|}} | death_place = [[Tel Aviv]], [[Israel]] | Year of Aliyah = 1933 | Knesset(s) = [[Israeli legislative election, 1965|6]], [[Israeli legislative election, 1969|7]], [[Israeli legislative election, 1977|9]] | party1 = [[Meri (political party)|Meri]] | partyyears1 = 1965–1974 | party2 = [[Left Camp of Israel]] | partyyears2 = 1979–1981 |module= {{infobox person |birth_name = Ostermann Helmut }}}}

Edit (possible solution) Infobox member of the Knesset within Infobox person

Markup Renders as {{infobox person |birth_name = Ostermann Helmut |module= {{Infobox member of the Knesset |embed=yes | image = Uri Avneri 1965-11-01 (cropped).jpg | caption = Avnery in 1965 | birth_date = {{Birth date|df=y|1923|9|10|}} | birth_place = [[Beckum, Germany|Beckum]], Germany | death_date = {{death date and age|df=y|2018|8|20|1923|9|10|}} | death_place = [[Tel Aviv]], [[Israel]] | Year of Aliyah = 1933 | Knesset(s) = [[Israeli legislative election, 1965|6]], [[Israeli legislative election, 1969|7]], [[Israeli legislative election, 1977|9]] | party1 = [[Meri (political party)|Meri]] | partyyears1 = 1965–1974 | party2 = [[Left Camp of Israel]] | partyyears2 = 1979–1981 }} }} Teahouse Born Ostermann Helmut Template:Infobox member of the Knesset

Shushugah (talk) 21:04, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Shushugah, I've tried a few possibilities in my sandbox, and you're welcome to look through the history there to see my attempts. I was able eventually to make it work, but it uses |child= in {{Infobox person}}, which, per the documentation, is deprecated. This can't be the right solution. {{Infobox}} also says it's not generally meant for use in articles. Perhaps someone more expert can tell us both how to do it properly. › Mortee _talk 22:12, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps, as you say, the right solution is to extend {{Infobox member of the Knesset}} directly. You could discuss that here or request a change using the "Submit an edit request" button you see when you try to edit it yourself. › Mortee _talk 22:20, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Mortee for the advice and attempts! I found that embedd=yes param in conjunction with module param works in the second example, which is easiest/simplest solution for now. I edited the markup above to use it. Shushugah (talk) 23:09, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Ah! Nice job Shushugah. Perhaps move more parameters up into the {{Infobox person}} like this? That moves the birth name down. I haven't come across |embed=. Is there documentation for it somewhere? › Mortee _talk 23:16, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Found it. Unless there's something even better that another respondent can point us to, I think this has to be the right way. › Mortee _talk 23:21, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

See my edit here, good call with moving up overlapping params Shushugah (talk) 23:40, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Looks good to me › Mortee _talk 23:46, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Excellent info - I recommend adding a fourth section to Help:Infobox#Adding an infobox to an article called #Nesting infoboxes, and include this info. I'll post a note on that article's talk page also, so see if people watching that page want to take this project on. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:30, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

I'll leave the documentation for someone more expert because I'm not clear if |child= (equivalent to |embed=) is deprecated only on {{Infobox person}} (because it never makes sense for 'person' to be the sub-box) or in general (because any more specific infoboxes could support all the 'person' parameters directly, in principle). › Mortee _talk 11:10, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Format infobox error

can someone please fix the infobox formatting error of this page -->> Shivpal Singh Yadav‎ ? thanks ----Adamstraw99 (talk) 08:19, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Adamstraw99,  Fixed the formatting error was from the unclosed links inserted by the ip ([[Samajwadisecular morcha) Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:28, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Galobtter, thank you sooo much :-) Adamstraw99 (talk) 09:17, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

question 1

What is Linda Lind's age — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vincentonebillion (talk • contribs) 11:50, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello Vincentonebillion. This is a page for answering questions about editing Wikipedia. You might find somebody who can answer you at The Entertainment section of the Reference Desk. --ColinFine (talk) 12:44, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Editing References

I want to edit text under a == References == section. But I can't access the text - there is only displayed {{reflist}} under the == References == section in Edit mode (Edit source mode). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifan1248 (talk • contribs) 12:01, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikifan1248, The References section is usually filled by references earlier in the page. In Edit Source mode, look for things between <ref> and </ref> tags. rchard2scout (talk) 12:16, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifan1248 (talk • contribs) 14:51, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Editcountitis

how many edits have I made — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lol dolls (talk • contribs) 14:20, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello Lol dolls and welcome to the Teahouse. You have made 8 edits until now. By the way, I've added a good heading for this thread. Regards —AE (talk • contributions) 14:36, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Lol dolls, you can see all your edits by clicking the "Contributions" links at the top of the page, which will take you to Special:Contributions/Lol_dolls. There are lots more statistics in the XTools Edit Counter. › Mortee _talk 15:48, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Work harder on quality rather than quantity. All of your edits have been reverted by other editors, and your draft has been deleted because it contained copyright material, i.e., song lyrics. David notMD (talk) 23:48, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Feedback request for first edit.

