Wikipedia:Teahouse

Welcome to the Teahouse...

A friendly place to learn about editing Wikipedia.

Shortcuts

Click here to
ask a question

David notMD, a Teahouse host

Question forum

Host profiles

Guest profiles

Experienced editor? Become a host!

Learn more about the Teahouse

Articles to improve

Question archive

Guest archive

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

Read the newest questions
Skip to bottom

Most recent archives
1214, 1215, 1216, 1217, 1218, 1219, 1220, 1221, 1222, 1223, 1224, 1225, 1226, 1227, 1228, 1229, 1230, 1231, 1232, 1233

Draft:Pragyesh Singh

Dear All Respected members in the community, Can anyone please help me to remove unreliable sources from Draft:Pragyesh Singh as i am not very familiar with Wikipedia to understand reliable and unreliable resources. RonsI (talk) 07:04, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, RonsI and welcome to the Teahouse. It's unusual for questioners to have to wait 24 hours for a reply, so our apologies. Unfortunately your question relates to references that aren't in English, so I suspect that was the cause of the delay. It can be difficult sometimes to distinguish between the quality of sources. Basically, any source that is closely related to the subject, or which can be edited by anyone (like this encyclopaedia!) should be regarded as unreliable. Interviews with the subject, personal websites or content based on press releases are also not seen as reliable, as they are likely to be biased towards promoting the subject. Even some news media are regarded as unreliable when it comes to major topics, including the Uk's national newspaper Daily Mail which is known to fabricate all sorts of stories to suit its readership and to sell its product. Sites like IMdB can be edited by anybody, so can't be relied upon as there's no editorial oversight. Might I invite you to read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. If in doubt about reliability, my advice would be to remove any content in your draft that is based upon it, leaving only the really good and independent sources in. Other sources worth removing are those which just make the briefest of mentions of a subject - these aren't in enough depth, and merely serve to pad out the reference list. Sometimes less is more. I'm sorry I can't give more detailed advice here. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 08:20, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Nick Moyes, Thank you for your reply. I also deleted the unreliable resources and content which is in question by other editors. RonsI (talk) 09:28, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DAB denied

Hello, I created a new page called Prevale (DJ) and wanted to create a DAB page, since there’s a city in Slovenia that appears as the result for the search Prevale. My request was denied, since a DAB page requires at least 3 items.Since he’s a pretty famous Italian dance DJ, people might search for just Prevale, without adding (DJ) and find the Slovenian city.It means bad user experience or disappointment. Why is it 3 items minimum? Or why isn’t the city appearing with the “ Litija“ in the suggestion dropdown, but just as Prevale? Can I do something about it? Thanks in advance. Kodymix (talk) 16:10, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Kodymix. There is a three article minimum because if there are only two articles, you instead link them together by using Template:About at the top of each article. GMG ^talk 16:22, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see! Thank you so, so, so much! Now I know how to do it! Kodymix (talk) 14:33, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Small qualification here. There isn't really a three-article minimum for dab pages. When there are two topics, we do the {{About}} thing if one of the articles is considered the "primary topic" and the other is considered secondary, but if there are two topics that are considered roughly equal in priority, then we make a dab page with two topics. Further explanation can be found at WP:TWODABS. —BarrelProof (talk) 13:23, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question about paraphrasing from copy-righted material

Hi everyone,

I recently received a warning about adding copyrighted to a Wiki article, and I wanted to double check here to make sure this time my paraphrasing/sourcing are correct:

In January 1983, then Deputy Prime Minister of Iraq Tariq Aziz and Massoud Rajavi signed a peace communique that co-outlined a peace plan "based on an agreement of mutual recognition of borders as defined by the 1975 Algiers Agreement." This peace initiative became the NCRI´s first dimplomatic act as a "true government in exile".^[1]^[2] During the meeting, Rajavi claimed that the Iranian leader, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, had been "the only person calling for the continuation of the [Iran-Iraq] war."^[3]

Thanks for the feedback :-) Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:14, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Piazza, James A. (October 1994). "The Democratic Islamic Republic of Iran in Exile". Digest of Middle East Studies. 3 (4): 16. doi:10.1111/j.1949-3606.1994.tb00535.x.
^ Varasteh, Manshour. Understanding Iran's National Security Doctrine.
^ https://www.nytimes.com/1983/01/10/world/iraqi-visits-iranian-leftist-in-paris.html

Hello, Stefka Bulgaria. Welcome to the Teahouse, and our apologies for the long wait you've had for an answer. (Some questions are harder to answer than others, and this is only a hasty reply, I'm afraid.) Whilst one of your references looks to be behind a paywall, I think your text sounds like a reasonable rewording of events. (Note the typo in dimplomatic!) We have a useful tool which helps users check for copyright violations in published articles, and here are the results for People's Mujahedin of Iran that you're referring to. The pink text shows words or phrases used in Wikipedia and in another online source. In this case the high likelihood of copyright infringement is probably because the article contains nearly 400 mini-quotations, which does seem extraordinary, though the majority look well cited. You might like to use this tool to test this and other articles for copyright issues. Check each pink entry for signs of words not being part of a name, organisation or a quotation. I think the other links and advice about paraphrasing and copyright left on your talkpage probably steer you better than I can right now. Goodnight, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:55, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Very helpful feedback! thank you! :-) Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:04, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable item on talk page

Talk:Haila Stoddard#Jack Kirkland produced so many ugly children seems in bad taste and contributes nothing to discussion of the article. Should it be removed? Eddie Blick (talk) 01:04, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can we generalize that question? Vandalism to articles elicits responses. What is the practice for vandalism in the Talk section of articles? In the article proper, Stoddard and Kirkland had two children, but there is no mention of the children being ugly. David notMD (talk) 01:20, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There was no question there, there was no suggestion for an edit, only a comment that defamed women in general. I removed it and gave the IP an only warning for defamation. Can't really cite a policy for my removal, except maybe you shouldn't ought to say things like that. John from Idegon (talk) 01:34, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, John from Idegon.Eddie Blick (talk) 00:53, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Problem uploading newly created drawing file

I recently had no problem creating a 'Butterfield Schedule" file and entering it in "Butterfield Overland Mail." I recently created another commons file for "Butterfield's Stage (Celerity) Wagon," but somehow got the data code in Image and Thumbnail command to upload only the file for the text and not the drawing into "Butterfield Overland Mail." I would like to delete my recent entry into commons for Butterfield's Stage (Celerity) Wagon and start over. When I complete it, which do I copy and past on the Butterfield Overland Mail site, the "Image" or the "Thumbnail?" Thank you. Gerald T. Ahnert (talk) 02:10, 19 October 2018 (UTC)Gerald T. Ahnert[reply]

@Gerald T. Ahnert: I've just spotted that this question of two days ago has gone unanswered. Sorry about that. The image you uploaded looks ok to me. You insert it into an article as a 'thumbnail', and you get the text for that by clicking the "W - use this file" link.

If you got the text wrong when you uploaded it to Wikimedia Commons, you can change it by clicking the 'edit source' tab. If you uploaded the wrong image version, you can upload a new version using the link lower down on the page, in the section headed 'File History'.

