Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dtwinlauser (talk | contribs) at 01:56, 4 October 2018 (→‎New user question re steps to create article with COI disclosure). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


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

GreenMeansGo, a Teahouse host

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

Disagreement of what an article should be called

Hi. I recently moved an article (Chequers Agreement), from it's official long title ("The future relationship ..."), to simply "Chequers plan". Recently, another user moved it to "Chequers Agreement". I think "plan" is a more appropriate than "agreement" of several reasons (more common name, part of ongoing negotiations, etc.), but don't know how I should go about it. Also, the user who moved it is much more experienced than me.

I am considering just moving it back, and notify said user, as per WP:BOLD, but think it might be too aggressive, since he also used BOLD to move it. I can also make a move request, but don't knowhow to do that, or what the procedure it, or how much I will set in motion. Or I can just make a talk-page-comment, saying I think the other name is better, but it might very well just be ignored.

What should I do? Heb the best (talk) 13:53, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Heb the best. The third step in the BOLD cycle, after Bold and Revert, is "Discuss". When somebody reverts an edit you make, you choices are to accept the reversion, or to open a discussion. From your description, this isn't technically a reversion, but the same applies. (Because it is not a reversion, it is within the rules for you to revert their change, but I wouldn't advise that). Open a dicussion on the talk page, and ping the other user - see if the two of you (and anybody else who chooses to participate) can reach consensus. --ColinFine (talk) 14:00, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Heb the best: You've now done the right thing by starting a discussion at Talk:Chequers Agreement. Thank you. I have just added my own observations on the matter there, and I agree with your plan to re-title the article. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:16, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I just want to ask if Heb the best can use the consensus mechanism at this point. Thanks. - Darwin Naz (talk) 23:25, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thank you for your help. Heb the best (talk) 15:50, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jungkook.

Hello. Recently my Draft:Jungkook was declined. The person who declined says it's because the artist has no notable solo activities adding a link from this discussion from 2016 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jungkook Since this discussion happened the artist became a producer, he became in the first korean solo artist in charting in countries like Malaysia, Japan, UK and BB BUbbling with his song Euphoria. The artist also participated solo in the project One Korea with the song that was played in the inter korea summit this year and is working in the second song with other notable korean artists. The artist also co-directed a tv show for the channel Mnet this year that was largely reported by the specialized media.

There are so many activities the artist has done that aren't included in the band's wiki article. I was planning to merge my work with Draft_talk:Jeon_Jung-kook but what we want to know is what can we do so the work of hours and days editing isn't in vain because of an old discussion from years ago. The article we are submitting is sourced and we are editing to make it more professional, it's frustrating as new editors to see our work constantly rejected, I would really appreciate some advice ↳ GiovannaG . . . (My talk) 21:48, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello GiovannaG and welcome to the Teahouse.
It's sometimes difficult to realize, when creating a new draft, that another draft on the same subject exists or that a previous article on the subject has been deleted, especially when there are varied ways of expressing the subject's name. Your first clue should have come when looking at the image page on Commons where you can see that the image was already used elsewhere. What I see is the discussion from a deleted article from some years ago and four drafts, one of which had been briefly accepted as an article but then moved back to draft. Two of the drafts are in IdkSam's userspace.
You contend that the reasons for the earlier deletion no longer apply and that the new draft should be given consideration. Presenting a draft with over 100 references is an impressive achievement, but it does make the job of the reviewer more difficult, since at least some of the references are questionable and the submission includes some trivia. The question of "is this an acceptable article" is not easy to answer in the affirmative.
Given the state of things, I suggest that you consider taking the argument that the artist is individually notable to the AfC Help Desk and present the 3-5 references that establish his qualification under one of the criteria from NMUSIC. You need to be exact in your argument, do not leave anyone guessing or depending on general statements like you have used here. That discussion will create a record that can be referred back to. Once the notability question is resolved, it will be possible to proceed, merging and (I expect, shortening) material from all of the existing drafts. Yes, this is a lot of work, but not a lot more than has already been put into the draft. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 22:30, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I already told you, maybe not clearly enough, that Wikipedia pretty much does not care about the amount of work you put in an article. It can get you the admiration of fellow editors, but we do not keep a nicely-written article if the topic is not notable, and that is unlikely to change anytime soon.
Finally, your use of "we" makes me think you should read our no-shared account policy. Are you related to Jungkook in any way (for instance, working for a marketing company promoting him?). TigraanClick here to contact me 09:24, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you so much for you reply. @Tigraan i'm not related to the artist I don't know him personally. I was referring as "we" when i was considering to merge my work with draft:jeon jung-kook before because of the work that editor was also doing. My interest is for people to find about him and his work because none of his works are included in the groups' wiki. I'm reading your advice @User:Jmcgnh and I'll find the best sources to submit to AfC Help Desk, thank you very much. I also understand Wiki don't care about how many hours we spend editing to submit knowing there are so many articles to read here, I would really don't mind the size of the article that gets approved and if mine is rejected as long as the artist can get an article where people can find about his job, now that the artist is promoting in US and many people can only find an article about him in korean or spanish. ↳ GiovannaG . . . (My talk) 14:31, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GiovannaG: I would like to assist you in your efforts to get a page created specifically about Jungkook, as I believe there are probably now grounds for demonstrating there are sufficient independent sources, and that he's made his mark as a solo performer and personality. (I couldn't persuade my daughter to do the research into the best ones for me, despite her being a bit of a BTS fan). So, if you do wish to prepare an argument to put to  AfC Help Desk, as jmcgnh sensibly suggested, I would be very happy to cast an eye over it before you do submit it. So, feel free to leave a copy (with the key references) on my own Talk Page, and I'll see if I can offer any further guidance. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 13:32, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback on Draft:Jones-Tino

Hello, I had submitted the draft [1] of Jones-Tino for review quite a while ago. I would really appreciate it if I would receive some feedback on my first draft. Thanks --RoseRalph (talk) 02:54, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(That's Draft:Jones–Tino for anyone wondering.) /Julle (talk) 02:55, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Feedback – ok. I see that many of the wikilinks in the draft, e.g. "Brazilian", "directors", "Nike", don't lead to where you probably meant them to lead. Maproom (talk) 07:21, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kanye West Name Change

I see there is a name change of Kanye West in the lead introduction to "ye". I don't feel it is right though to have that name changed as it is not legally given by the individual. What are your views, see the sources below of give inputs on the discussion at the articles talk page. These are the sources partening to the name change. [2] [3] Also take part in the discussion began by Flyer22 Reborn so perhaps a consensus can be made. Cheers 6Packs (talk) 08:57, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Legality is irrelevant here. What matters for Wikipedia is whether reliable independent sources refer to him as "Ye". As he only announced the name change yesterday, it's unlikely that they do yet. Maproom (talk) 09:13, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@6Packs: I agree with Maproom. It is far too early to put that in the lead. The only person that calls him that right now is the subject of the article, and we don't care about what subjects say about themselves. You should feel free to remove that statement from the lead (it is mentioned later, so leave that in). Just make sure you give a good edit summary to explain why you've removed it. You can, if you wish, refer to this Teahouse discussion to show consensus/advice from experienced editors. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:09, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How to get wiki markup code from a really old edit

Hi,

I was checking the 2015 BWF Para-Badminton World Championships page and I realized someone has messed up the page. I tried to undo the edits but it was from 2 years ago so it is impossible to undo. I currently have no time for manual-editing, so I want to ask whether we can get (for example) the first wiki markup code when the page is created? Thanks in advance. Griff88 (talk) 14:06, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Griff88. Click the "View history" tab, then a time stamp of an old edit, and then the "Edit" tab when you view the old version. If you view an old diff then you can also click an edit link next to the timestamp of one of the two versions. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:08, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Griff88: The other thing you could do, if your time is short, is to simply leave an explanatory note on the article's Talk Page, saying what you assess to be incorrect. Then at least another editor may be encouraged to fix it. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 17:30, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much PrimeHunter and Nick Moyes! Griff88 (talk) 09:55, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up to Jenny Koller/Jenny Thomann-Koller

I have moved the article to Sandbox and made changes on September 29, but have not had any response. The article is complete, but I do not know how to coordinate the References with the text. By the way, the same article appears on de.Wikipedia, which means that I do not need help with writing but with the Wikipedia tools. I would appreciate help! --Htewarso (talk) 16:21, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Htewarso. Cassiopea advised you on 22 august to read Referencing for beginners. Have you done so? The references go in the text where they are cited, between <ref> and </ref> tags: the software will collect them at the end, and add the numbering and links.
So, to take your first reference: at the point in the text of the article where it is to be cited (I can't identify where that is) you put
<ref>Verzeichnis der Schülerinnen des Lehrerinnenseminars. Sig. V.H. c.98:2.6.1.2. Stadt Zürich Stadtarchiv.</ref>
and the article will show it like this: Here is the text support by the citation.[1] (you should find it below)
A couple of other points I notice:
  • first, if you have translated the text from elsewhere in a Wikipedia, you must give an appropriate attribution (either on its talk page, or in your edit summary) or you are violating the licence under which almost all the material in Wikipedia is released. Please see WP:Translation.
  • Secondly, I notice that there are references to unpublished material (your footnote 8): English Wikipedia does not accept unpublished materials as sources. You need either to find a published source for whatever material that citation is supporting, or remove it from the article.
  • Thirdly, the draft is currently raw text, with no WikiMarkup at all. This is not acceptable. You should at the very least turn your headers into Wikipedia headers. Use a balanced number of = signs before and after, for a header at a particular depth; so ===Life=== displays as

Life

(I put it at level 3, so as not to create a new top-level header on this Teahouse page. You would probably use level 2 in the article).
  • Finally, you have no Wikilinks. The whole point of a hypertext encyclopaedia is that you can direct the reader to other places. So, for example, if you change "took her to see Dr. Marie Heim-Vögtlin" to say "took her to see Dr [[Marie Heim-Vögtlin]]", it will appear as "took her to see Dr. Marie Heim-Vögtlin". Once your draft has been accepted and moved into the main article space, it should also have Wikilinks pointing to it from other articles, but not while it is still in draft.
Happy editing. --ColinFine (talk) 17:41, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also just a small point, I would like to suggest that you maintain a level of detachment and avoid using descriptions such as "forward-looking," "very successful," "quite timid" etc. unless they are attributed to sources. Thanks. - Darwin Naz (talk) 11:48, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Verzeichnis der Schülerinnen des Lehrerinnenseminars. Sig. V.H. c.98:2.6.1.2. Stadt Zürich Stadtarchiv.