Hello, I have just made my first Wikipedia edit and am keen to ensure I have done it correctly, so would welcome any feedback from a more seasoned editor. I had noticed that an image in an article on Emilia Lanier in the section 'Early life' showed the wrong church (St Botolph's. Bossall), so substituted that photo with another from the correct church's existing Wikipedia page (St Botolph-without-Bishopsgate). Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikkiDon'tLoseThatNumber (talk • contribs) 14:47, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi WikkiDon'tLoseThatNumber, welcome to Wikipedia and to the Teahouse. Yes, you did that entirely correctly. Thanks for the contribution. › Mortee _talk 15:41, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Mortee.

Hi, WikkiDon'tLoseThatNumber. Welcome to Wikipedia. Congratulations, not only for making your first edit, but also for choosing one of the best usernames I've seen here in a long time. I've left a welcome message with a shed load of useful links for you on your Talk Page. Can't wait to see what you put on your WP:UserPage. Regards from the UK. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:05, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Company Pages!!

i am unclear about the rules and conditions required to make a company page that I feel is worth sharing info for. I'd like if some one could help me with this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragons2000 (talk • contribs) 16:06, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Dragons2000, first of all, the company has to meet WP:NORG, the Wikipedia notability guidelines for companies and organizations. This usually means being covered substantially (full articles or several paragraphs, or several minutes or longer for radio/TV) in secondary sources (meaning not just routine news coverage of facts, some analysis is needed) that are reliable (major news organizations like the New York Times or BBC is usual). The coverage also has to be independent, and not unduly promotional or negative. For what kind of coverage is considered significant, the WP:ORGDEPTH section goes into more detail. Feel free to direct any more questions to me, either using {{reply}} or at my talk page, though I may not be available for several hours. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 16:26, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Dragons2000. Welcome to the Teahouse, and thank you for asking, rather than just ploughing in like so many new editors. It might help to realise that there is no such thing as a "company page" in Wikipedia: that is a concept more appropriate to a directory or other advertising medium. What we do have, in thousands, is articles about companies. Those articles do not contain what the company says or wants to say: they should be based, almost entirely, on what people who have no connection with the company have chosen to publish about the company - and if there is little or no such independent published material, then there can be no article. The company and its agents have no control over the content, and are strongly discouraged from creating the article or editing it thereafter (though they are encouraged to suggest edits on the article's talk page). --ColinFine (talk) 10:23, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Picking sources/Poor choices of sources

Hi, I'm new. My question is, if I at some point accidentally choose a source that was a bad choice, how might another user point that out and how could I fix it and find a better source? (Or would they just delete it without saying why?)

Jecgecko (talk) 16:40, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

If you add content with a ref that is not considered suitable for Wikipedia (company press release, etc.) another editor may delete the content and ref, hopefully stating the cause. You can see editors' reasons by clicking on View history. I suggest you look at an article topic you are knowledgeable about and see the process. If editors are in disagreement the right place to conduct a debate is the article's Talk page. I noticed you User page stats student, cell biology. Medicine and health articles have a higher standard for citations, explained at WP:MEDRS. Briefly, no in vitro, no animal, no clinical trials. Respond here or create a new section at my Talk page if you have more questions. David notMD (talk) 16:51, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Jecgecko, If you need more explanation than what the history provides, you can contact the editor who made the change via his or her talk page. That editor will probably be glad to advise you. Eddie Blick (talk) 21:36, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Posting Images

Hello, I'm creating a new page and I'm trying to add images to it. An editor marked my images as potentially violating copyright and now they have been removed. I am the image owner. How do I get these images approved without someone else marking them in violation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by John zabkowicz 210 (talk • contribs) 17:07, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi John zabkowicz 210. Images are usually uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, which is a separate project from the English Wikipedia, so the advice we can give you here is limited. I gather that the images you uploaded were removed because they have previously been published elsewhere on the internet, so you need to offer some evidence that you are indeed the copyright holder and that you release it under an appropriate license. I suggest asking the Commons administrator that deleted your images how to do that. – Joe (talk) 17:49, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Autoconfirmed user