Please note that if you add images to Commons, just as here when creating a new article, it really helps everyone to add it to a category. As one exists for the Butterfield Overland Mail Company on Commons already, I have just added it to the two files you uploaded. See C:Category:Butterfield Overland Mail Company.

I note that your other upload has been nominated for deletion and that you added Cullen328's comments here to that discussion page. Whilst we have no influence over the ~~pedants~~ good people over at Commons, who really know and are rigorous in implementing the stuff on copyright to the letter, I do admit to being a little surprised at this deletion proposal. It may have been that the image itself was out of copyright, but that it has been challenged because you declared it to have been copied from a recent publication which itself was copyrighted. I didn't actually think that mattered if the original material from 1858 was out of copyright, but I'll watch and learn from how it is dealt with. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:53, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nick: Thank you for taking the time to help out with suggestions for the dilemma concerning the possible deletion of the Time Schedule. A coincidence may solve the problem. I have written many articles and reports concerning Butterfield's Overland Mail Company and was requested by the California Department of Parks and Recreation to contribute articles on the subject to their site. I have written two articles about Butterfield for them. About an hour ago I was on their site to see if there might be more information to contribute. I was looking at what they have for Butterfield's Overland Mail Company and lo and behold I came across an article on their site about that same exact time schedule. They show a copy of it and even have "View and Download Overland Mail Company Timetable" for the general public. I just sent this info to the Commons and hope this will solve the problem by using the California Park Service site. Probably all I will have to do is change the reference. Here it is if you would like to give a look: http://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=25066 Thanks again for going out of your way to help. It seems I have a long learning cycle to complete but I will eventually get there. Gerald T. Ahnert (talk) 00:56, 22 October 2018 (UTC)Gerald T. Ahnert[reply]

I need help with uploading photos.

I am currently trying to add an image logo that I got from a friend, but when uploading it says, "We could not determine whether this file is suitable for Wikimedia Commons. Please only upload photos that you took yourself with your camera, or see what else is acceptable. See the guide to make sure the file is acceptable and learn how to upload it on Wikimedia Commons." Does anybody know how to resolve this issue?Dave Yonn (talk) 02:23, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dave Yonn. Perhaps you'll find the information in Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 846#Can't upload a photo? helpful. Basically, the part about needing the permission of the original copyright holder applies to all files uploaded to Commons. You should also try looking at the image at the top of c:Commons:Licensing since it pretty much explains what kind of files Commons accepts. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:18, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How to Avoid Being Abused on Wikipedia?

James Arboghast told me to fuck off Unpleased by my edit Mr. James crudely noted his reason for reverting. He included a personal slur against me; misspelling and incivility. He said, "because it makes no sense to you Kmccook indicartes your lack of perceptiveness and intelligence. Kindly cease vandalising this thing and fuck off." I found this action very unhelpful. Kmccook (talk) 03:23, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Kmccook and welcome to the Teahouse. It looks like you made a good faith edit (see diff) with an explanatory edit summary to History of Western typography. You then received a peremptory revert and abusive edit summary in return (diff). You rightly left a note (diff) on their userpage. The user in question has edited since, but has not responded to you yet, so I will add a caution notice, as I don't think this is acceptable behaviour. Continually abusive editors do end up being warned and eventually blocked at WP:ANI if their behaviour doesn't change.

BTW: Please note that you are required to set your own signature so that it includes a hyperlink to your own page. Thislink is not working, and I suspect you've set this incorrectly at Special:Preferences. In the appearance tab there, please uncheck the tick box labelled "Treat the above as wiki markup" That should do it. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 08:44, 19 October 2018 (UTC) [reply]

O, thank you for the advice. I changed the special preference. I appreciate your clarifying that abuse is not acceptable. I am surprised that a generally civil platform gets a few people so outraged at the collective editing process. BTW I did not change his revert, it was just style. His response was so draconian I felt the need to ask for input. This kind of a post is discouraging and I am glad it is not deemed normal.Kmccook (talk) 22:13, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

can you write about the subrow diet

I don't want to pay 17.00 for the book and I can't find a how-to do it online anywhere — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgroshardt (talk • contribs) 03:35, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jgroshardt. The Teahouse is generally a place for asking questions about editing Wikipedia, not for finding out how to do things unrelated to Wikipedia. Moreover, if an article were to be written about this particular diet (assuming that it is something considered to be sufficiently Wikipedia notable for such an article to be written), it would only really an article which reflected the coverage the diet has received in reliable sources such as magazines, newspapers, books, medical journals, etc.; it would not be a guidebook on how to follow the diet. So, if that's what you're looking for then you're probably going to either have to buy the book, or borrow it book from someone or somewhere. Now, you can try asking at Wikipedia:Reference desk to see if anyone there is familiar with the diet, or at least knows where you can find out more information about it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:10, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This one? [1]. It's not getting a lot of hits on google news at the moment, but if that changes, someone may write one. We have several articles on fad diets. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:16, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abanindra Maitra

The Editor Wikipedia Dear Sir, Please let me know why the draft Abanindra Maitra is not enlisted as an article for Wikipedia. I do not know much about the rules of Wikipedia.Kindly help me. Thanking you. Nilima Sen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nilima sen (talk • contribs) 04:37, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Nilima sen. Welcome to our friendly Teahouse. Creating a new article is one of the hardest tasks for any new editor to perform, and I waited some time before I dared try. It would probably have been easier for you to have started out by making small edits and improvements to other articles before rushing to make one of your own. As a result, Draft:Abanindra Maitra has been rejected multiple times, and the explanations have been left on that page for you. Those explanations contain hyperlinks to important pages you should at the very least 'skim read' through. Before you even do that, why not try The Wikipedia Adventure which is an interactive tour to help you proactively understand how things work here. Then have a read of Wikipedia: Your First Aticle. I don't mean to be rude, but if you look at live encyclopaedia pages here and compare them to your draft, you'll notice what a mess yours currently is. There are no proper references laid out, not much sign of this person meeting our Notability criteria, or the notability criteria for musicians either. Notability is the cornerstone of Wikipedia. if other independent people haven't written about a subject, there is simply is no place for an articles here, even if the person has a fancy website and lots of follows on social media. This encyclopaedia reflects what society observes is important, not what one person or another just happens to think is worthwhile. If you can work on your draft to show that, and then work on laying out the content like other pages, you might stand a far better chance. Does this help? Regards from the UK? Nick Moyes (talk) 09:29, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Nick Moyes Dear Sir, Thanks for the reply.I went through the Wikipedia Adventure, Wikipedia first article. It will take some time to prepare the draft Abanindra Maitra. Thanking you. Nilima Sen. 20.10.2018 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nilima sen (talk • contribs) 04:14, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nilima sen: You're very welcome. Don't forget next time you post on a talk page to add your signature. This is very easily done by typing four keyboard tilde charcaters (like this: ~~~~) right at the end. Your name and timestamp then get added automatically. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:24, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir, Thanks for the reply. Nilima Sen.(Nilima sen (talk) 06:00, 22 October 2018 (UTC))[reply]

cbronline.com is not a redirect site like t.co

<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.cbronline.com/news/birth_of_a_new_dot_us_frontier/|title=Birth of a New (Dot) US Frontier|author=|date=|website=Computer Business Review|accessdate=19 October 2018}}</ref>

was blocked.