Looking for Mentor

How do I go about finding an experienced editor to help me, guide me. I've done many edits and am still v much learning. I've created new pages, quite a few in fact. And have managed to grasp how to do info boxes and some fiddly stuff like that. But needing pointers on a number of pages. Is there a 'friendly teacher' system? Someone willing to look at current sites I'm working on and see whether they can help me. Currently working on Nobody's Friends I think there's a forum of such mentors - but not sure where? Find mapping images on pages very tricky, and am probably getting this wrong every time I've attemtpted. Also there's a big question I need to ask about sources and citations. Any help gratefully received. Joelionheart (talk) 16:28, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Joelionheart: Welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for wanting to make it better. Check out WP:ADOPT. There you can read about the "adoption" (mentoring) program and find a list of editors willing to adopt you. RudolfRed (talk) 17:47, 30 September 2018 (UTC) @RudolfRed: Thank you Rudolf, much appreciated. I'll check it out. Joelionheart (talk) 17:50, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse, Joelionheart. The place you're thinking about is Adopt-a-User. To me, you look the ideal user to benefit from this scheme. It has been rather in the doldrums in recent years, mainly because of the (almost) instant responses available here, and at the Help Desk and the live IRC help forum. You are clearly a serious and committed editor, and that's the type of editor I'd like WP:AAU to cater for. Don't bother adding one of the 'adopt me' templates to your Userpage, but instead look through the list of those editors who, like me, have explained their interests, and the type of editor they're happy to mentor. My advice is to simply approach via their Talk Page the one that you think matches your interests, and introduce yourself. Be prepared to be gently turned down if the mentor/adopter is unavailable or doesn't feel you and they have sufficient interests or experience in common. Mentorship is much less common than it once was, but I believe it still has a place, not in supporting brand new editors, but those who, like you, have demonstrated their commitment to editing across Wikipedia, but also recognise their weaknesses and willingness to improve their skills here. I hope you find this helpful, and good luck. (One initial thing I'd suggest is that, looking at your edit history, you could do with adding 'edit summaries' to a lot more if your own edits). Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 18:34, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick Moyes: Thanks Nick for a generous reply giving context & background on Adopt-a-User. Very helpful. And yes, I'm aware that in the past I've often ignored edit summaries, which has been an oversight. Trying to get better at this. Joelionheart (talk) 18:40, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Joelionheart: You're welcome. A useful tip to ensure edit summaries are always filled in is to go to your Preferences page and, under the Edit tab, you'll see a tick box for Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary It's really worth activating. Regards Nick Moyes (talk) 19:28, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

offensive talk page?

I am aware of a user who has a very prominent banner at the top of their talk page containing offensive language and a potentially offensive link, the top of said user's talk page also contains a reference to a well-publicized mass murder, for no clear reason. This user has been on wikipedia for like 10 times as long as I have, so i'm a bit uncomfortable confronting them about content in there userspace, but think they need to adjust their talk page, do I just post on there talk page? report at ANI? Tornado chaser (talk) 18:51, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tornado chaser: I'd suggest asking them about it on their talk page - just be aware that while some things are frowned upon on user pages, its rather rare to see any meaningful action unless it's blatantly something on this list - TNT 💖 19:05, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That list didn't look like it covers what I am talking about, and I don't want to make a big deal out of something that is considered acceptable, but the fact that this symbol at this size is at the very top of the talk page along with the word "Attention" followed by multiple obscenities in moderately large font seems like an unacceptable turnoff to new editors attempting to talk to this user, what do you think? Tornado chaser (talk) 19:27, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think I know who you're talking. My advice: just drop it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:32, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok Tornado chaser (talk) 19:42, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If in effect a person has a NO TRESSPASSING sign on their Talk page, pause before adding a comment or New section. David notMD (talk) 22:22, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This wasn't a no trespassing sign or request for people not to post, it looks more like an odd sense of humour. Tornado chaser (talk) 22:40, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't appear to be the one I'm thinking about, from your description. I think it is probably a warning that not thinking before posting on that talk page will be given short shrift. I also doubt it is actually offensive. -Roxy, in the middle. wooF 09:41, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Additions to a page

My additions to the tetragrammaton page were deleted What gives that person the right to delete them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkleberte (talk • contribs) 19:23, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are WP:RULES like WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE, see also WP:RS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:25, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The direct answer to your question, Mkleberte is: Any user has the right to revert an edit. If they do so, you do not have the right to simply reapply the edit (that is called edit warring, and is forbidden, irrespective of the merits of your edit). What you are encouraged to do in that case is to open a discussion with the other user on the article's talk page, to try and reach consensus. Please see WP:BOLD. --ColinFine (talk) 20:52, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
M - The better place to discuss what does and does not belong in the Tetragrammaton article is at the Talk page for that article rather than the Talk pages of the editors who reversed what you had changed. And remember to be civil, as that is one of the tenants of Wikipedia. David notMD (talk) 01:58, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Auto Biography

I'm interested in writing a biography of myself. I am an author of 2 books and was told I could add my biography in wikipedia. How can I get started? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreecraven (talk • contribs) 22:33, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Writing an autobiography on Wikipedia is fraught with problems.... see WP:AUTO. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 23:26, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Dreecraven, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid you've been given bad advice: I suggest you go back to whoever told you that, and recommend that they actually find out something about Wikipedia before blithely giving people advice about it. Autobiography is not actually forbidden in Wikipedia, but it is strongly discouraged, for a number of reasons, as discussed in the link Ariconte gave you. But I want to focus on one: despite appearances to the contrary, "telling the world about" something is emphatically not one of the purposes of Wikipedia: we call it promotion, and remove it wherever we see it. An encyclopaeida, on the contrary, collects and summarises information which has already been published about a subject. If there is sufficient published material about you (not by you, or by your associates, or just a transcript of an interview or press relese you gave) then there can be an article about you. It will not belong to you, and you will not have control over what it contains. --ColinFine (talk) 23:56, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tredwell Onderdonk edit

Hello, I don't have the time right now to do the edit, but my ancestor Bishop Onderdonk's name is Tredwell Onderdonk, not Treadwell. No 'a', if anyone can please correct the misspelling. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.185.209.21 (talk) 00:54, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, and welcome to the Teahouse. It does seem like there is some inconsistency between sources in how his middle name is spelled: [4] uses Treadwell, while [5] uses Tredwell. I realize they are probably hard to find, but are there any other sources that can point to how his middle name is actually spelled? I JethroBT drop me a line 03:11, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I might be of help regarding sources supporting the Tredwell spelling. The Bishop Pike Affair by Stringfellow and Towne (ISBN: 9781556353260) used the spelling in a section detailing his 1844 trial (p. 185). Other sources that used this spelling include Shattuck and Hein's The Episcopalians (ISBN: 9780898694970), p. 267); and, the American National Biography: Supplement (ISBN: 9780195222029) where his name was listed in p. 768). I found that there are fewer books that use Treadwell. - Darwin Naz (talk) 02:56, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock question

How long the unblock ticket request system takes? - 114.124.172.216 (talk) 09:19, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an answer to this, but made it into its own question, as it appears unrelated to Onderdonk. See next entry. David notMD (talk) 13:04, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS

My talk page is revoked and unblock ticket request system takes a very long time. How can I get unblocked now? - 114.124.172.89 (talk) 07:24, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

: You can't. Posting here is block evasion, and your only other edit was vandalism. If you can't make a convincing argument at UTRS you stay blocked. --David Biddulph (talk) 07:54, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How long the UTRS to take process? 114.124.172.216 (talk) 09:20, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A question about adding a category

Greetings. I have a quick question about categories. I am interested in creating a subcategory in Category:Historic house museums in Pennsylvania. This category would be something like Category: Historic house museums in Pennsylvania listed by county.

So my two questions are:

1. What is the most appropriate name for this category? For example, is the category name I suggested here, just now, an appropriate name, or would you suggest a name that better suits this subject?

2. In which category is it most appropriate to create this subcategory? I see that each state in the U.S. has its own category for the historic house museums in that state, such as Category:Historic house museums in Pennsylvania, but none of the states has a subcategory listing the house museums by county. Typically, each state category for this subject has only one or two subcategories, such as Category:Open-air museums in Pennsylvania, but I do not see anywhere a category which further divides a state into county subcategories. So, thanks for any advice. Lee Jay Stoltzfus (talk) 07:49, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, LeeJayStoltzfus. "Listed by xxx" doesn't make sense for a category: the contents of a category are simply the articles which use the category, and there is no concept of organising them. I suspect that what you mean is that you would like a subcategory Category:Historic house museums of xxx County, Pennsylvania, for each county. (It is possible to create what you have suggested as a 'metacategory' - see WP:DIFFUSE - but I don't see any point in doing so: it would be an unnecessary extra level in the subcategory hierarchy).
Technically, it is straightforward to do this, though ideally you should create a category for every county which has historic houses, and move all the houses into the subcategories. I'm not sure whether it is best practice, though: I suggest asking at WT:WikiProject Categories. --ColinFine (talk) 08:25, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Editing

Tea and biscuits - free to allcomers
This image is of little use in showing what a helicopter is, nor what the Sydney Opera House looks like!