If I edit a total of 50 editions, what would happen? --DanielSanders25 (talk) 17:11, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello, DanielSanders25 if you mean Autoconfirmed user, then you need 10 edits and being active for 4 days, which allows you to create articles. For Extended Confirmed Protection (ECP), you can edit topics that are more restricted, for example, Donald Trump, Any Israel-Palestine conflict pages. WP:ECP can also obtain Wikipedia Library access to scholarly journals. For an overview, see WP:Protection_policy#Overview_of_types_of_protection I reached 500 edits this week myself, but for most part, I will keep doing what I love :) Shushugah (talk) 17:49, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

copyright material - used with permission

I have permission from the publisher of an obituary, which is in a journal from 1984, to use whatever information and quotes I like in my Wiki article. How do I register and prove to Wikipedia that I have this permission, as it is in an email to me? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yororipas (talk • contribs) 17:27, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Yororipas. You would have to forward the email to OTRS. Note that it's not enough that the copyright owner gave you permission; they have to agree to release the text under a specific copyright licence that releases most of their rights and permits anyone to use and modify the text for any purpose, in perpetuity.

I don't think it is worth you going to all that trouble though. Copyright aside, copying text from other sources into Wikipedia articles verbatim is rarely good idea, because they are usually written in a completely different style to the encyclopaedic tone and house style we use. You don't special permission to include limited quotations, as long as they are properly attributed to the original source. Other information you should put into your own words. – Joe (talk) 17:57, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Linking to my 1,000 edit

Today I reached a personal milestone on Wikipedia. I made my 1,000 edit on the page South Sugarloaf Fire. How can I tell which of the edits to that page was my 1,000? And how can I get a link to it that I can put on my Wikipedia profile page? Greshthegreat (talk)

Well, Greshthegreat, your current edit count is 1011, which makes the above your 1009th, and this your 1000th. You can write a permanent link to it like this: [[Special:Diff/857582329|1000th edit]]. – Joe (talk) 18:02, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

To do better editing

How can Tea House teach me to do better editing on Wikipedia,please elaborate.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jyayan2 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jyayan2, welcome to the Teahouse. This is a place designed for newer users to ask any specific questions they have about how to edit Wikipedia. You can have a look through the page to see the kinds of things people ask. While you're getting to know Wikipedia, if there's something confusing or that you'd like confirmation about, you can ask us here. › Mortee _talk 20:53, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Jyayan2, I agree with the comment above. Reading answers to other people's questions has helped me to learn about editing on Wikipedia. I will also suggest something that I have done — create a list of useful links that people post. When I read a post that contains a link that I think might help me in the future, I add that link to my list. Eddie Blick (talk) 21:27, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Not that it's relevant any longer to our departed OP, but I have a similar list and I think it's a helpful strategy. › Mortee _talk 23:57, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Here is my list User:Shushugah/documentation it's nice way to self document occasional problems and my solutions I found along the way. Shushugah (talk) 00:02, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

age isn't complying with the birthdate?

so i went on zendaya's wikipedia and noticed that her birthday is today (sept. 1) but her age isn't being changed to 22, it's just stuck to 21. i was thinking i could change it to 22 but didn't know how to do that, so i googled how. but what i saw on all the pages was what seemed like the wiki page does it by itself, and even so when i tried, i couldn't find a place on the page to change her age, just the part with her birthday. can someone help me understand whats going on? sorry if i sound clueless but I've really only done simple edits to wiki pages and i don't really understand how the more complicated ones work. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thebekahbird (talk • contribs) 20:12, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Thebekahbird Welcome to Teahouse. Changes need to be done in "edit source mode". Fixed. See Zendaya. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 20:28, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

@Thebekahbird: The age updates automatically but pages are cached for performance reasons. You can purge a page to force an update right away. See Wikipedia:Purge. Making any to the page like CASSIOPEIA did will also force an update but isn't necessary. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:40, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Accused of creating an attack page.

There is an edit on my talk page titled "July 2018", User_talk:Rajah#July_2018, from another user warning me that I have created an attack page. I have no idea what they are talking about. They don't say what the page is/was and my contributions list my most recent page creation as having occurred in 2013. So, I'm not sure what they are talking about and I'm kind of annoyed to be falsely accused of doing something that #1 I didn't do and #2 would never do in the first place. Can anyone here please help me understand what is going on? (I realize this is a forum for new users, but I wasn't sure to post as even though I have 1000s of edits over a 14 year span, I never much troubled myself with all the controversies like these. --Rajah (talk) 20:33, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Rajah, welcome to the Teahouse. After some digging, it looks like the page was Great American Hypocrites, which you created in 2010 and which was deleted this July, shortly after that warning. I'm not an administrator, so I can't see what the content was, or whether it might have been hijacked one way or another. Perhaps you could ask the deleting admin to have a look and explain it, or perhaps a passing admin here can help. › Mortee _talk 20:50, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