69.181.23.220 (talk) 07:27, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP 69.181.23.220. This sounds like this is something you might want to ask about at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist or MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#Proposed removals. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:45, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how to communicate with someone via a talk page.

I have been trying to update a page - old information completely wrong and misleading - and my update has been reversed or truncated twice. I have now received a message from one of the people who made the changes, saying I can contact them via their talk page to proofread a draft, but I do not see how to do this. The information on how to use talk pages is very difficult to follow. Please help. Thank you. Emmeliss (talk) 07:52, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update - I think I have found how to do this. Thank you anyway.Emmeliss (talk) 08:12, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Emmeliss. If you're still stuck, then try taking a look at H:TALK for some general information on how to use a talk page. Generally, the best place to discuss changes to an article is on the article's talk page because it makes it easier for others who might be interested in the subject and who might be watching to article to see that a new discussion about it has been started. You can then post something on the other editor's user talk page just to let them know you've opened a discussion. You can find another editor's user talk page by either clicking on "(talk)" next to their username in their signature, or by clicking on their username and then clicking on the "Talk" tab. Once you've found their user talk page, just click on the "New section" tab and an editing window should open. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:15, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a new word not in a dictionary

Hello,

I have been in the aviation industry for 40 odd years, and from my early days in tech training with the RAF, we were taught that the shiny bits on hydraulic actuators are called "fescalised portions".

It related to hard chrome coatings that are ground to a smooth finish. It's also used in a lot of other engineering disciplines, including car and motorbike maintenance. Strangely enough, even though everyone I speak to in the trade knows what the word fescalised means, it doesn't appear in dictionaries or Wikipedia. Google-fu leads to a load of blogs with people talking about it, but no hard facts. The nearest I've come to finding it mentioned in reliable documentation is in and obscure EASA (European Aviation Safety Agency) document. There is also an oft-quoted bit of rubbish about meaning "without cheese" that seems to be repeated in a lot of places, but appears to be totally made up. So getting to my question. Given that this is a word in very common usage in engineering, but with no actual etymological backup, should/could it be added to Wikipedia, and if so, how? Cloogymax (talk) 08:18, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cloogymax: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is not really a dictionary that merely catalogs the definition of words or terms. There is a project for that, Wikitonary. To have an article here, you would need to have independent reliable sources that describe the use of this term in depth. Blogs probably would not be acceptable unless they have some degree of editorial control or review. A government agency document might work, but more than one would be better. Sources don't need to be available online, either. If you found print-only sources that use this term, like a trade magazine not available online, that would work. 331dot (talk) 08:26, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Editing a page and adding a photo

Hello,

I volunteered to create the web page of Professor Peter Klinken, the Chief Scientist of Western Australia. I have learned over time how to use the Wikipedia tools however I have encountered a couple of issues. The first one was related to the photo of Prof Klinken. The first time I added a photo it was removed by one of the editors because of copyright issues. I recently received a new photo by a person who agreed for the photo to be used on Prof Klinken's page. She completed the permission email to upload on Wikipedia but we are both confused on who can upload the photo and where to upload the permission email. The second issue is with regard to adding an honorifi title, 'CitWA' or recipient of The Western Australian of the Year Award (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Australian_of_the_Year_Awards). I have added the title in the Editor but the change doesn't show on the updated page.

Many thanks in advance for your help, Adam — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam Osseiran (talk • contribs) 08:42, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Adam Osseiran. Just a couple of general comments, before answering your question.

Please don't post your personal contact info at the Teahouse. All Wikipedia editors are volunteers and for the sake of transparency all Wikipedia related matters (except personal matters) is generally best conducted on Wikipedia itself; in other words, it's unlikely that a Teahouse host will email you or snail mail you to discuss your question. Moreover, as explained in WP:BLPPRIVACY, Wikipedia pages are pretty much visible to anyone who wants to see them, so there's no guarantee that the information you posted will be taken and used in an inappropriate manner.
You can use your real name for your username if you want, and many editors do. Just be aware of the things discussed at WP:REALNAME. In some cases, you may be asked to verify your identity in order to make sure you are who you're claiming to be.
Subjects of Wikipedia articles are people or things deemed to be Wikipedia:Notable for an article to be written about them. In the case of academics, the relevant notability guidelines are WP:BIO and WP:PROF; so, you will need to establish that Klinken satisfies these notability guidelines for an article to be written about him. Wikipedia has millions of articles with more and more being added each and every day. At the same time, articles are constantly being deleted for one reason or another, but much of the time this is because the subject is not considered sufficiently Wikipedia notable to support an article.
When say you volunteered to create a web page for Klinken, there are two red flags raised at least in my opinion. The first one is that a Wikipedia article is not a webpage for the subject it is written about and neither Klinken as the subject nor you as the creator will have any final editorial control over the article content. A Wikipedia article can basically be edited by anyone anywhere in the world at anytime and their edits will not be automatically reverted or undone as long as they comply with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. When disagreements over article content arise, it's typically the version which best complies with these policies and guidelines as determined by consensus which is the one chosen, and not the version preferred by the subject or the article's creator. So, you might want to read Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing just for reference because it discusses some of downsides of a Wikipedia article. The next red flag is that you say that you're volunteering to write the article. As I posted above, all editors are volunteers, but your post makes it seem that you might have a conflict of interest when it comes to Klinken and anything written about him on Wikipedia. Wikipedia doesn't expressly prohibit conflict of interest editing, but it does highly discourage it. Please refer to Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide for more information on this.

Now regarding the photo you want to upload, as long as you are the copyright holder of the photo (the photographer who takes a photo is generally considered to own the copyright on it), then you can upload the file to Wikimedia Commons under a free license accepted by Commons. You can find out more about that in c:Commons:Licensing. If you are the copyright holder, then just upload the photo with the original EXIF data to aid in the verification of copyright ownership. If you're not the original copyright holder, then that person can upload the file to Commons instead. Please note that neither Commons nor Wikipedia will accept a "for Wikipedia use only" type of free license. The copyright holder has to basically agree to let anyone anywhere in the world download the file at any time and use for any purpose, including commercial use and derivative use. The copyright holder is not transferring their copyright to either Commons or Wikipedia, but is rather making a version of the photo available for others to freely use. Moreover, the free licenses accepted by Commons and Wikipedia are not revocable. As for a permission email, it's only real needed when the file has been previously published somewhere before being upload to Commons or Wikipedia under a license neither will except, or some of the other examples given in c:Commons:OTRS#Licensing images: when do I contact OTRS?. If a permissions email is necessary, follow the format given in WP:CONSENT and send it to Wikimedia OTRS. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:54, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