Hello, is it possible to add a picture/image to a Wikipedia article, when the editing option is open ? For example, monuments that are described but with no pictures. And what are the definitions for the standard picture/image ? Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lfifaria (talk • contribs) 2018-10-01T09:11:59 (UTC)

Hello, Lfifaria, and welcome to the Teahouse. That's an interesting question. In one sense I could say that the only way that's possible is when in editing mode. But I think you want to both edit and upload new photos at one and the same time, right? The picture I've added here was previously uploaded to Wikimedia Commons so, having found the one there that I wanted, I copied its filename and pasted it in to the dialogue box that comes up whilst I was editing this reply to you. (in the editing toolbar you'll see a little picture of a mountain with the mouse-over caption of 'Embedded file') Click the embed file icon and an 'insert file' dialogue appears for you to add that filename and a caption. But you'll note that that dialogue window also has an 'Upload' link. I've never uploaded by that route myself, but you can do it easily from there. Personally, I prefer to upload my images as a separate task, especially multiple images where some metadata is consistent across the images, as this can easily be duplicated during upload to Commons. I am assuming these are images that you own the copyright to, and are willing to freely licence for anyone else to use for any other purpose i.e. under a CC-BY-SA creative commons licence. I am not quite sure what you were alluding to when you ask about 'definitions for the standard picture', but you will find a lot of helpful links at Wikipedia:Images. In essence, only upload an image if a) you own it b) are willing to allow others to use it for any purpose, including commercial, and c) if it adds encyclopaedic value and interest to an article - see the other image I've just embedded. Does this help? Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 08:46, 1 October 2018 (UTC)  [reply]
Hello, Lififaria, and welcome to the Teahouse. If there is already a suitable image in WP:Commons, then the answer is an emphatic yes: it is straightforward to add a link to it (though the positioning can sometimes be a bit tricky). If there is not already an image in Commons, there are extra steps, the main one of which is to upload an image to Commons first. However, before doing that it is important to sort out the copyright status of the image: if you took the picture yourself, you normally own the copyright, and have the power to license it in a suitable way when you upload it; in any of the case, it can be difficult. Please see Help:Upload. --ColinFine (talk) 08:32, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Just in case any other editor is interested in the answered part of this question (which I've just replied to on my talk page), here's some further information:
Whilst I'm no expert on Wikimedia Commons images, there's no size limit you need be worried about. But I see no point in supplying a massive 10Mb file of a tiny stamp! A 700x 1000 pixel image should be fine. What I don't,. didn't know is anything about copyright of a country's stamp images - that could be a question you'd have to ask at Wikimedia Commons, or look for similar images of Romanian stamps and see how others have dealt with licencing. Hold on - I've just found the answer for you. Visit C:Category:Stamps of Romania and you'll see a notice saying they're all public domain there. So that's good news! I hope this helps. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:41, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New here and got hit by a bot that did wholesale revisions to my edits

I just got hit by the following: User:XLinkBot to this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driving_while_black and I really feel this "bot" just went and changed all my edits for no reason. I was trying to make the page better. I added internal links under the heading "see also" and relevant links to articles under the heading "further reading". My first urge was to make complaints, but I guess I should post here before I occupy the admins time and see if, maybe, I just don't understand Wikipedia's culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdfoley01 (talk • contribs) 08:12, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sdfoley01 and welcome to the Teahouse. Your edits are reverted because you tried to cite a wordpress website as a source. Wordpress is a blog, which should be normally avoided when adding external links (see WP:ELNO). That's why the bot stated that it attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The bot probably blacklisted wordpress. Regards —AE (talk • contributions) 08:22, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Abelmoschus Esculentus and thank you for the reply. I just checked and see my last edit was a link for a document hosted on Wordpress. I thought it was an important document, but I can remove the link, if needed. What I didn't understand was why all my edits were reverted. I had spent several hours sourcing documents and formating citations that I felt added to the page and, you can understand, was pretty disheartened when they were all gone. Overall, I would like to contribute to pages on Wikipedia involving current issues and think it is important that people using this site for research have access to solid academic references, but it makes me uneasy to spend so much time on something that can just disappear like that. On the plus side, I did undo the changes and they haven't been changed back again. Sdfoley01
@Sdfoley01: You've complained at several pages, so I will reply only here. The wholesale removal is a matter of choice. Both reverting the sole edit that added the link, and reverting all edits of the user who added (in one of the edits) the link have been tried as options. While arguably 'a bit more bitey' than the 'bitey' option of reverting only one edit, it was rather consistently found that this results in less damaged pages left over in case there are multiple edits to try and insert a 'correctly working link' ánd less edit-conflicting (where material that needs to be removed could not be removed due to consequtive edits by the same editor), and in case none of the edits are actually bad the editor, as per the message left by the bot on the talkpage of the editor, has to revert the bots' edit anyway.
Wordpress is indeed a blog, generally not useful as a reference nor external link. Specific documents may pass the bar, though even here I would argue that it is overdone, the article has 68 references and 8 further reading links, are more non-content/non-references really needed to expand with material that is not yet covered in that (and that goes to a certain extend to the other external links as well)? --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:40, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the reply, @Beetstra:. I removed the link to the document hosted on Wordpress. I also removed the oldest journal article I added under "Further Reading"...so I only added three to that section. If you think it would be better, and since I'm the new person here, I'll remove one or all the others. I left the internal links under "See also" alone. I can understand your concern about having too many links on a page and that, really, content should be integrated into the text of the article. It was just a shock to me, after a lot of effort on my part, to see everything I did on the page removed at once. Sdfoley01

How many minimum references or media coverage a company need before making a company page on wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vids312 (talk • contribs) 08:39, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Vids312. Welcome to the Teahouse. (If you don't mind sharing a cup, you're welcome to drink some of the tea provided a couple of posts above this one!) But, in all seriousness, the answer to your question can be found in WP:CORPDEPTH, which is just one section in the article on Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) which I invite you to read. There is no simple numerical answer. It comes down to quality of independent, in-depth reliable sources that have written about that company, not how many insider business websites have regurgitated copies of a company's press releases. I hope you find this helpful. Good luck! Nick Moyes (talk) 08:53, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Vids312. In addition to Nick Moyes' answer, I would like to suggest that you reframe your thoughts from "a company page" to "an article about the company". This may seem picky, but I believe that it will help to avoid a lot of frustration later. A Wikipedia article should be based on what people unconnected with the company have chosen to publish about it. Wikipedia has essentially no interest in what a company (or any other person or entity) wishes to say about themselves. This implies that, as Nick indicated, sources connected with the company or its associates will play a very small role in the article. --ColinFine (talk) 10:04, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How does user notification work when username is mentioned

I'm doing TWA and it says, "Notify Will that you replied by typing his name somewhere in your reply like User:WillKomen. If you're on Will's user talk page, it will notify him automatically." What does it mean to say that I have to be on Will's user talk page? chaos1618 (talk) 09:17, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Chaos1618 and welcome to the Teahouse. Because I have included your username in my reply to you, and signed it with four keyboard tilde characters (like this: ~~~~), you will receive an automatic notification that I have mentioned your name, plus a link to it within that notification. It appears as a red bell (in desktop view) or, if I remember, a red star in mobile view.- both at the top of the page. You can click that red notification link to see who and what message has been left for you. Every editor here has their own Userpage (e.g. User:Chaos1618) and an associated Talk page. It would be wrong of me to edit your Userpage - that's really for you to use. But if I were to want to contact you directly, I would find your user Talk Page tab, click it, and at User talk:Chaos1618 I'd leave a message for you there at the bottom of the page (where new messages always go). I wouldn't need to include your username in my message - but you would still receive a red notification when logged on to Wikipedia that someone had left a message there.
You can read more about the different ways notifications between editors happens by visiting Wikipedia:Notifications. BTW: Do keep persisting with The Wikipedia Adventure - there are a total of 15 badges to collect, and you are totally free to delete any or all of the welcome messages that the TWA system leaves you. (You get another one for every time you log in, so it can get a bit irritating if you do it in multiple sessions) I hope this makes at least a little sense. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:31, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your helpful reply Nick! :) I went through Wikipedia:Notifications. My confusion actually arises from this use case. Let's say I participated in a talk page discussion of an article and I have NOT chosen to include that talk page in my watch list. If someone else replies to my discussion on the talk page (by leaving an indented message), but without explicitly mentioning me. Would I get a notification? For example, I've intentionally didn't link your username in this particular edit. If this page is not on your watchlist, would you get a notification that I replied to you? Sorry if my question is unclear. Look forward to your reply. And yes, I've completed TWA and don't intend to delete those badges. I've earned them! Greetings. chaos1618 (talk) 10:35, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No. If you're not mentioned you don't get notified. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:41, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you David! Indeed I didn't get a notification for your reply because you didn't mention me. chaos1618 (talk) 10:53, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hey chaos1618. A notification is generated in two cases: 1) Someone adds texts that includes a link to your user page and also a new signature by typing ~~~~, or 2) someone leaves a link to your user page in an edit summary. If either of these are satisfied, it will notify you regardless of whether the page is on your watchlist. If these are not satisfied, such as someone linking to your user page but without a new signature, or if someone incorrectly attempts to link to your userpage but includes a typographical error, then it will not notify you, regardless of whether the page is on your watchlist.
The only cases that are special is your user talk page and your main user page themselves, where you will be notified every time someone makes any change regardless of what that change is. So for example, if I left a comment on your user page saying Welcome to Wikipedia, hope you enjpy your stay. ~~~~, you will get one notification. Then, if I go back and fix my typo to say "enjoy" instead of "enjpy", you will get a second notification because I have made some change, even though it was only fixing a typo. GMGtalk 10:48, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for the detailed help, User:GreenMeansGo. May I ask what you mean by new signature? Is it different from signing with ~~~~ every time I make an edit? I'm already feeling very good with the overwhelming positive responses here :) chaos1618 (talk) 10:56, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Chaos1618: New signature means that a signature must be added in the same edit as the user page is linked. It does not work if you edit an existing signed post and add a user page link without making a new signature. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:55, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
i.e. the time stamp of the signature needs to match with the time of edit, or else it won't work. —AE (talk • contributions) 12:57, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Abelmoschus Esculentus: The time stamp is actually ignored and doesn't even have to be present. This edit is signed with ~~~ which omits a time stamp but you should still be notified. PrimeHunter (talk)
  • Hey chaos1618. So the way that the software works, once you hit save and transform ~~~~ into [[User:Chaos1618|chaos1618]], it's no longer a "new signature". The practical implication of this is that you can't go back and add a notification to a previous comment. For example, if I forgot to notify a user like this:
Let's ask [[User:User Number One]] and [[User:User Number Three]] what they think. ~~~~
I can't go back and add the ping for User Number Two. I'd have to add a new comment with a new signature like this:
Let's ask [[User:User Number One]] and [[User:User Number Three]] what they think. [[User:GreenMeansGo|<span style="font-family:Impact"><span style="color:#07CB4B">G</span><span style="color:#449351">M</span><span style="color:#35683d">G</span></span>]][[User talk:GreenMeansGo#top|<sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk</sup>]]
 :Oops. I forgot to ping [[User:User Number Two]]. ~~~~
Hopefully that makes sense. GMGtalk 14:02, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Offices