That page did not seem like an attack page to me. Great American Hypocrites: Toppling the Big Myths of Republican Politics is the title of a book by Glen Greenwald, a highly notable author. A neutral article about the book is not an attack page. Anthony Bradbury was the deleting administrator, and I hope he can explain. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:03, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, both. Yes, that was just a page on a book, but it was not an attack page. I'm not annoyed that it was deleted though, just that random editors can put the scarlet letter warnings on one's talk page with no due process at all. If it was vandalism or something like that, I would understand, but anyway just letting people know it makes a 14 year editor with ~10,000 edits not want to stick around. --Rajah (talk) 22:54, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

The only content apart from references was: "Great American Hypocrites is a 2008 book by Glenn Greenwald which examines the myth-making and exploitation of cultural, gender and psychological themes by the Republican Party". I don't know why it was labelled an attack page but I would have formulated the sentence differently to make it clear that it only describes what the book says. It sounded like Wikipedia accepted the premise of the book. Wikipedia should have a neutral point of view. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:17, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

A reminder that you are not required to keep all (or any) posts on your Talk page. David notMD (talk) 11:25, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

That wording could be more neutral, but it's far from an attack. Besides, the page has been a redirect for the last four years. I think the deletion must have been a mix-up; I've asked Anthony if he'll reverse it on his talk page. – Joe (talk) 12:13, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

It's been undeleted. @Rajah: As David says, you can feel free to remove the message from your talk page. – Joe (talk) 14:09, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

How/where can I apologise to editors I have accidentally offended

I made an edit and tried to get involved in some "talk" pages. I did this before I had created a profile, I believe this in itself made me appear like a suspicious crank with some kind of issues. I have created a profile now (how did I miss that) I have tried clicking on one of the peoples "talk" link by there username and wrote a long and genuine apology on their page under one of their headings "your rudeness". I would guess there are at least four very experienced editors that I want/need to apologise to. Is that talk button the right place to do that? I am finding participating on Wikipedia to be a steep learning curve and I would hope to try to apologise for my blunders to date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eimhin de Róiste (talk • contribs) 20:34, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Eimhin de Róiste. Wanting to apologise is very admirable. User talk pages is the right place to do that, but you should start new sections (unless there are existing sections that you started). The easiest way to do that is to press the '+' button to the right of 'Edit source' at the top. › Mortee _talk 20:43, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Though, actually, I see Dmcq replied to your message (they didn't ping you so you may not have seen). They said that as far as they can see you haven't been rude to anyone, and that there's no need to apologise. I haven't looked over your contributions myself, but you may be worrying too much › Mortee _talk 21:04, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

two user name by mistake

I am working on an article and I decided to also work at the same time on a second article. Somehow, and I do not understand this, the second article seems to have a different username to the first. My question is, how do I delete the unwanted user name? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yororipas (talk • contribs) 21:41, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Yororipas, welcome to the Teahouse. Could you try asking that again? I don't understand. Articles don't have usernames, editors do. You have one username, each of the articles has one title. What's the issue you're trying to solve? › Mortee _talk 23:24, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

From the edit history of the drafts it appears likely that the user has two accounts: user:Yororipas (created Aprii 2018) and user:Yororipash4 (created May 2016) and has used both of them today.

You cannot delete an account. Pick one as your account and stop using the other account. Since both have been used to edit the drafts today the account that is being dropped should be redirected to the main account. See WP:REDIRECT for how to do this. Meters (talk) 05:30, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Yororipas, Meters has analyzed the situation correctly. You must completely abandon one of those accounts, and use only the other account in the future. This is really important. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:37, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Draft:One In A Million (Matoma Album)

I finished an article about Matoma new album, but I want know how this process this works. How can I convince them to approve this page? I need help. This is my first article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronaldo3455 (talk • contribs) 5:41, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Ronaldo3455, welcome to the Teahouse and thank you for your work on the article so far. To submit it for review you need to add {{subst:submit}} to the top of it (see WP:Articles for creation). One way to make the article look more ready for review is to structure the references using templates like {{cite web}} (see WP:Referencing). Consider getting rid of the primary/sales references like Amazon, Facebook and iTunes. The reviewer will mostly be looking at notability, particularly these guidelines. Check that your references show this album meets those. I hope this helps. › Mortee _talk 23:34, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Profile creation before editing

Hello I just very recently joined and very stupidly on my part started making contributions on a sensitive subject before I setup my profile page. I realise this was a major oversight on my part and a major breach of etiquette. I was wondering is there are reason why noobs like me are even able to do this has it been considered to make profile creation compulsory before contributions and edits can be made? Thanks in advance and hopefully not an insulting or ridiculous question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eimhin de Róiste (talk • contribs) 22:20, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi again Eimhin de Róiste. I haven't seen any suggestion that people should be required to write a user page before they edit. There is a minority of editors who think people should have an account before editing, but even editors without an account (i.e. IP editors, with no username) are in fact welcome here. I'm not sure why you have the impression that this might be a problem. Has anyone said to you that it is? In a sensitive subject areas, editors are sometimes dismissive of new users who they suppose aren't aware of Wikipedia policies. Having a user page might, I suppose, reduce that reaction slightly, but it's not some breach of etiquette. › Mortee _talk 23:45, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Discussions have been closed can I help fix this