COI Full disclosure

Hello, please could someone clarify when "full disclosure" should be given, or point me in the direction of the relevant information? I am not a paid editor. Thanks *ptrs4all* (talk) 08:52, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@*ptrs4all*: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I see that you have made such declarations on your user page; that is usually sufficient, but it is also a good idea to mention it if you are requesting an edit to an article in the area of your COI. If you actually edit an article in the area of your COI(which you should avoid doing so directly if possible, but it could happen), it's also a good idea to mention it in the edit summary of your edit. 331dot (talk) 08:56, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

.@*331dot*: Thank you. I have put a 'requested edit' on the The Reluctant Tommy article and have contributed to the discussion on its talk page without giving 'full disclosure'. At what point might it be necessary? (I don't want to contravene any policies). *ptrs4all* (talk) 09:12, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would do so with my initial contribution to a relevant talk page.(in the case you speak of, if you go back and do it now, that's fine too.) Users might see your user page, but it's a good idea to point your COI out immediately; the more open you are about it, the better your suggestions will be received. As WP:COI states, "Editors with a COI, including paid editors, are expected to disclose it whenever they seek to change an affected article's content." 331dot (talk) 09:17, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*331dot* OK, so I should make a full disclosure (saying who I am & my connection with the article/edit) at the point where I made the original 'requested edit' on the article's TP? Sorry to appear dim . It's difficult to get one's head around all this as a newbie.*ptrs4all* (talk) 10:13, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, that's why this page is here, to ask questions. Yes, that is what you should do. 331dot (talk) 10:23, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*331dot* Many thanks for your help *ptrs4all* (talk) 15:18, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Updating a page name: case change won't update - can anyone provide any insights?

Hi there,

I'm trying to update the page name of a company that changed the casing of its name.

The page in question is this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pod_Point_Ltd%2E

The company originally wrote its name as "POD Point" but recently updated it to be written as "Pod Point".

I tried moving the page to the new version of the name, but it did not work, I suspect because it's only a case change vs. a spelling change.

My next idea was to try changing to a more formal variation of the company's name "Pod Point Ltd.", then change back again to "Pod Point".

Unfortunately this has not worked; I am now unable to change "Pod Point Ltd." to either "Pod Point" or revert back to "POD Point".

Could anyone advise on the best way to achieve the goal of updating the page name to "Pod Point"?

Thanks,

LightningTen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightningten (talk • contribs) 09:44, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note, the article is Pod Point Ltd., with redirections from Pod Point and POD Point. --CiaPan (talk) 09:55, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lightningten, welcome to the Teahouse. An administrator is usually required to move over an existing redirect. I have done it. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:37, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lightningten, case change renames are allowed; the issue here is that there was already a page at that title; for those issues one can request the move be done at WP:RMTR Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:40, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

reliable sources to ios app

hi, i am frustrated like every new user here who still getting Rejected page, this is my second attempt to create wiki page after +-four years, feelings are coming back... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mouse_for_Cats what kind of information you need to verify, i still getting same and similar reason for reject but it is not clear to me. which information and what is reliable source to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Mobile_game_stubs. Most sources what i have seen in accepted ios games are mostly paid reviews. I assume you know that in today's world you can buy anything... from reviews to ratings and user feedbacks, so it is very unclear what 'reliable' really is, please specify in this case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mouseforcats (talk • contribs) 10:33, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mouseforcats: thanks for your question. Before getting to that topic, I can't help noticing that your username is the same as the game you are writing about ... do you have some connection with the game? If so, you have a Conflict of Interest and you are probably not the right person to write about that subject - if you do then you must follow the directions at WP:COI. As for reliable sources, you need to follow the links that were left by the various reviewers, most especially Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. If you cannot find in-depth coverage by independent, reliable sources that that is probably a sign that it is too soon to write about that game. If it becomes notable and attracts sufficient coverage then it will be a better time to write about it.--Gronk Oz (talk) 13:26, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

omg it is "10th" question here about username and draft name in past few hours instead of getting some information about reliable sense of meaning the word reliable, yes i made the game, i created account and i created draft. so i am pretty sure that i can do anything what i want to do with my app name.

how reliable is reviewer what writing reviews for money????? what kind of world you want ?? all fake just because of marketing? i have success app even without nonsense fb, tw,in,xy,xzy.... without fake reviews, without fake ratings and so now you pushing me to do it like others. no way !

so if i will pay for review like today practice is and you forcing me to do that, who will decide if review is reliable or not, based on what???

and yes much ios games what i can find on wiky has just paid reviews for marketing purposes, it is not reliable source to me. reliable sources are maybe only reviews at official appstore pages. hawg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mouseforcats (talk • contribs) 17:24, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

to COI it has no sense, every app what is listed is listed by creators or publishers or marketing team, they just dont say who they are. so there is no point in name... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mouseforcats (talk • contribs) 17:33, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

and to " If you cannot find in-depth coverage by independent, reliable sources that that is probably a sign that it is too soon to write about that game. " no it is not too soon, my players are unable to write reviews, have you ever seen cat writing review?? but would be good to have wiki pages. as google prefer games with wiki !!! so thats how we are 'forced' to have wiki page... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mouseforcats (talk • contribs) 17:37, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have just helped define "Screed." And, it appears, have withdrawn the submission of your draft. David notMD (talk) 22:08, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a viable reason to register

I have coined a term that describes something that does not have a name, namely the bit between Christmas and New Year. I have been using it in the work place since 2014 and it is now being quoted back to me. I would like to register it as word. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minaxxi (talk • contribs) 15:23, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, no. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, which means we can only repeat things which have been published elsewhere in reliable sources. Your best bet if you want to introduce a neologism is Urban Dictionary. Incidentally, the period after Christmas Day already has a name. ‑ Iridescent 15:25, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Past/present tense?

Hello again! I am currently stuck on how and when to use past or present tense in a sentence.
The sentence in question is here:

In 2003, as a part of a strategy change, Hachette decided to sell magazine companies, regional dailies, and printing companies. Many of the video game magazine-related companies, including Joystick, are sold to the English group Future Plc.

Should I be using "are sold" or "were sold"? This is one of the only sentences in present tense. Most of the other sentences before and after it are in past tense. I just want to know if this is correct or not.

If more context is needed, you can check here. Thank you. StaringAtTheStars (talk) 16:39, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There must be a link somewhere... Ah yes: MOS:TENSE. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:45, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, it was hidden in MOS. Thank you! StaringAtTheStars (talk) 20:19, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Uploading photo

How can I upload my photo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mir Md Ibrahim (talk • contribs) 16:45, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Legitimacy of article

I would like to contribute a short article on ZzTeX, which is a TeX macro package (like LaTeX, AMSTeX, etc.) I am the developer of ZzTeX and it is used by my company to produce technical books for various publishers. It has been in use for about 28 years. It is also used by authors in preparing future editions of their books. It is not a commercial product; I give it to anyone who asks for it.

I would like a short article because people often try to find information about it and end up contacting me. It seems like an article would help those looking for information.

Is this a legitimate Wikipedia article?