Does Wikipedia have offices around the world — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.17.62.101 (talk) 11:40, 1 October 2018‎ (UTC)[reply]

Hey anon. Although Wikipedia relies primarily on the volunteer efforts of users all over the world, the offices for the Wikimedia Foundation, the non-profit organization that administers Wikipedia, are located in California. GMGtalk 14:05, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
only —AE (talk • contributions) 14:09, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page creation

How to post information on wikipedia so that any user can search and get benefitted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vats12345 (talk • contribs) 15:29, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Vats12345: You appear to have found Articles for Creation. I suggest filling out the article a bit more, then submitting it again. I cannot see your deleted edits, as I am not an administrator. Do you know what article they were on and why they were deleted? -A lad insane (Channel 2) 15:37, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
regarding susta village.
@Vats12345: I have indented and separated your comment to add clarity. Also, please add four tildes (~~~~) after every post on a discussion page so it can be identified as you.
I have found the article Susta, is that on the topic you are looking for? -A lad insane (Channel 2) 15:55, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

? re editing

Hello,

Several times I've added a small amount of info via edit on the same 3 Wikipedia sites. My additions appear, then, disappear. Once, a message was sent to me saying I was banned for some reason which I don't understand because what I said was 100% accurate & benign. I may be doing the process incorrectly, i.e. not documenting.

I'd greatly appreciate if you could check into this & get back with me so I can learn how to remedy this recurring situation.

Thank you so much for your Insight & assistance.

Genia Stephenson Angelsings1111 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angelsings1111 (talk • contribs) 15:59, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Genia, and welcome to the Teahouse. Looking over your contributions, I see that each time you have added information, you have said in the edit summary something like "This information is 100% accurate because he is a friend of mine". Thank you for using the edit summary (many inexperienced editors do not). It easily pinpoints the problem. Because Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia anybody may edit, people can put in all sorts of information: things they know to be true, things they think are true but are mistaken, things they don't know whether are true or not, and things they know are false. On top of that, most users don't use their own names (and even if they do, we have know way usually of knowing whether they are really the person they say). To make matters worse, even if the information somebody inserts actually is correct, somebody else may come along later and change it - again, either in good faith, or maliciously.
Given all that, nothing in Wikipedia is actually reliable, unless there is a source given where somebody could look it up. (In practice, of course, 99.something % of it is actually reliable, but the problem is knowing which is the 0.something % which isn't). For this reason we require that all information in a Wikipedia article is backed up by a reliable published source: personal knowledge is not acceptable, unless supported in this way, so that a reader next week or next month or next year has a way of checking that the information is correct. --ColinFine (talk) 16:21, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A second point: People listed in Notable sections of place articles are included because there is a pre-existing Wikipedia article about that person - hence the name showing up in blue. Don Lasseter, albeit a well-known author, does not have a Wikipedia article about him. If such an article existed, and had references for the various places Lasseter has lived, then he could be listed as notable for those places (Fort Ord, etc.) without having to provide a reference in those articles. David notMD (talk) 18:24, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. You were neither banned (blocked) nor warned - what you got was a suggestion to not do more of what you did, which was add content without referencing. David notMD (talk) 19:14, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Common nickname

I've created a page for a sportsperson whose name has no current duplicates. It seems that publicly they have a nickname which has duplicates. What would be the approach to help visitors find this person? Should I create a redirection page for Nickname (sport)? I've brought this up on the talk page of the disambiguation page.

Thanks in advance for the guidance. - Mcstove (talk) 16:47, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mcstove, and welcome to the Teahouse. I guess this is about Georgina Fisher, yes? It continually puzzles me why people asking for help here so often avoid actually telling us what article they are talking about, so that we have to go and look for it.. The answer is in COMMONNAME: all three of the sources refer to her as George, therefore that is what the article should be called: George Fisher (netball player) or similar. Moving the page will automatically leave behind a redirect from Georgina Fisher to the name. You can also add her to the disambiguation page George Fisher.
However, I want to point out that there is a problem with that article: at present, the references do not, in my opinion, establish that Fisher meets Wikipedia's requirements for notability. Two of them simply list her name; one has more information, but appears to be based on an interview with her, so is not independent. In particular, you have not given any source for the claim that her name is Georgina. Please review the requirements of biographies of living persons. --ColinFine (talk) 21:55, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
ColinFine Thanks for taking time to look into the post and apologies for the avoiding - I was unsure about making the problem completely specific, and assumed it would only be a second more to see my contributions. I'll review the links to notability and then see if there are appropriate sources, and look into moving after. -- Mcstove (talk) 22:37, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To L293D

Regarding my comment on Creation Sandbox from 3 months ago:

I am indeed dissapointed that my comment was not accepted. Please chalk it up to my inexpearience submitting comments to Wikipedia.

Lightness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theworldonastring (talk • contribs) 18:09, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to talk to L293D, the place to do so is User talk:L293D. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:15, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Hello, Theworldonastring, and welcome to the Teahouse. It appears that you have misunderstood what Wikipedia, and more specifically the draft process, is about. There is no process for submitting "comments." The draft process is for drafting Wikipedia pages, with the intent of ultimately putting them into the main Wikipedia space. If you would like to learn more about what you can do on Wikipedia, a runthrough of the Wikipedia Adventure might be helpful. Regards, JTP (talk • contribs) 18:18, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seemingly non-notable minor locations in bulk on Wikipedia

Why are there so many seemingly non-notable minor locations with full Wikipedia articles, often barely cited such as this or this that I've found while using Special:Random? They appear about one in every eight articles. --9563rj (talk) 19:25, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My speculation is that there a lot of people who are interested in contributing to Wikipedia, and one of the most obvious places to start is one's own hometown. You might well be interested in learning more about your hometown for other reasons, and doing that research in support of a Wikipedia article achieves two goals. Some of these editors then move on to other things and some decide editing is harder than I they realized and go away.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:59, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
First off, they are easy to make. The structure is basically the same and the key details can be derived from data sources. If you look at the edit history of these articles, they are not created by people whose hometown it is, but by people who know how to use (semi)automated tools.
Populated places with legal status are "are typically presumed to be notable" WP:GEOLAND. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, this presumption is notoriously hard to rebuke when it comes to even tiny villages. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:26, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree on both points. One common headache on copy patrol with an article about some small town that triggers a possible copyright situation. When you do the investigation you see that it is almost identical to some site that is copied from Wikipedia with the only differences being the name of the town and the various census numbers. The structure and flow and much of the text is identical.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:58, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

USBG

"USBG" redirects directly to the United States Botanic Gardens. However, the United States Bartenders' Guild, a well known organization in the service industry, has the same abbreviation, but doesn't have a page. I've been wondering whether to create a disambiguation page for the "USBG" abbreviation (since there may be many more uses for it), or to merely create the page for the United States Bartenders' Guild, and have one or the other include an "if you meant etc. etc. etc., you may be looking for this" sentence at the top. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polio18 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Polio18. Since on the face of it, the Gardens seems likely to be the more prominent of the subjects, we would probably want to create the page for the Guild, and then add Template:Redirect to the Gardens article in case someone is redirected there, but intended to go to the other article instead. We generally don't create disambiguation pages where there are only two existing pages, in the case that one is pretty clearly the more prominent of the two subjects. GMGtalk 19:44, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

England Touch Association

Hi there, I have just recently done a lot of work on this page. England Touch Association. It has a lot of shouty banners on top, which I believe are now dated. Could anyone give it a review and take some of them (all hopefully!) down? Multiple sources, including ABC, and in particular the BBC now, so feel that it is a solid piece. What's added there is what I feel the reader of the page will be looking for. What has the ETA, and its teams done? What is the ETA? Credible sources etc. many thanks SamCardioNgo (talk) 19:50, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SamCardioNgo. Anybody may remove the cleanup templates if they think they no longer apply; but asking for somebody to review it first is a good plan. However, I for one am not inclined to review it until somebody formats the references better, with proper bibliographic data (in particular, title, date, and the publisher or organ). Without this, it's harder to evaluate the references. Please see REFB. --ColinFine (talk) 22:05, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, ColinFine. I have updated as requested! SamCardioNgo (talk) 23:22, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How article rating works when part of numerous Wiki Projects