Hello I was trying to make a contribution on a sensitive subject and it appears my rookie errors have resulted in these discussions

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Ireland#/talk/4

being closed down. Is there anything I can do to repair the upset it seems clear that I seem to have caused. Can I delete/redact/withdraw my contributions. I believe I am now participating in discussions in the appropriate areas of Wikipedia as directed by the senior editors there. I have made a personal apology to everyone who reacted to my blunders and I would like to try and do as much as possible to make good my mistakes. Also sorry I haven't managed to include a working link (I think) I have only been managing thus far by copying the formats [[ etc by copying the format from others and I don't have anyone to format copy from in this instance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eimhin de Róiste (talk • contribs) 22:45, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

@Eimhin de Róiste: reading Talk:Republic of Ireland#(republic of) Ireland, no, I don't think there's anything you need to do here. You asked some questions honestly, it turned out they'd been asked enough times before that the place you asked them wasn't the right place anymore, and you got some pointers to elsewhere. Nothing to atone for there and you needn't worry so. It might be useful to look through the archives at e.g. Talk:Republic of Ireland to see what the earlier discussions were before deciding what to do next. › Mortee _talk 00:01, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

PS I've learned almost everything I know of Wikipedia's markup from copying others too. You can ask Teahouse or me any markup questions you have. › Mortee _talk 00:01, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Can I edit my username after creation?

Can I communicate in private (PM) in some way with someone about this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eimhin de Róiste (talk • contribs) 06:08, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

No, Eimhin de Róiste. If you want a different username, open a new account under that name, and then abandon all use of your current account. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:15, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Changing username#Please consider the following alternatives to a rename says: "Users who have made very few edits are encouraged to register a new account and discard the old one." PrimeHunter (talk) 09:37, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Or if you want to keep your contribution history associated with your current username, you can request a change of name at Special:GlobalRenameRequest. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:13, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Edits to a page

Dear Wiki Teahouse, I keep on getting a contributor deleting or undoing my edits when they are in reference to the family of the person. I am not sure why since this is verifiable information. Best J DZ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jughurta dz (talk • contribs) 06:54, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jughurta dz. When another editor challenges information that you want to add to an article, you need to produce a reliable source that supports it. It's not enough to assert that information is verifiable, you have to prove that it's verifiable with a citation. See WP:CHALLENGE for more information. – Joe (talk) 07:27, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Joe, thank you so much for the advice but it is actually verifiable at the municipality level, the editor who challenges is not a reliable source to challenge so why does that override actual factual information. Just trying to understand the general inner workings of wiki . I have checked numerous pages where there is no references or reliable sources for the person's family. It seems quite odd that information is systematically deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jughurta dz (talk • contribs) 09:26, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Please read about verifiability and about biographies of living persons. If you say it is verifiable you need to add references to published independent reliable sources. If you find unsourced information in other articles you can tag it as {{citation needed}} or remove it with an appropriate edit summary. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:18, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

From looking at the Mohamed Sahnoun article, the editor reverting your added content pointed to PRABOOK as not a reliable source of information. If Sahnoun has a wife and children, and you want to add that information, find a better reference. David notMD (talk) 11:35, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Adventure

I have just completed (I think) Wiki Adventure but it didnt wrap up. have I finished it, how do I confirm Ive completed everything, thanks Aquarius4 (talk) 08:57, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Aquarius4 and welcome to the Teahouse. Well done for starting The Wikipedia Adventure. There are actually 15 badges to be attained, so I'm afraid you do still have a little way to go yet. (There's a list of them all at the bottom of my own userpage at User:Nick Moyes - just expand the Interesting Links>'Declaration of interest' section and you'll see them all) I found trying to complete it on a tablet or mobile did cause problems - something the developers are aware of. Good luck on the start of your Wikipedia journey - wherever that may lead you. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 15:00, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Turning Sounds

I reviewed Draft:Turning Sounds and declined it as not satisfying event notability and because the references did not appear to be independent. The author, User:Baskak, replied on my talk page, asking me to clarify and reconsider. I am asking if other experienced editors, whether or not AFC reviewers, can look at the draft and advise me and the author whether it should be accepted.

Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 09:13, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi, @Robert McClenon: - I reviewed your decision, and I believe you were correct. The only source that appeared both reliable and covered Turning Sounds itself in detail was this one, I believe. As a second Glissando source wouldn't be intellectually independent I don't think that would be sufficient to push it over notability-wise. However this doesn't include analysis of the second ref, which I couldn't find accessible online.

I don't think this is sufficient to demonstrate notability.