~~ Paul — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos (talk • contribs) 17:07, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Paul C. Anagnostopoulos. Thank you for admitting who you are and what you hope to accomplish. I have no opinion about whether or not Wikipedia should have an article about your software. Please read Wikipedia:Notability (software) to learn more about that issue. The one thing that is clear to me is that you have a conflict of interest and must comply with the mandatory Paid editing disclosure. Please read those links very carefully and conduct yourself accordingly. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:48, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled 1

Hello

Shia karadsheh page : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shia_Karadsheh

was deleted because of my writing , i guess i made it in a advertising way, would you help me how to make it more as info, should i just put the links or add the facts of appearances? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melissaarab (talk • contribs) 17:12, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Melissaarab, welcome to the Teahouse. I do appreciate how frustrating it must be to have any page deleted. Only administrators can see deleted content (and I'm not one), so it's hard to know what you wrote about. Searching on that name, I can find nothing on Google to assist me, so I don't even know if its a 'thing' or a person. (I did find this], though, so I'm guessing they're a dancer? The basic criteria for accepting an article here can be found by following these two links: Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (people). I'm afraid the lack of anything online does suggest this person (if that's what this was about) is highly unlikely to meet these criteria, so you probably won't be able to create the article again until such time as they receive attention in reliable sources such as the mainstream media. I know this must be frustrating, but I fear there's little more that can be done. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:23, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled 2

How to published my Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nisha Nasir (talk • contribs) 17:49, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Nisha Nasir welcome to the Teahouse. What is it that you actually want to publish, please? Promoting ourselves on our userpages is not permitted, and that's the the only thing I can see that you've tried to publish so far. You are permitted to recreate that page, but only if it's to say a few words about yourself that are relevant to any interest you might have in contributing to the work of editing. See Wikipedia:How to use your user space if you want to learn more.

But, if you want to write about a new topic that you believe ought to go into this great encyclopaedia, may I suggest you read a very helpful guide page called Wikipedia:Your first article? This will explain the best way to create a draft article, have it reviewed, and to receive feedback if anything is wrong with it. I hope this answers your question. Please remember to sign the end of your posts with four keyboard tilde characters (like this: ~~~~). Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:22, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article Wizard

What is the purpose of the Article Wizard? I have a draft article currently awaiting a review. Why can't I just make that article? Is there a policy that all articles should be processed through the Article Wizard, or is it just a suggestion? Alternate Side Parking (talk) 18:26, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed it. It is in the pedia now. AfC is only required for non auto confirmed registered users and IP users. It's still a good idea for a newer user, but no, it isn't required. Thanks for a good submission, Alternate Side Parking! John from Idegon (talk) 18:33, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How do i help out the project

any ideas what i can do — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dumyes (talk • contribs) 20:13, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dumyes. Welcome to the Teahouse. Here are a few ideas to get you started:

Add a few lines on your userpage about yourself and your interests. You've absolutely no obligation to say anything about your gender, age or where you live, but never reveal any personal details there that you might later regret releasing.
Having told us of your main interests, go and browse through some topics relating to those interests. You might spot spelling errors, gaps where you can add a reference to support some statement or other, or perhaps just a better way of wording things. (But please avoid adding factual statements that you believe to be true without supporting them with a citation - those types of edits are liable to be swiftly reverted).
Spend some time learning how we roll here. So try out The Wikipedia Adventure where you can collect 15 badges on your userpage as you learn about aspects of editing and creating pages.
If you really want idea of things to do, we have around 5 million articles that could do with a bit of tender, loving care. But where to start? I'm going to give you just two links to some pages you might find stimulating for ideas. These are a) Wikipedia:Things to do and b) Wikipedia:Task Center.
I'd advise against rushing in immediately to create a new page on some favourite subject. Making a new article from is genuinely the hardest thing to do here, and we lose so many new editors who get demoralised when they encounter the various requirements of 'notability' and 'verifiability' and other fancy words like that which form the backbone of all content here.
If you are itching to create a new article, do please read this first: Wikipedia:Your first article. You can take your time to draft up an article and then when you're ready you can submit it for review. Often, first attemopts get turned down, but you'll receive useful pointers as to what's wrong with it and how you should fix it

I'm pinging (i.e. alerting) another user (Denkiden) who I think is at almost the same stage as you and who might find my reply of interest, too. Please let me know if this is helpful, or if you'd like any more specific help. I can promise you that, should the Wikipedia bug bite you, you'll never be stuck for ideas of things to do. All the best for your own personal Wikipedia journey. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:51, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone Help

can someone help add info to the Kavik river camp article. Northatlantic320 (talk) 21:04, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Northatlantic320: I see you've just been blocked indefinitely for being sock puppet. But Kavik was created before that block, and as a place it has potential (per WP:NPLACE). I'll see what I can do. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:02, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

oops, too late. It was just deleted. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:05, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Further update: Kavik River page now created. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:11, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and blogs

Can i make a blog in wikipedia? And can people see the pages i made in my profile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Denkiden (talk • contribs) 21:16, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Denkiden: No, you may not make a blog. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Please read WP:NOT. Any pages you create will be visable to everyone. RudolfRed (talk) 21:28, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Denkiden: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is a project to write and maintain an encyclopedia, and is not a place to write a blog. All contributions here should be somehow related to building this project. There are numerous sites that do offer a place to write a blog, some of which you might find at this link, but this isn't one of them. Regarding your other question, your edit history and user page are both visible to everyone. Your user page should mostly contain content related to your Wikipedia use or editing, guidelines for user pages can be found at this link. If you have other questions, please ask. 331dot (talk) 21:31, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

profiles

Can i have ideas on how to make a page on denkiden(me). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Denkiden (talk • contribs) 21:45, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you so famous that other people have published articles about you? If not, not. David notMD (talk) 22:10, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Denkiden, I'm not sure if you were actually asking about userpages (which you might have been calling a 'profile'). Of course, as answered by David notMD and also in the question from you above, unless you have had a number of major newspapers, books or media outlets writing about you in great detail, you stand no chance of having a proper page (i.e. article) about you on Wikipedia. Every person with an article about them is judged against a thing we call our 'Notability' criteria. (If you wish, you can learn more about that at this link: WP:Notability). But if by 'profile' you do mean ideas to put in your own Userpage, then, yes, for sure you may write a little bit about yourself there (avoiding making it promotional, or giving out personal information you'll later regret releasing). You can use it to explain what your interests are and how they relate to your hopes or aspirations for editing this encyclopaedia. Because that's what we're all about here, not making pages about ourselves. (See this link for information on userpages). If you visit this link: Wikipedia:How to use your user space you'll find a simple explanation of how they're used. Once you start editing and decide you like helping out, you might later on want to 'prettify' your userspace. Many editors put things called 'userboxes' on the own pages which announces a little bit about themselves in a graphical way. You can get more ideas at our User Page Design Centre. But remember that we expect editors to be editing and working on the encyclopaedia, not messing around creating fancy userpages all the time. These sorts of things ought really to come later, once you decide to stay and help out.