If an article is rated B on one wikiproject and Start on another (and it is clearly not a start article), does the article need to be reviewed by a member of the other WikiProject or can it be automatically switched to B for all WikiProjects it falls under? --Michail (blah) 20:50, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Michail. Ratings between start and B are comparatively arbitrary. If you feel a rating is pretty obviously wrong, you can feel free to update it, even if you are not listed as a member of the project. GMGtalk 22:22, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response, User:GreenMeansGo. And in the case of GA articles, if an article is reviewed and passes GA, does it become GA for all WikiProjects involved? --Michail (blah) 22:27, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yup Michail. A GA or an FA is either a GA/FA or it ain't. It's not dependent on individual WikiProjects. The major exception to all that is A class, which is really only used by the Military History WikiProject, but which is widely accepted as a legitimate class, since WikiProject Military History is one of the most active, if not the most active WikiProject. GMGtalk 22:35, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Philly boy92 and GreenMeansGo: I noticed a milhist mention here, and wanted to chime in briefly before this gets archived. The military project here on the en.wikipedia tends to be the standard by which a lot of other project's articles and processes are judged - not through any forced means, its just that the military history project's bars, infrastructure, and other related processes tend to churn out a lot of the quality work on Wikipedia. Within the military project, a distinction is made between start and B-class: a start class article is usually heading towards greatness, but lacks a lot of the context needed to cover all aspects of the article's subject (perhaps there's a missing picture or no background information or so forth in that manner) to justify a higher rating, whereas a B-class article adequately covers all aspects of the B-class check list leaving nothing for want. Of particular note is that a B-class article in our project must have all information in all sections cited to reliable sources and cover all aspects of the topic with no obvious omissions for the lead into the subject, the subject itself, and the subject after its completion. While ours is admittedly a higher criteria, a number of other projects borrow our criteria for their project so its a good idea to check and make sure that the assessment of the article matches whatever the project's assessment department (if present) believes that article should be rated at. In the case of the Military history Project, you can find our assessment criteria and examples here. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:33, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

how do I submit an article from my Sandbox?

My article is completed in the Sandbox with all references/citations included. I reviewed Article Wizard, but still cannot understand where and how to submit the article for review. Can you please help me with this? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Django1887 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend that you do some reading of the links on your user talk page. It will aid reviewers if you make the draft comply with the Manual of Style, for example: wikify the draft, format section headings, tidy up same reference used more than once, reference punctuation, remove inappropriate capitalisation, ... After that, the first paragraph of WP:AFC tells you how to submit for review. --David Biddulph (talk) 21:23, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Films and their content rating

Hi, I was just wondering: why do movies' pages tend not to have any information related to content ratings? I.e. American films have the MPAA rating (G, PG, PG-13, R, NC-17), but for a classic movie like Jurassic Park, for example, there is nowhere on its page that has rating information (it was rated PG-13). I would think this information is important for several reasons:

One, since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it makes sense to record the facts of a film's publication and effect on society - the MPAA is factually related to the release of the film since it classifies it in a specific way that is relevant to its target audience.

Second, from a financial standpoint a film's rating has a big effect because it limits (or liberates) the audience who are able to see it and thus can dramatically affect is financial gains. Since finances are a part of the business aspect of filmmaking and thus relates to its social relevance (which is a criteria for it to be on wikipedia in the first place), it might be important to consider how a rating affects a film's business.

Third, From a practical point of view, since Wikipedia results often come up first (or close) when searching movie titles online, many people might search a film's wikipedia page if they were looking for film's rating. This could be important to them for obvious reasons, i.e. if they have small children and need to know if the film's content is appropriate. But if they are unable to find the rating of a movie on the page, they might think of it as a needless omission of something pretty important. If wikipedia is THE place most people go to for information online, why should a person have to go somewhere else to find something as simple as a film's rating? It makes little sense.

Fourth, it is true that some people (professionals or not) find the rating system controversial or just plain don't like it/think films need it. But Wikipedia is not about what people's preferences are, it is supposed to simply state the facts of a topic or entity with as little bias as possible. And a film's rating - the fact that it has one or doesn't, or if it does, what it is specifically- IS a fact, it is not subject to interpretation because that it is part of the reality of its release.

So that is what I was wondering. I made the above cases because my recent experience with Wikipedia bureaucracy/formality has shown me that for the smallest issue, there is usually a BIG reason why things are done the way they are. I know that if I were to make a minor change on the Jurassic Park page and add a "rating = PG-13" in its infobox, within an hour it would probably be deleted by someone because that's "not how pages are done." But for this particular issue I can't see why there can't be a rating display on a film page. If the issue is that films are rated different things in different countries, then clarification can be made in that regard (i.e. by using a table box or something). The point is that it wouldn't be that hard, and it is still a pretty important thing to know, despite it being a 'small' thing.

Thanks.

Rush922 (talk) 21:12, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rush922. I'm not apart of WikiProject Film, so I can't answer this question directly, but I believe WP:FILMRATING is what you are looking for. JTP (talk • contribs) 21:20, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks for your answer. That information somewhat satisfies me, but not entirely - I guess I will have to question the WikiProject Film people directly at some point! Rush922 (talk) 21:26, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page rejected

Hello, I've just had a page I submitted in the artist Henry John Dobson rejected on notability grounds only to see a similar page on the same subject appear minutes later including similar links. Jamie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamie Stuart 11 (talk • contribs) 2018-10-01T23:04:21 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jamie Stuart 11. When I compare Draft:Henry John Dobson with the new article Henry John Dobson, it is clear to me that the new article is much better than your draft. The article is written in complete sentences, is properly formatted, and has several references. Your draft lacks these features. I suggest that you read Your first article and Referencing for beginners. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:37, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are inactive Users purged?

Stats for English language state >34 million registered users, but only ~130,000 editing within past 30 days. Is there any policy for purging Users who have not edited in, say, five years? Or if no-purge is a firm policy, perhaps adding a stat counting people who have edited at least once in past year? I an saddened by the numbers showing only ~ 0.4% having edited in past 30 days. David notMD (talk) 02:03, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • @David notMD: For the same reasons accounts cannot be deleted even at user's request (copyright mostly), I would expect there be no "purge" either. TigraanClick here to contact me 07:57, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) ​We couldn't delete any account that has ever made an edit, because that would destroy attribution; this is a legal requirement so not something we could consider even if we wanted to. The statistics for active editors are here; in general, around 30,000 editors are active (in the sense of having made at least five edits in the past 30 days) at any given time. Bear in mind that a lot of registered accounts are either people who don't edit themselves but create an account so they can operate a watchlist of articles that interest them, or are people who don't edit English Wikipedia but are active on another Wikimedia Foundation project and have consequently had a placeholder account created under Wikipedia:Unified login, in the same way that सदस्य:David notMD exists on Hindi Wikipedia despite you never having edited there; purging inactive accounts would cause significant inconvenience to huge numbers of people. ‑ Iridescent 08:12, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why my edits removed?

Hello, I made a few edits and quite shaken they were struck off. Not sure what I'd done wrong. Thank you. [1] Greenleaf CA (talk) 02:19, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not part of my question so I made it a new section. The editor who removed your edits stated that they contained content that was under copyright. Wikipedia disallows. David notMD (talk) 02:50, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Greenleaf_CA

Portmanteau Word

If portmanteau is a three-syllable word with three meanings, and each meaning arose vis three different and unrelated paths, how can I prove this to puddingheads who simply refuse to accept Carroll's own definition? That is, how do I demonstrate that a portmanteau is a (1) narrow table intended for use in front halls were space may be dear, (2) a potable closet for carrying coats and other long clothes, and (3) an adjective used to describe its unique relationship with (1) and (2) without arising from the origins of either of (1) or (2) so that it does not create a connection between (1) and (2) and fulfills its own meaning as (3)? If you doubt that the origins of (1) and (2) have no tangent, I refer you to the OED. Yes, I said "tangent." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gary beachum (talk • contribs) 03:29, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Gary beachum. The Teahouse is a place for asking questions about editing Wikipedia. You may have better luck at the Reference desks. By the way, I can find no evidence that "portmanteau" refers to a narrow hall table. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:58, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The word is sometimes applied to a hall stand where you can hang coats. They sometimes have mirrors. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:07, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Music artist

What does it take for a musician to be accepted on wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki World Centre (talk • contribs) 04:53, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Wiki World Centre. Please read the Notabilty criteria for musicians and ensembles. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:50, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

about speedy action

what is speedy action — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajeshbabu5405 (talk • contribs) 06:14, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean "speedy deletion", the criteria are listed at WP:CSD. The notices on User talk:Durgaprasad107 have blue wikilinks to the relevant criteria. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:05, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

sir i want to write articale on website

how to write a articale on website — Preceding unsigned comment added by Durgaprasad107 (talk • contribs) 06:18, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Durgaprasad107, and welcome to our Teahouse. We encourage people to write about 'Notable subjects'. But for a new editor like you, creating a completely new article is one of the hardest things to achieve here. (It took me 9 months before I dared try!) It is actually far better to learn the ways of Wikipedia by slowly making small improvements over time. A very good introduction would be to try out The Wikipedia Adventure and then to read Wikipedia:Your first article. If you want to write about a website, it will have to have already been written about, in depth, by other, totally independent, reliable sources. You can learn precisely what criteria are used to decide whether a new page is meritorious (worthy of being added to this encyclopaedia) by visiting Wikipedia:Notability (web) where the criteria are explained in full. Should you want to write about a company, the criteria we require you to met are explained at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). I'm afraid that if you cannot provide sources to demonstrate a new topic meets our notability criteria, then you stand no chance of a new page being accepted. This may sound harsh, but Wikipedia is not here to help people promote favourite businesses, websites, musicians etc - we need to know that the world at large has already taken an interest in them, and we demand that references (citations) are provided to demonstrate that fact. I hope this assists you in deciding whether you stand a chance of being successful. Feel free to come back for guidance if you need it. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:28, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple topics in one article