Some clarification to the editor on specific sources (primary, not-reliable like myspace & blogs etc etc) would probably be helpful.

WP:TEAHOUSE is a good place to send editors who want some help improving their draft, but in cases where you stand by your decision (or are unsure) and they still want a review, Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk is probably the best place to send them.

Hope my AFC $0.02 has been at least partially helpful. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:57, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Citing ebooks

Hi. I am currently editing HMS Terror (I03) but have stumbled across a problem while citing an ebook. The ebook reader doesn't show page numbers but instead displays the fraction of the book you are currently looking at (e.g. you are reading 485.7/835 on screen while the paperback book has only 256 pages). Is there a prefered/recommended way for representing page numbers in this situation? In the interim I have opted to quote the chapter/section number (e.g. <ref>Buxton 2008 Chapter 8.3</ref>). From Hill To Shore (talk) 09:34, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi From Hill To Shore, I don't think it matters too much. I've seen a lot of book citations recently (due to my work on Category:Pages with ISBN errors), and most citations don't have a page number referenced at all. Using the chapter/section number (and/or possibly the chapter title?) should be fine. rchard2scout (talk) 16:38, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Inline book citations should give page numbers wherever possible. Rchard2scout, I'd guess you're coming across these page-less books mostly in lists of consulted works separate from the inline citations. Those are meant either as general works consulted (no particular page), or for several citations to point to, which should be specifying the book numbers themselves, e.g. with {{sfn}}.

From Hill To Shore, for e-books, the best I can find in the archives of Template talk:Cite book is this discussion from 2011, which suggests you can use the location (the number you see), or the chapter and section (and perhaps paragraph, for long sections) as you have been doing. › Mortee _talk 21:14, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Notes

References

• Mortee (2015). Mortee's Big Fake Book. Fake University Press. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Mortee (2018). Mortee's Big Fake Sequel (Kindle e-book). Fake University Press. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Main Page

How do I “View History” of the Main Page??

Or get a 1 page summary of news day-by-day? MBG02 (talk) 13:40, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

The main page is actually a bunch of different pages. The news bit is Template:In the news. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:52, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Is there a wiki page (article) for a date (eg 10 September 2017) that lists news items (like the main page)? (And with blue-links.)

Diff Q: does one of those edit buttons insert a next-level-indent? I’ve tried about 10 of ‘em.

MBG02 (talk) 14:29, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

@MBG02: See Wikipedia:Main Page history. It links Wikipedia:Main Page history/2017 September 10. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:07, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: Thanks. You answered the Q but it’s not what I was hoping for. Does the news page stay the same for 7 days? Was Scott Morrison so noteworthy he was the main item for all Wiki? I was hoping for a historical Wiki “News Page” like the main page, but daily, and a bit longer. Something readable about what’s happened in the world (in date order), quickly. (Wiki-ly). MBG02 (talk) 18:06, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

MBG02; See Portal:Current events, and by your right side you'll see a calendar with clickable dates which you can use to navigate through daily or monthly logs. Seems that's nearest to what you're looking for, if not the one. –Ammarpad (talk) 18:13, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Similar Q

Similar to above Q; I’d like to see ATP and WTA rankings history, even if only in an abbreviated form. The info isn’t retained in the “View History” (that I can see). Is there a reason? Or am I not looking properly? MBG02 (talk) 13:43, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

@MBG02: If a page displays templates then old revisions of the page displays the current version of the template. You have to locate the template page to see the history, e.g. by clicking edit and see {{Current ATP Singles Rankings}} or {{Current WTA Singles Rankings}}. The official websites have ranking histories with date selection at https://www.atpworldtour.com/en/rankings/singles and http://www.wtatennis.com/rankings. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:15, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: Again; Thanks. I can get there (the Wiki Page) from the links you posted. But not from the ATP Rankings page. Is that possible? If there’s a similar “transcluded” page, do I just add the words “current”? ... or search for “template”? MBG02 (talk) 18:30, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

@MBG02: {{Current ATP Singles Rankings}} is displayed in three articles. One of them is ATP Rankings#Current rankings. If you click the section edit link there then you see the code {{Current ATP Singles Rankings}}. This means that Template:Current ATP Singles Rankings is displayed. Template names vary a lot and are hard to guess. If you click the Edit tab at top of a page (called "View source" on pages you cannot edit) or you preview a section of a page then the bottom of the window has a linked alphabetical list "Templates used in this preview". There you can find all used templates and try to guess the one you want. On Main Page the list includes Template:In the news. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:20, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

creating two pages - Dr Fre and PENHA

Hi - I would like to create a page for Dr Zeremariam Fre and PENHA - Dr Fre has just been awarded the prestigious Desmond Tutu Fellowship award for his lifetime work on environmental care and as founder of the Pastoral and Environmental Network in the Horn of Africa (PENHA), of which Joanna Lumley is Patron. Could you point me in the right direction for new page creation? thank you Nicole — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicolekenton (talk • contribs) 15:59, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