Why not click on a few of the hyperlinked signatures at the ends of every message here at the Teahouse? That'll take you to the userpages of many different editors, and you can see what they have written in theirs. But for anything else you want to do to write about yourself, you'd have to go somewhere else for that - like Facebook or Wordpress, or pay for your own domain name and build a website. Does that make sense? To take an interactive tour and to learn how Wikipedia works, try The Wikipedia Adventure. There are 15 badges to be gained along the way as you learn how to contribute to building this encyclopaedia. Oh, and if you do post here again, can I ask you to remember to sign your name at the end of every message, please? To do that we have an automated process. It might sound weird, but simply type four keyboard 'tilde' characters (like this: ~~~~) right at the end, and your username and a timestamp will be automatically inserted. Magic stuff. That way we know who said what, and when. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:30, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also see WP:AUTO Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me • my contributions) 11:57, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page blanking

If I try to blank someone’s talk page, will it trigger the edit filter? 114.124.178.148 (talk) 02:22, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 114.x and welcome to the Teahouse. There is an edit filter which prevents new and unregistered users blanking others' user page or user talk page, but it is private. Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me • my contributions) 07:48, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It appears you asked a similar question about this as IP 114.124.140.93 at Wikipedia:Teahouse#Page blanking. As explained there, you really shouldn't be blanking another editor's user talk page without a very good reason for doing so. Basically, what that means is that if you asked 100 administrators whether the page should be blanked, then almost all of them would say "yes" and agree with your assessment; otherwise, blanking the page is likely going to be seen as disruptive and vandalism. I'm not sure what your interest is in blanking pages or edit filters. IP 114.124.140.93 has already been blocked once for disruptive editing; so, if you're the same person using just using a new IP, then you need to understand that it's the person, not the account, which gets blocked. Switching to a new IP to repeat the same mistakes will only lead to the new IP being blocked as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:25, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article Notability

I Have created so many articles but some of my articles are removed for notability issue. I have created two popular person article but both are deleted. where i can check notability of deleted articles. if a person is more on news and media. is he or she not notable. it's is possible to stable my articles. 182.253.162.204 (talk) 04:48, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey anon. The short and sweet of Wikipedia's policy on notability is that a subject needs to have received sustained in-depth coverage in published reliable sources, usually things like books, magazines, and newspapers. There is no definite number of sources that are required, but generally, what is needed is enough to write an encyclopedia article with, without include any information that can't be referenced in this way. If you are unsure about the notability of a subject, you can start a draft using the Article Wizard, and submit it to our Articles for Creation Project, where it can be reviewed by an experienced volunteer, who can offer feedback prior to publishing. GMG ^talk 15:03, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

vispute college new panvel

Shri.D.D Vispute college of science,commerce and management was established in the year 2010 by shree Rishikesh Shikshan prasarak mandal , navimumbai. The college — Preceding unsigned comment added by FYCS35 (talk • contribs) 06:02, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello FYCS35 and welcome to the Teahouse. The Teahouse is a place for asking questions about Wikipedia. Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me • my contributions) 07:44, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Editing user pages

Can I edit someone else's user page? - Vincentthecow (talk) 06:51, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Vincentthecow and welcome to the Teahouse.

Editing another user's user page is generally not allowed, but there are circumstances when it is: if the user gives permission, if you're correcting or deleting something based on an established policy. For instance, some users ask for help fixing formatting problems with userboxes on their user page. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:10, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your filter log. Seems you want to blank User:331dot's user talk page and modify his user page :) Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me • my contributions) 07:50, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And also User:Northamerica1000. Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me • my contributions) 07:51, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And now indefinitely blocked for being a new user attempting to blank editors' User pages and Talk pages. David notMD (talk) 09:56, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This user was likely User:Vincent9000. 331dot (talk) 10:26, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oof. My bad for not spotting that out. Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me • my contributions) 11:43, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How to edit suitable wikipedia article for politician

I have a lot news coverage I just wanted to publish it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipolitician (talk • contribs) 07:43, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikipolitician: Welcome to the Teahouse. You may click in the "edit" button and start your edits just like how you posted this message. Good luck. Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me • my contributions) 11:46, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden dissuasion

Me Too movement page's source code begins:

The Me Too movement (or #MeToo movement), with many local and international alternatives, is a movement against

So, what is your question? Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me • my contributions) 11:44, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If an article is notable enough or not?

Hello Everyone, First of all I would like to introduce myself, My name is Sakhir Ali and I am fairly new at the wikipedia community and so I have some queries I need your help with.

Is a Model United Nations Conference notable enough to write an article about? If so, what references can I use to support the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sakhir.ali (talk • contribs) 13:37, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sahkir.ali: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Did you use the username User:Global Youth MUN? If so, you need to return to that username and request to be unblocked per the instructions there. That said, any subject will merit a Wikipedia article if it has significant coverage in independent reliable sources that show how it is notable. In the case of an event, the notability guidelines would be those for events listed at this link. However, if you are associated with the event, you would have a conflict of interest and should not write about it yourself. 331dot (talk) 13:47, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Creation of new Wikipage for a person with the same name as another person in Wikipedia?

Hi,

I am looking to create a page for the lead singer of a band, however there is already a Wikipage with the same name, different person, same name. How can I create a page for the lead singer with the same name? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TammySheridan (talk • contribs) 13:48, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TammySheridan: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You can do that by adding what is called a disambiguation to the name of the article you want to create. I don't know what the name of the person you want to write about is, but as an example, if there is an article called "John Public" and you want to write about someone else named John Public, you would start an article called "John Public (musician)". If the two people with the same name are both musicians, then you would use something else like their birth year("John Public (born 1980)").

You will want to read the notability guidelines for musicians(click that link) to ensure that the person you want to write about meets at least one of the criteria to merit an article. If you have any other questions, please ask. 331dot (talk) 13:54, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may also find Your First Article helpful. 331dot (talk) 13:55, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TammySheridan: Sorry; I would further add that the lead singer of a band would not necessarily merit a standalone article unless they have a notable solo career separate from their association with the band. 331dot (talk) 13:57, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict × 3) You may see WP:NCDAB and Wikipedia:Article_titles#Precision_and_disambiguation for relevant disambiguation guidelines. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 13:59, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification on Wikipedia's policy on quotations

I'm an economics professor, and I asked my third year students to edit Wikipedia as a class assignment.

Here's my question/problem. Several of the students have simply cut-and-pasted information from other sources. They've given references, but not paraphrased or used quotation marks. Here's a particularly egregious example [[2]]. What's Wikipedia's policy on content like this - should I just remove it? I've read the contribution guidelines etc, and it's not clear to me whether or not quotation marks *must always* be used in cases like this, or if they're simply desirable/encouraged.Fwoolley (talk) 14:48, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Fwoolley: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I have reverted the edits you mentioned. Direct copy and paste from sources is not allowed. See Wikipedia:Copyrights. Trust me, Wikipedia is very sensitive about copyright issues. Please tell your students to refrain from doing so. Here is the copyright report before I reverted the edits. Best regards, ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 14:51, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Esculentus: Thanks so much! This is what we profs call a "teachable moment". I can talk until I'm blue in the face about the importance of using your own words, and not cut-and-pasting, but to have someone else take the information down brings the point home in a way that the student will remember! Technically speaking, I think government of Canada publications are in the public domain, so I don't think there's a copyright issue with reposting the information - but I 100% agree with you that this isn't in the spirit of Wikipedia.Fwoolley (talk) 15:07, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Fwoolley: You're welcome. Even if it's not copyrighted, we generally don't recommend editors to directly copy & paste a large paragraph to the article. Quotes from people are exempted from copyright restrictions (e.g. Battle of Waterloo - copyright report). If you have any problems, you may raise it in here or on my talk page. My username is "Abelmoschus Esculentus", so your ping didn't work :) ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 15:17, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Fwoolley. Just to clarify, works of the US government are usually public domain, but works of the Canadian government usually only fall into public domain 50 years after publication or 75 years after creation (whichever comes first), unless for some reason they have been especially donated under a free license by the organization that has created it. (Although feel free to contact your government representative and encourage them to change that :P) GMG ^talk 15:48, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trying again User:Abelmoschus Esculentus - I absolutely agree about not cut-and-pasting.