It seems EN series seems off one paragraph about chairs and another one about steel. I thought the chairs were maybe made of steel, but the care seems to be made of plastic. So those topics seem to be unrelated. I've seen other pages where a disambiguation page is used, and I've also seen "this article is about the X, for the Y, see title (Y)". When is each thing used? And how do I split a page in two while keeping the history? Pretended leer (talk) 08:22, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article should be about the steel; someone added some unsourced spam about chairs to it last year which wasn't previously detected. I've reverted the article to its previous state. ‑ Iridescent 08:36, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Pretended leer (talk) 08:53, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where can I find art pages that need improving

Wright of Derby, The Orrery

I am a fine art student from Wolverhapton University and am interested in improving some art pages. I am particularly interested in artists from the North of Englan. Could anyone recommend any pages to get me started? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albrighton Titon (talk • contribs) 09:50, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Albrighton Titon and welcome to the Teahouse. Thanks for your willingness to help improve Wikipedia. I think the Arts WikiProject might be a good place to start. Others may have better suggestions. 331dot (talk) 09:54, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ThanksAlbrighton Titon (talk) 09:57, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Albrighton Titon, and, likewise, welcome to the Teahouse. Are you also aware of the 'GLAM project'? It stands for Galleries, Libraries Archives and Museums, and if you click that link you'll see the worldwide homepage for projects trying to encourage collaboration between Wikipedia and Museums etc. So one good place to start would be to look at the UK section of that project, and then maybe the Wolverhampton Art Gallery page here. I'd then suggest contacting one of the art staff at the museum directly to see if they have resources or local artists they'd like to work with you on to improve. Give them a ring and make an appointment for a 10 minute chat. Museums love volunteers, and this could lead to some valuable CV experience for you working with them, perhaps. Local museums are bound to have books and resources that are not easily found elsewhere which can be used as references sources here, and most staff are delighted to provide information on their collections that others might be able to mobilise for them (though sadly this rarely extends to images of their collections). You may encounter the odd curator who's a bit suspicious of Wikipedia, but nowadays museums recognise the need to publicise/promote awareness of their cultural holdings but rarely have enough resources to do it themselves. Of course, you could approach any other museum in the North of England that you're interested in and enquire of their staff. I used to work at Derby Museum and Art Gallery, albeit in natural sciences, but what got me involved in Wikipedia was when one long-standing editor (Victuallers) approached us to work with Wikipedia. Nobody else was very keen, but I was, so a project ensued that put QRpedia codes on museum objects on display and launched an international project to improve a range of pages about notable people and artists relevant to our city, specifically across multiple languages. Now, I'm not suggesting you go that far (LOL!) - but the opportunities are almost endless. Feel free to ask any follow-up questions here, or if you would like any general support or ideas from from me personally, I'm happy to guide you via my Talk Page, should you so wish. Good luck! Nick Moyes (talk) 10:18, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nick, that's a great idea. I might actually be swinging by the museum tomorrow or the day after so I will phone ahead and see what they are saying. I'll let you know how I get on. Albrighton Titon (talk) 13:21, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mongoloid Race article

The Mongoloid race article seems to be organised to promote outdated notions of racial categorisation. This is a difficult subject that causes much controversy and debate in the social science and anthropology fields. It is accepted by scientists that the concept of ‘race’ is a social construct. Forensic anthropologists sometimes attempt to determine the ‘ancestry’ of human remains in an attempt to predict how a living individual would have been assigned to a social constructed category. It is also understood that such classifications are utilised terms that are no longer considered appropriate, due to common origins with racist/pejorative terms. This Mongoloid article certainly seems to be a case of this, with unrelated images and many quotes included that omit or reverse the context in which it is used. It seems that some editors who introduced this material are banned. It seems as though the article has been written by someone who found every academic use of the word "Mongoloid" and found a reason to insert it. If you get a chance please help with this review of sources, and help find better sources. Travelmite (talk) 10:05, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse is primarily to answer questions about the functioning of Wikipedia, not of specific articles. My guess is that none of the editors who help out here have any knowledge of the topic. That said, looks like you have made several dozen edits to an article that gets more than a thousand visits a day, and has scores of people who have it on their watch list. Expect other editors to get involved. Meanwhile, kudos for your Bold efforts to improve the article by both deletions and additions. I agree that many of the images make no useful contribution to the article and should be deleted. David notMD (talk) 10:39, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article explains in its first two paragraphs that it is about a historic term, not much used today. Most of the body of the article is about its historic usage. Maproom (talk) 11:16, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Improving the European Grid Infrastructure page

Dear Wikipedia editors: I work for the European Grid Infrastructure and I noticed that this page is not up to date. Since the page was last edited, EGI has 40000 new users, has reached 1 million CPU cores, developed a Cloud Service for researchers in Europe, etc. I would like to make a few edits for factual information (no marketing I promise, I know this is not the place). However: I am aware that I have a conflict of interest and I probably cannot edit the page myself. (If I was Wikipedia, I certainly wouldn't want people to edit their own pages!!) So: what can we do? Kind regards, Sara — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.100.117.237 (talk) 10:49, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Sara. If you can find sources to verify the information, you can leave a comment on the article's talk page, and if you include {{Request edit}} it will add it to a list of requested edits to be reviewed by volunteers. GMGtalk 11:02, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Sara, and thank you for complying with Wikipedia's policy. GMG has told you how to request edits. The article certainly needs work. It starts "European Grid Infrastructure (EGI) is a series of efforts to provide access to high-throughput computing resources". How can a series of efforts can have 40,000 users? Maproom (talk) 11:13, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely!!! :) EGI is an e-Infrastructure (that sentence is a relic from the time EGI was indeed a series of projects. I will follow the suggestion and add a section on requested edits. Thank you for your support! Sara — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.100.117.237 (talk) 11:14, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where do I add the Request for edits thingy? The page itself? Or on the discussion page? (Srry for the stupid question) and how do I sign? Thanks, Sara

See Wikipedia:Edit requests for details on the process and how to use it. Signing is as simple as typing ~~~~ which will automatically be converted to your username / IP and date/time. While you are at it, consider creating an account which will hide your IP address and allow you to track all your edits as well as plenty of other things. Regards SoWhy 11:32, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The talk page is at Talk:European_Grid_Infrastructure -- Mcstove (talk) 11:35, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thank you all! Sara 145.100.117.237 (talk) 11:47, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Getting page published

I was wondering how I can get my page reviewed/published and wondering if any editors could help me! I'm new to Wikipedia! Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinmoorejr (talk • contribs) 12:25, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Martinmoorejr: Hello and Welcome to Teahouse! If you have created that page under Articles for creation, you can submit it for review by placing {{subst:submit}} at the top of the page. If you have created the article in namespace and published changes, the article has been created already! However, a new page patroller/reviewer will review that article, which may happen any time. Thanks, Knightrises10 (talk) 12:40, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's views on autobiography are at WP:autobiography. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:57, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for sock. David notMD (talk) 17:56, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1) The photograph of my great grandfather Kumokun Haastrup was deleted for copyright reasons. I don't understand. The photograph is by an unknown photographer taken in Nigeria latest 1920 (he was in his late 70s in 1896). I requested an undeletion a couple of weeks ago. This has not been effected and I can no longer find the thread. (I must admit, I do not find navigating this site straightforward).'DesoHaa (talk)

2) I submitted a series of photographs from family archives, again by unknown photographers, to support an article on Adedokun Abiodun James Haastrup which was declined for not demonstrating sufficient eminence of the subject. The photographs of aforementioned with various eminent personalities such as Emperor Haile Selassie, met during his work as one of the first 12 ambassadors of Nigeria were submitted to address the Wiki editor's concerns. These family held photographs have been published by Heinemann Books in the Biography of subject with no reference to authorship as there is no record of such. Heinemann are reputable publishers therefore I am certain that all due diligence was done.'DesoHaa (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:04, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

'DesoHaa: thank you for trying to contribute these images. It ought to be possible.
Navigating this site can indeed be difficult. Part of the problem is that English-language Wikipedia (here) is a different site from Wikimedia Commons, where you uploaded the images. So people here can't really help with your problems. That's unfortunate, because in my experience people here are more helpful and friendly to new users than those at the Commons Helpdesk. I see that there are some messages for you at your talk page at Commons. I hope you will persist, and explain to the people at Commons that any photograph taken before 1923 is ought of copyright, and that Haile Selassie was a notable person. However, an image taken from a book published after 1923 will still be restricted by copyright. Maproom (talk) 13:19, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like User:Yann did end up undeleting File:Kúmókụn - Ajimoko I.jpg. Maybe they can give insight into whether the other images can be similarly restored. GMGtalk 14:13, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for pointing me in the right direction. I finally worked out how to re-post the photograph. Hopefully on the right track to sorting out the issues with the others. Your Help has been invaluable and I very much appreciate it. You're all doing such wonderful work.'DesoHaa (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:03, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for database access at Wikipedia Library, but no access months later

Hi,

I applied for access to databases at Wikipedia Library earlier this summer. I have been sent user ids and passwords to all but Oxford University Press and Taylor & Francis. I cannot find where to ask for help with this or ask a question on the Wikipedia Library site. Can you point me in the right direction or assist me with thiis issue? thx MauraWen (talk) 14:07, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MauraWen: You can check your applications on your library card user page. From there you can access your individual applications and leave a comment for the reviewing coordinator. Alternatively you can go to the page of the resource in question from the overview where you will find the name of the coordinator for this resource as well as a way to contact them. Regards SoWhy 17:54, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Struggling to figure out what is happening

I'm new to Wikipedia and want to start creating and maintaining updates to articles of photographers and filmmakers of notable importance. I'm part of a few groups off Wikipedia who find the lack of documentation of MANY photographers such as Chase Jarvis, Martin Moore, Brandon Woelfel and others on Wikipedia concerning, but as I start to edit articles I have a gang of people trying to undermine additions throwing accusations of COI. Any help would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JasonBillings (talk • contribs) 15:46, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to be taken seriously, you could start by not making obviously nonsensical claims such as that User:Martinmoorejr doesn't have a COI on the topic of Martin Moore Jr. ‑ Iridescent 16:06, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked as confirmed sock. David notMD (talk) 01:31, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No subject

Is it possible to use STiki on mobile? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackfield1122 (talk • contribs) 16:22, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Explain "The Signpost" please!