The page you need to read is WP:Your first article. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:04, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Nicolekenton. David Biddulph has pointed you in the right direction. I would just like to give you a couple of words of caution. First, what you are proposing to do - create a new article - is one of the hardest tasks on Wikipedia, and I always advise new users to spend a few weeks, or months, improving some of our five million existing articles and learning how Wikipedia works. Second, I advise you to frame it as "writing an article" not "creating a page". Wikipedia is explicitly not about telling the world about something, no matter how praiseworthy that something may be: that is called promotion, and is strictly forbidden. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia: it collects and summarises what has already been published about a subject - preferably by people unconnected with the subject. Wikipedia has very little interest in what any subject says or does (or wins) except insofar as an independent reliable source has talked about it. --ColinFine (talk) 20:16, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

How to

How do you put source — Preceding unsigned comment added by PittPanther06 (talk • contribs) 17:27, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi PittPanther, you ask very broad question, however start by reading Referencing for beginners. –Ammarpad (talk) 17:51, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

new comer

Hi

I have just started writing. could anyone please suggest me the best available lessons for learning editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShahedAziz (talk • contribs) 17:47, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi ShahedAziz, welcome to Wikipedia and to Teahouse. You can start by reading WP:Plain and simple and WP:A primer for newcomer as well as WP:Your first article. –Ammarpad (talk) 17:58, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello ShahedAziz! New editors are always welcome here. Thank you for leaving your question because there are probably other editors who have the same question but just didn't ask. There is a tutorial that is probably useful to you. It can be found here: Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Adventure. Best Regards, Barbara ✐  ✉ 18:32, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Add contest table to my article

I recently created a page of Matoma new album, but how I can add the contest table? I have already put my draft to be checked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronaldo3455 (talk • contribs) 5:41, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Ronaldo3455. If you mean the table of contents then by default it automatically appears when there are at least four section headings. See more at Help:Section. Please sign your discussion posts with ~~~~. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:27, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Exceptions to the Primary Source Prohibition

There is a sound exceptions to the Primary Source Prohibition for current leading edge activity, but there is another area which should also have an exception. Here is a use case: X creates and article on a subject S. X uses a Very Good Secondary Source K for much of the technical information. However, K is a technological journal which pays little if any attention to minor administrative facts. For example, a secondary source K might have been selected because it is an excellent new mathematical algorithm. However, K might have included the author's report of the budget that financed the development of the algorithm of the timing of the development which the author may inadvertently erred about. As a Referee for several technical journals I have very often approved a publication that was scientifically correct without worrying about the accuracy of the dates or the budget amounts as for the purposes of our journal, mathematics, we paid little or not attention to thise minor and "insignificant" details.

So X creates a Wikipedia article there people may seek the article to determine S's historical place in the timeline of mathematics development. K however may have inadvertently been in error as to the minor things like data or funds. This can always occur and I submit that our current rules and policies make it almost impossible to fix this error. A primary document like laboratory notes or Internal Project reports or company budgets which clearly contradicts the error in the secondary source and proves the error, by our rules, may not be used and we must leave the article with the incorrect information.

Therefore I suggest that where there are primary documents that contradict factual material in an article based on secondary sources, that the primary sources be allowed to make a correction, We could have a polity that states both facts and what the evidence is for each. Frankly, it pains me as I have found a few articles that are clearly wrong and I have changed one only to have the change depreciated by an editor who was correctly applying our existing policy-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polymath9636 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure which prohibition you are talking about. Have you read WP:PRIMARY? --David Biddulph (talk) 19:54, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

The case that OP cites (which really sounds like it's really not all that hypothetical) would be a case where a primary source (esp. A primary document like laboratory notes or Internal Project reports or company budgets) probably would be questionable. Interpretation of primary sources requires a non-primary source to verify. So, a plot summary of a book can just cite the book itself, but we'd need a non-primary source to verify that the lab notes, project reports, or company budgets in question are the correct documents, that the portion that is cited in them contradicts other sources, and that the primary documents are the correct ones. In this case, there's also the problem that I'm not sure those documents are actually published (I don't see where IBM's publication contracts with Lewis D. Eigen have been published, if they even have). That could raise some questions as to how exactly Polymath9636 had access to those documents, but even ignoring that there's the problem that I don't see how anyone without connections to IBM or their lawfirms is supposed to be able to verify that information.

@Polymath9636: How did you access IBM's contracts? How do you expect us to access those contracts to verify your claims? Without using your own research, how can you verify that:

• the documents you cite are the relevant ones?
• you are citing the relevant parts of the documents (rather tricky as you just cited the entire document)?
• the mistake was not present in the primary source and/or corrected in the secondary?