Thanks User:GreenMeansGo for that info. Fwoolley (talk) 16:44, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Problem/Dispute

Hello,

I am new to editing on Wikipedia, please keep in mind that as an novice contributor I am not familiar with all rules an terms on the Wiki. I recently edited a Wikipedia Stub article. In the article that I contributed to I may have initially included some POV terms although it was still factual and necessary information. A user undid all of what I wrote even the the pure cited information totally returning the article to the condition that it was previously, he also removed a copyrighted photo. I understood my mistakes so I re-wrote what I had previously written, I ensured that every sentence of factual information was properly cited, I included only necessary information and facts, I divided the page neatly into subdivisions, I ensured there was no copyright material, and finally I updated the article. The user then proceeded to undo EVERYTHING that I had written multiple times without providing me any legitimate reason. I kept undoing what he kept destroying that I had written and I also provided him with a level 2 warning for removal of content without adequate explanation. The user persisted to undo what I had written and warned me with a ban, at this point I had honestly lost hope and was shocked. I am reaching out for help as I have no clue what to do in this situation and I encourage you to read the final version of the article that I had updated which he undid, it really was properly cited, unbiased, and well written and MOST importantly it grew on an article which was a stub as I provided lots of history and updated information. Please direct me and advise me in this situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiMinuteman (talk • contribs) 17:20, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You added content. Another editor disagreed with your addition and removed it. Your next step would be to discuss your proposed additions on the article's talk page. The other editor asked you to do so and provided a link to the relevant information, which is here. Since it seems like you read the edit summary where the other editor informed you that edit warring (what you refer to as "I kept undoing") will lead to a block, you will also have seen that link already - take a moment to follow it and read the information there, and use the article's talk page, here to discuss your proposed additions. The other editor has helped you out by already starting a discussion there, explaining why your edits were inappropriate. Where did you warn the other editor, btw? There is no such edit in your history. --bonadea contributions talk 17:34, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Five of your proposed references are to the Sine Kerr campaign website. Six are to her Arizona State Legislature Senate Member Profile, which is very likely information she provided. What a person or a person's organization says about themselves are not valid citation sources. David notMD (talk) 18:35, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This editor was new, and didn't understand that I had left a message on the talk page. They are now engaging in a discussion there. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:58, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are artists' exhibits notable?

I need advice concerning the criteria for a visual artist and notability. Since most artists do not make monuments would exhibits qualify? Are the criteria similar to those for academic review? Thank you for your assistance. Frederick Lurmlinger — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frederick Lurmlinger (talk • contribs) 17:38, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Made this its own question, as appeared that the submitter had in error added it to WikiMinuteman Q&A. David notMD (talk) 18:19, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Frederick Lurmlinger. The general criteria for notability are given here: the main question is, have several people who have no connection with the subject chosen to write about it in some depth, and been published in a reliable place. Your question "would exhibits qualify" has no answer. "Is this particular exhibition or work notable?" would have an answer - usually either "Yes, here are some references" or "No, we cannot find any suitable sources". (Of course there are often grey areas - e.g. Is this source reliable? Is this source independent of the subject?). Note that notability is not inherited. The artist may be notable but the work not, or vice versa. Or both may be, and two sparte articles will be justified. But each case must be argued on its own merits. --ColinFine (talk) 15:59, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Editing the Amref Health Africa page

Hallo, i work in the communications department at Amref Health Africa and been trying to edit the page and it keeps showing the old information. A lot has changed within the organisation and we recently launched our new strategy and thus would like to update this information on our page, thanks.

Caroline Khamala — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caroline Khamala (talk • contribs) 17:46, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Caroline Khamala. Your changes were reverted because 1) they were overtly promotional in tone, and Wikipedia is not a means of promotion, and 2) because they appear to be copied and pasted from elsewhere online, constitutes a copyright violation.

Please review our guidance on managing conflicts of interest, and if changes need to be made to the article, you may suggest them on the article's talk page. If you include {{request edit}} along with your request, it will be added to a queue of requests to be answered by volunteers. GMG ^talk 20:23, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline, Please also see WP:PAID and make the appropriate declarations on your user page. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 23:57, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for musical instrument

Is there anybody out there who knows where I might find one of the largest Toyo zamponas, or bamboo about 6 feet long and up to 2 1/2 inches in diameter? So we could make our own pan flute. We have looked just about everywhere, but can not seem to find what we are looking for. Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.54.57.94 (talk) 23:25, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This page is for asking questions about Wikipedia. We can't help with your search for bamboo or any other purchase. RudolfRed (talk) 23:37, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Need guidance, please: By the Wikipedia definition of "notable", should we consider Jacob Mącznik "notable?"

Yes, I have -- have -- read the guidance on "notable" by Wikipedia. There remains substantial ambiguity, however. So, I would be grateful for your guidance, please!

Here are the background facts . . . .

This guy was an artist, painting as a widely acknowledged member of the École de Paris (so-called "Paris School of Art"). He was born in Poland in late 1905, arrived in Paris newly wed in 1928, was arrested in 1943 and murdered in 1945 (when he was 39) by the Reich in the Ebensee division of the Mauthausen murder and slave-labor camp (in Austria).

He gets six full pages of entry in the classic book on Jewish artists murdered by the Nazis, Undzere Farpainikte Kinstler [Our Tortured/Tormented Artists), authored and published by Hersh Fenster, printed by Imprimerie Abècé, Paris, 1951 (which is in Yiddish). This is a large format book; pages are 9" x 12" (31 cm x 24 cm). There is no better text, and no book with a deeper dive on the included artists, than this, written by perhaps the foremost contemporary critic, writing in French, in Polish and in Yiddish. The vast majority of the artists, if not all, covered in the book were working in France in the 1930s. There are some pictures included, but the vast majority of the entry is text.

There is a current French Wikipedia page for Mącznik: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Macznik This French page does not also exist in the English language Wikipedia. Plus, I have considerably more data on the artist than exists at the French page, as well as ample citations to provide. I might have proposed to amplify the French page, but I do not speak French. (I do speak German, Yiddish and English.)

His paintings are currently in museums in Paris, Israel and New York. While alive, he had several exhibitions in Paris in the 1930s (and before that in Warsaw). Below you will read about a couple that included his works far more recently.