Just in wonderment: Exactly what is "The Signpost" , how often is it published, how is it edited, and is I have something to contribute how do I go about doing it? All responses welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mulstev (talk • contribs) 16:55, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See the big set of links at the bottom of the page for details. The explanation of what the Signpost is is here, and the instructions for new contributors are here. ‑ Iridescent 17:00, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks. Just noticing, why is their so many vacant places in the staff? Lack if interest perhaps?

This isn't a response to this question so much as your initial question, but if you want to come over and help with the top 25 report feel free! -A lad insane (Channel 2) 19:40, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Single vs. Other Charted Songs

On artist discography pages what are the criteria for something that goes under “singles” and something to go under “other charted songs” and how do I tell whether or not something was released as a single?

CAMERAwMUSTACHE (talk) 16:56, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CAMERAwMUSTACHE. The basic answer, like every such question, is "if you can find a reliable source which says that it was released as a single, then you can list it as a single". If you can't - even if you happen to know it was so released - then a Wikipedia article should not say that.
I'm aware that your case might be a bit more complicated than this, and suggest you ask at WT:WikiProject Discographies. --ColinFine (talk) 20:30, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A to edit or present information on a major discovery in the art world

To Wiki We want to know how to best bring this to the attention of your readers.

A major revelation has been discovered in the content of a Caravaggio work that will affect the presentation of the painting “Saint Matthew and the Angel”.

We have documentation and incontrovertible provenance on the details and color scheme of that painting. The painting as portrayed since its loss in 1945 is now notably inaccurate; Both in color and a small but very significant detail.

We feel that simply editing the current primary page on Wiki about the painting will not alert the art world to this change. We would like to request guidance on best to make this know on your site. A major worldwide press release is being organized. We would like to be sure Wiki has the first level of notification. What is the best approach to accomplish this?

We again wish to emphasize that this is a huge, new revelation to the art community, worldwide. Thank you B Baron your page in question https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Matthew_and_the_Angel — Preceding unsigned comment added by BARRY BARON (talk • contribs) 18:24, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BARRY BARON! Wikipedia, at its core, is a reflection of things that have already been published elsewhere, in reliable sources. Wikipedia is never supposed to be first with something. Our entire quality control systems depends on this. The best way to get something accepted in a Wikipedia article is to get reputable publications covering the art world to publish it, then using them as sources here. /Julle (talk) 18:27, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for a Wiki Writer

Hi there!

I am new to Wikipedia but wish to post an article about the nonprofit organization I work with - Overcoming Multiple Sclerosis. I think retaining someone to do this would be more objective and present a balanced view of the organization. Plus, an experienced Wiki contributor would be well acquainted with the formatting and footnoting requirements. Is this a commonly accepted practice? Can someone point me in the right direction or refer me to people who can perform this service?

Best,

Alex — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alextwersky (talk • contribs) 23:06, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Alextwersky: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. We cannot recommend someone you can hire to write for you; that's outside of our purview. Please review the paid editing policy. It is certainly possible for you to hire someone, but anyone you hire cannot guarantee any particular result for you, such as writing an article that will not be deleted. On occasion, people who claim to offer such a service just take your money and don't do what they claim. They also need to comply with the paid editing policy(a Terms of Use requirement) or they will be blocked. If you want to take the risk, that is your decision and we cannot prevent it, but few people here would advise you to do it.
You are correct to recognize that you shouldn't write about your nonprofit. That would be a conflict of interest. However, your nonprofit does not necessarily merit an article here. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not merely a forum to tell about an organization. Wikipedia is only interested in what independent reliable sources with in depth coverage state about a subject, indicating how it is notable as Wikipedia defines it. (in this case, it is defined at WP:ORG) Not every organization merits an article here, even within the same field. Wikipedia is not for telling the world about good causes.
You can make a request at Requested Articles for volunteer editors to write about it, though it is severely backlogged and it may be some time, if ever, before it is written. Your best bet is to continue what you do at your organization and hope that an editor takes note of the organization and writes about it. That would be a very good indication that your organization merits an article, more than if you or someone you hired wrote one. 331dot (talk) 23:16, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I also recommend that you review WP:COI and WP:PAID yourself. 331dot (talk) 23:18, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Alextwersky: There's a lot of guideline and policy info to read to stay on the right side of things, but your best bet is to first see this section: WP:ORGCRIT. My personal take after participating in dozens of deletion discussions and also looking up sourcing for your organization is that there isn't enough coverage to demonstrate notability. Because of this, even if you requested the article at Requested Articles, as mentioned above, I don't think your request would be successful. I wanted to save you the time and disappointment. If your organization grows and gets significant media coverage, as 331dot points out, you can then request the article and see what happens. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 00:03, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request..

Dare,

I am writing to you to request that, please create the Wikipedia of Syed Nadeem Raza Sarwar ( Noha Writer,reciter). He is he most popular Noha Khawan among all muslims either shia or sunni not only in Pakistan but internationally also.If you want more information regarding Nadeem Sarwer i will be always available.. Thank You,

Regards

Muhammad Junaid Sherazi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Junaid Sherazi 110 (talk • contribs) 06:25, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have started a draft at User:Junaid Sherazi 110/sandbox. You need to read the advice at WP:Your first article, and the notability criteria at WP:BIO. If you reformat the draft in accordance with the Manual of Style, and more importantly add references to demonstrate the subject's notability you could then submit the draft for AFC review. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:10, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Add existing reference as a citation for an image

Hi, I uploaded an image and was trying to add a citation to an existing source on the page, but was unable to do so. I will have to create another reference for the image, which means there will be two references that open the same link. Appreciate your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maladvipa (talk • contribs) 09:48, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did this edit do what you wanted? --David Biddulph (talk) 10:07, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Thank you! Are there instructions on how to do it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maladvipa (talk • contribs) 10:27, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are instructions on how to reuse citations, but they specifically say the names shouldn't be numbers. And the reference doesn't seem to have a name. So I guess what that edit is doing is taking advantage of some sort of default name, so if a reference doesn't have a name, it gets a number instead, and that's how it references a reference without an actual name. But maybe someone with more referencing experience has another explanation and knows why the person making the edit didn't give the reference a name. Pretended leer (talk) 16:35, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That reference name was added in this edit by the OP. The numbered reference names are what gets produced by the VisualEditor, which most experienced editors don't use. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:53, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suspect in vandalizing

Hi! I tried to do some corrections into World of Warships page, but unfortunately it didn't happen, as my edits were identified as "vandalizing". First of all, I'd like to object as I just provided some actual infos into the outdated article. Seconds, please give me a hint how to avoid such situations in the future.

Best regards, Alex. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Holycalf (talk • contribs) 09:49, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Holycalf: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Your edit was not identified as vandalism- but it was reverted because it removed information from the template during your effort to add something, and also cited a blog, which are not generally considered reliable sources on Wikipedia. I think that the warning you were given was a bit harsh- but they were correct to remove your edit. If you disagree with it, you should post on the article talk page explaining what you were trying to do and get input from other editors to arrive at a consensus as to what should be done. 331dot (talk) 10:10, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The parameters which you were trying to use do not exist in Template:Infobox video game, so the material you tried to add wasn't being displayed (as you'd have seen if you used the "Preview" button). Your edit was obviously in good faith so the warning you received should not have described it as vandalism. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:15, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a new Article about Sudhir Yadav on wikipedia

Hi I want to know if we can create a new page about Sudhir Yadav. I am not sure if this subjects comes under notable not. So thought of asking if this is notable or not. As per the information available from the news website such as Times of india, Hindustan times, DNA , Zee News and other famous news channel/websites, he is rti activist and he filled several PIL in supreme court and different -2 high court of india. He filed public interest legislation (PIL) against ban on WhatsApp. He is also spokesperson of Aam Aadmi party. he made serveral announcement which made headlines national level. His twitter account is also verified. He has combaine followship of more than 1,00,000 in different different social media platforms. Not Sure if he is notable or not — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yadav771 (talk • contribs) 09:52, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Yadav771: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I noticed that "Yadav" is part of your name and that you also use "we" in your post. Do you work for or represent Mr. Yadav? If you do, that is what Wikpedia calls a conflict of interest and possibly a paid editing relationship. Please click those links to review those policies.
A person merits an article on Wikipedia if they have significant coverage in independent reliable sources that indicates they meet the notability guidelines at WP:BIO. Some fields have more specific guidelines(like athletes) but WP:BIO is the general guideline for biographies. It doesn't matter if they have a hundred social media followers or a billion, what matters is that independent sources have written about them. 331dot (talk) 10:05, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

i am really sorry for my bad english, I am no where work for "Sudhir Yadav" and nor i am representing him. should i share some of the news articles on basis of which you can tell me if the person is notable or not — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yadav771 (talk • contribs) 10:16, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Few years back i tried to create a page but didn't approved so thought of asking if all these comes under notable or not — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yadav771 (talk • contribs) 10:22, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This was considered at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sudhir Yadav, as you will have seen in the information which you deleted from your user talk page. Has the situation changed? --David Biddulph (talk) 10:30, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

yes i think change is significant press coverage after he become spokesperson of political party — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yadav771 (talk • contribs) 11:02, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sudhir Yadav has been deleted four times, so any further attempt will be looked at very carefully. If, having read WP:BIO, you are confident that he meets the notability criteria you can write a draft and submit it for review through the AFC process. And if you post any further messages here please remember to sign them. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:18, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for help on abusive behavior

Hi, I'm looking for advice on what to do. There is an editor who I feel is not acting in a polite manner. I tried to solve this on their talk page, but in their answer they claimed to keep doing it.