These issues are why we favor non-primary sources. Imagine if I cited my (now expired) contract I had with China Jiliang University. How would you verify the information without contacting me? Would you believe what I said was in my contract over what's in a professionally published source? Ian.thomson (talk) 20:11, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Conflicting sources for BLP age

I came across a case of where the age of a living musician is conflicting. An article from Rolling Stone claims the musician in question (Adonis) was 19 when he recorded a certain song, however, going by his birth date sourced from Encyclopedia of Popular Music, he would've been around 22-23. Where should I ask for advice on how to handle this conflict? RoseCherry64 (talk) 19:56, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

If both appear to be reliable sources, then the article either needs to omit the information entirely, or to say that the sources disagree, without attempting to resolve the disagreement. If another reliable source discusses the conflict, we can of course report that source's conclusions. But any attempt to resolve the conflict in the article would be original research, which is forbidden. --ColinFine (talk) 20:21, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for repeating my question, but where can I ask more experienced (music) biography editors for help? RoseCherry64 (talk) 20:55, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

RoseCherry64, You might try Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians. I have not been involved with that project, but the title suggests that it might be the resource that you need. Eddie Blick (talk) 21:12, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! RoseCherry64 (talk) 21:15, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

When to put my pregnant guppy in a breeder box

Hi I have a 3 gallon half moon tank with a small male pleco and a feeder guppy I got her accidentally right when she was born she fell in the net so I got her for free. My only option is a breeder box and August 10th she met 3 male guppies I know I messed up they all died from then 2 were already sick and shes pregnant now her gravid spot is mostly red with some black on the outer edge she doesnt have completely boxed off but it is though `--` There isnt a opposite ` so thats all I could do she hides in plants even though theres no one else and she recently watches the bubbles come out the filter she might be hungry but pls let me kno when she should go in it is day 23 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.138.230.150 (talk) 19:57, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this is a place to ask about using Wikipedia only, and is not a general question asking forum. 331dot (talk) 20:01, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Indenting. Talk page.

Does one of the edit buttons insert a next-level-indent? MBG02 (talk) 20:47, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi MBG02, as far as I can tell, no. You just change the indent level by typing more colons in source mode. › Mortee _talk 21:22, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Local vs Municipal elections

Hi, a newbie question here. I have found that local and municipal elections ale considered the same thing on English Wikipedia (municipal redirects to local), yet they seem to be a different things on Wikidata and articles on municipal elections in one language don't consider themselves to be articles on local elections in another (and vice versa). Should they be separate or merged, currently it seems like just a big mess. Thanks for explanation or hints on what to do. Zoted (talk) 21:47, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

In the United States, municipal elections are a subset of local elections, which also include county elections. I don't know about any other Anglophone country. In other languages the terms for different administrative subdivisions may not translate consistently, and I can't speak for Wikidata. I think that any discussion of whether to keep them separate or merge them should be on a case-by-case basis. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:20, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

In the UK, I don't think we use the term "municipal election". There are local elections and national ones. Elections for county councils, city councils, city mayors etc are all local. I'm not surprised that Wikidata is unable to maintain consistency since these level distinctions are quite arbitrary from society to society and Wikidata tries to be language-agnostic. › Mortee _talk 22:45, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes. The differences between countries are enough, and then there are differences in languages. In the United States, Canada, and Australia, there is a level in between national and local, which is state or provincial, and that makes it complicated enough. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:57, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

other language links

I moved Gremanu, and all the links to the other language wikis disappeared. Why is this, and can I recover the links without manually searching for them? The Verified Cactus 100% 00:31, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I see German and Italian, are there others? I'm following for answer too. Shushugah (talk) 00:36, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

How to post my first article page

Hi everybody. I´ve been editing some pages but this is my first full page in Wikipedia but not sure how can I move it. Can anybody tell me or if somebody wants to take a look and help me post it? It´s a simple article about the novel "Lights on the Sea" that I recently read and, I realized that hasn´t had any page in Wikipedia. My idea is to fill more info about the book and the author but first I want to get sure if it´s enough neutral and figure it out how to move it to Wikipedia.

This is the articles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Josanva/sandbox — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josanva (talk • contribs) 00:44, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

@Josanva: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse! Looking at your article I am Sorry to say that your article might not be ready for Wikipedia this time. But don't be discouraged. Please read Your First Article then submit your draft to Articles For Creation. I myself had many of my articles declined. Keep trying and most importantly do not be discouraged.--Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 01:09, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

TBI

I have a condition that won't allow me to participate in certain programs. It's my memory, its too full. My cup runneth over. Brain traumatized. My healing is on its way.Thanks.

Sincerely,Christine Leticia Layson (DeHart)