Diff of the answer

Two of the latest diffs are here:

[1] [2]

And some earlier:

[3] [4]

I'm not trying to get him blocked or anything. But I have no other issues with any other editors. Everyone is very polite and in general a great resource to Wikipedia. I'm also not a "lone ranger" on these topics here as Thomas.W claims, as is evident by support from other editors. I just don't want to experience constant insults and prejudice from the mentioned editor. According to Wikipedia:Wikibullying, the editor is doing Wikihounding based on what they have claimed themselves and also False accusations are the main ones. And also Wikipedia:Assume bad faith. I'm not clean myself, for example I got blocked for 31 hours for edit warring and take responsibility for that. But I don't assume bad faith from other editors or discredit them. Am I crazy? Should I change something in my own behavior? What should I do? Blomsterhagens (talk) 12:14, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: Here's another one - he's also attributing false actions to me which I have not done. I did not add anything to the original article. It was the editor in question who originally removed what had been in the article as long as I can see in history. Blomsterhagens (talk) 12:37, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's good you brought out the talk page URLs. Anyone can see what's been happening there. Also, labelling people, espeically in argumentation, is considered to be a red herring. And in general, impolite. How many times have I labeled you? Blomsterhagens (talk) 14:37, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't really have any context here, and I wasn't aware there was some POV to push with regard to Vikings, but the standard advice is to follow the steps in the dispute resolution process, especially WP:RFC, and if that fails, consider filing a report at WP:ANI. But that should be a last resort, and whoever crosses that line would be well advised to have their nose clean, because ANI is not exactly known as a warm welcoming venue. GMGtalk 14:43, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Everyone filing a complaint there should also know that the behaviour of the editor filing the complaint will also be scrutinized, to the same extent as the behaviour of the editor the complaint is about, so people who don't have their noses clean are best advised to stay away... - Tom | Thomas.W talk
I'm aware of an ANI option. I did not go there, because I'm not looking to get Thomas in trouble. I was hoping of getting some advice here. But if this abuse continues, I will go there. Blomsterhagens (talk) 15:10, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Diff 1" and "Diff 2" are the same, as well as "Diff 3" and "Diff 4" in your original post. Onto the advice asked:
    1. There is no behavioral problem from the diffs you linked. Certainly not something that raises to the level of abuse or constant insults and prejudice or Wikihounding or assuming bad faith. Maybe there is more but you just did not show it. Unsubstantiated accusations of that kind are a breach of WP:CIVIL, by the way.
    2. For content matters, see dispute resolution processes. I gave a quick glance at the pages though, and I would warn you that my impression is that you hold the wrong end of the stick here. I am not saying that to prepare a "I told you so" moment, but to make you realize that the dispute is not obviously from Tom's fault, so you better prepare to make a tighter case that what you have shown so far.
TigraanClick here to contact me 16:00, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa! (or maybe Woe?). At those disputed articles B & T and many other editors are using Talk to debate at length and at times heatedly on definitions of Vikings, Norsemen, Oeselians (?) and so on. Why not leave the articles alone until emotions cool, and meanwhile contribute to a more simple project, perhaps Jews? David notMD (talk) 16:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oeselians are inhabitants of the island of Øsel, now in Estonia. Maproom (talk) 17:06, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BERRY IIT

Hello, Editors please help me to post a article not able to understand the issue . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uyes123 (talk • contribs) 15:47, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Uyes123: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I removed your draft from this page, as this page is only for discussion. Users can see your draft by looking at your contribution history, which I have done. From what I have seen, you seem to have a common misconception as to what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a place to merely tell about a business. Wikipedia is interested in what independent reliable sources state about an article subject, with significant coverage(not just brief mentions or routine announcements) that indicates how the subject is notable as Wikipedia defines it. In the case of a business, those guidelines are written at WP:ORG(please read). You have provided only two sources, both of which are routine, press-release style announcements. Those are not acceptable as sources. An independent source needs to, on their own, have chosen to write about this company extensively.
Are you associated with this company, such as in being an employee? If so, you will need to read about conflict of interest and paid editing. 331dot (talk) 16:00, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the warm welcome

I'm Conner! I'm currently in undergrad studies at CCC. I look forward to working with ya'll! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Big.macncheese (talk • contribs) 17:22, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Conner. Welcome to Wikipedia. If you ever run into any issues and have questions about editing, you've found the right place to ask, and there's usually always someone around willing to help. Hope you enjoy your stay and happy editing! GMGtalk 18:16, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

General queries

Hi. I am new here, therefore the only things ik are editing, creating new page and emailing. Can someone tell me how to use general features like 'talk' and stuff? It would be really appreciated. Thanks!Hindutva (talk) 18:07, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Hindutva! I've posted a welcome message on your talk page that should answer most questions that new users have. You can find it here. User talk:YourEditorNextDoor#Welcome.
As for talk pages specifically, as has been pointed out to you, these are the primary means of communication here on Wikipedia. If you want to explain what is lacking about a specific article, you can raise the issue on the article's talk page. If you want to ask about a specific user's actions, you can ask on their user talk page. Email is rarely needed, and I suspect most Wikipedians prefer contacts on the talk pages. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:14, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maiden to married

Hello, how do I address my name change in a Wikipedia page, (1999 World Special Olympics Summer Games) from my maiden name Cheryl Quiambao to now Cheryl Burchfield? Thank you very much for your help!

Cheryl — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1011:B047:F007:7CB6:6C2D:F919:3BA5 (talk) 18:24, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you competed under your maiden name in 1999, the article on the 1999 World Special Olympics Summer Games should include you under that name and not your current name. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:33, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to Kirbanzo

I'm trying to find out how to answer Kirbanzo, which is so far a huge, time-consuming and fruitless effort.

On the odd chance that this eventually reaches him, I accidentally deleted info I was trying to edit. I'm a first-timer here.

However, the point of my attempted edit was to post the following:

"The Swiss, non-profit organization, FIGU, was falsely listed as a "cult". This is not only defamatory but inaccurate. Anyone disagreeing should present evidence that: they were solicited to join, give or donate money to, visited by alleged members for the aforesaid purposes, given unasked for brochures, etc.; also show that there is a leader who must be believed, obeyed, followed uncritically, etc."

I will be delighted to discuss, and substantiate, my statement, which should certainly result in the removal of the false claim of a cult. I (Michael Horn) have almost 40 years of experience in researching the Billy Meier information, which I represent in the US and English-speaking world.

And, since Meier and his information is attacked by parties with their own, unpleasant agendas, I'll assume that Wikipedia would prefer to be responsible, not contribute to defamation and be willing to discuss ANY of the elements pertaining to this information, etc., should they feel contrary to what I have stated.

I'm screen capturing this page for my records and I hope we can resolve the inaccuracies.

Best,

MichaelHorn812 (talk) 18:46, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kirbanzo: GMGtalk 18:50, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In the message which Kirbanzo left on your user talk page, the "talk" link will take you to User talk:Kirbanzo. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:08, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@MichaelHorn812: - Thank you for explaining your rationale further. And we all make mistakes - that general notification is meant to assume good faith. You're free to reinstate your edit. Kirbanzo (talk) 22:46, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation of the user sandbox wanted.

OK, I am new, and am wondering what the sandbox is for and how to use it. All suggestions welcome. Thanks

Well, the user sandbox has a simple purpose; to mess around with ideas in editing without having to edit the actual article. The primary use for the sandbox is to simply play around with ideas Cyclone of Foxes (talk) 23:39, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Inline citations

How do I create an inline citation in on a Wikipedia page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChillATM (talk • contribs) 22:13, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ChillATM, see Help:Referencing for beginners – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:30, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CN Span

I have been trying to add citation to the 2018 Pacific Hurricane Season Article and there is a cn span and I don't know how to get rid of it. It will always stay there; and when I tried last it got reverted not even 30 seconds later. Cyclone of Foxes (talk) 23:37, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New user question re steps to create article with COI disclosure

New here and want to make sure I did this correctly. I have created an account and

1. On my User Page is where I put the

This user has publicly declared that they have a conflict of interest regarding the Wikipedia article Title of my draft.

and published it.

2. Then I created a User space draft of the article with references and publish it. But on the draft was I supposed to reference the COI or do the editors automatically know the COI because I have the name of the article on my User Page COI notice?

Thanks so much for your help!

I think the page at WP:PAID should answer most of your questions. Then look at H:GS for help in starting the editing process. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 01:53, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse&oldid=862386839"