He gets six full pages of entry in the Italian book, Montparnasse Déporté: Artisti Europei da Parigi al Lager [Montparnasse Deported: European Arists from Paris to Camp (death camp)], published under the auspices of the Musée du Montparnasse, the City of Turin, the Region of Piedmont and the Jewish Community of Turin; published by Elede editrice, 2007. I acknowledge that in this book, five of the six pages are large images of the artist's paintings. The book is a documentation of a then-recent exhibition of paintings of Montparnasse artists, including those five by Mącznik, that toured Paris and Turin with highly positive reviews (see http://www.teknemedia.net/print.html?newsId=19732 , and http://1995-2015.undo.net/it/mostra/46902 ).

He gets two full pages of entry in the French book, Peintres Juifs À Paris: École de Paris, by Nadine Nieszawer et al, Éditions Denoël, Paris, 2000.

He gets two pages in the book, Spiritual Resistance: Art from Concentration Camps, 1940-1945, about an exhibition in New York in 1978. The book was published 1981. One full page is a drawing by Mącznik.

He gets one full page of entry in a special edition (edition #4, February 1960) of Publication de L'Association des Artistes, Peintres et Sculpteurs Juifs de France (Publication of the Association of Jewish Artists, Painters, and Sculptors of France), called Nos Artistes: Morts Victimes du Nazisme (Our Artists: Dead Victims of Nazism)(in French).

He gets one-half page of entry in Artistes Juifs de l"École de Paris: 1905-1939, by Nadine Nieszawer and several others (all with the family name Princ), published by Somogy Éditions d'Art, Paris, 2015.

He gets a paragraph or so in multiple other publications.

No one has ever written a book solely on the topic of Mącznik, likely simply because he died so young, as did so many others of that era.

Here is a link to the entry for him at the Museum of Jewish Art and History, in Paris: https://www.mahj.org/en/decouvrir-collections-betsalel/jacob-macznik-55198

Most of his work was not Jewish art, but rather European art, and mostly French in nature. Some was indeed of Jewish themes (as was the case with Chagall, for instance). A folio of Mącznik's drawings of synagogues (mostly done prior to their destruction) exists (just two exist, to my knowledge, one at the Jewish Museum in New York, and the other in private hands in Boston (and I have seen it there)). It was issued in somewhat book format. The first part was typical book, but it was published so as to include a pocket of multiple, large drawings toward the back, all originals done multiple times by Mącznik, once for each such folio. The preface was contributed by Anatole de Monzie, a truly major figure in France at the time, who by then had been Finance Minister of France, Minister of Education and Fine Arts, Minister of Education, and Minister of Public Works.

So, what do you folks think? Does Mącznik rise to the level of consideration as "notable" by Wikipedia standards, or does he not?

Thank you very much for your help!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moncznik (talk • contribs) 00:11, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Moncznik. Before I address your question, can I please remind you to sign your posts on pages like this (but not posts in actual article text) with four tildes (i.e ~ repeated four times) so that the system automatically adds your user signature and the time & date)? It helps everyone to keep track of the conversations.

As to Jacob Mącznik's notability: as you may already have gathered from reading WP:Notable and related materials, this rests largely on how well documented he is in published reliable sources that are independent of himself or his direct associates. To support notability, such material needs to extend over at least a couple of paragraphs in two or more of the sources concerned (rather than passing mentions or inclusions in lists), but it seems likely to me that most of the sources you describe above would amply meet and indeed exceed all the criteria.

Note that such sources do not have to be in English, although English-language sources are preferred when available largely because more editors on this English-language Wikipedia will be able to assess them.

Articles in non-English Wikipedias cannot themselves be used as sources for corroborating notability (just like other articles in this Wikipedia, because Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source), but the sources used by such articles may themselves be useful.

Remember also that a source which is insufficient to support the notability of the subject may nevertheless be used as a citation for one or several facts about him. Hope this helps; doubtless others may wish to comment further. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.200.138.125 (talk) 20:08, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How to create sidebar-looking things?

Hello experienced Teahouse editors, I am creating a new article for a requested article for the popular pie 'Turtle pie' that uses usually pecans, chocolate and caramel or Demet chocolate turtles

And on many articles on see sort of 'charts' on the top right of a page with information stacked neatly, a bolded title, and usually a picture. Because I am pretty new to Wikipedia, I am quite confused on how to make these. May I please have a little help?

Thanks in advance, --Wyatt850 (talk) 00:19, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wyatt850. They are called infoboxes. Help:Infobox has general help. There are many infobox templates for different types of articles. An article about a type of pie should use Template:Infobox food. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:40, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the help! --Wyatt850 (talk) 00:44, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can I add a photograph to my article?

Can I add a photo to my User Profile? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob Leon Katz (talk • contribs) 00:42, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, @Jacob Leon Katz: pictures are one of my specialties. It's explained in Wikipedia:Images which is complex, but it's a two part operation. First, send it to Wikimedia Commons, and second insert it on a page. Each is somewhat complex. Copyright can be very complex but if you're the photographer and it's not a picture of someone elses work of art, you just have to check the box that gives up your rights as the "author" of the photo. Most of the rights, that is. Incidentally, it seems you were working at the cutting edge of radar when I was struggling unsuccessfully with the rudiments of FORTRAN. Jim.henderson (talk) 00:54, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jacob Leon Katz. Just to add to what Jim.henderson posted above, you cannot add any non-free content to your user page as explained in Wikipedia:User pages#Non-free files. So, unless your are the copyright holder of the photo you want to upload and it's not a derivative work, then you should be able to upload it and add it to your userpage; otherwise, you most likely will not be able to do so. Also. Wikipedia:User pages and Wikipedia:Articles are two completely different things and are therefore subject to different policies and guidelines. While you're allowed to add some personal information to your user page, it's not really intended to be used as a personal website or social media online profile page. Please take a look at Wikipedia:User pages#What may I not have in my user pages? to make sure you comply with relevant guidelines because user pages which aren't in compliance can be blanked or even deleted by another editor.

One last thing, although Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia are sister projects operated by the Wikimedia Foundation, each has its own policies and guidelines specific to its needs. So, before uploading anything to Commons, you should take a look at c:Commons:Licensing to make sure whatever photo you want to upload complies with Commons' policy. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:12, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts on article?

Hello experienced teahouse editors, I am relatively new to Wikipedia, and I just now created an article for the popular pie 'Turtle Pie'. If any editors have some thoughts, comments, or constructive criticism it would be much appreciated.

Turtle pie

Thanks in advance, --Wyatt850 (talk) 01:50, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Wyatt850 and welcome to the Teahouse.

I took a look at your Turtle Pie article and found that it lacked the sort of references needed to establish notability. The sources seem to be a blog and some sales sites for the product. I expect that it might be possible to show that turtle pie is a notable dessert, but we would want to see more authoritative sources regarding its origins and history. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the templates that jmcgnh added to the article, and would expect it to be swiftly nominated for deletion if better references cannot be found. What is needed is articles about the origin of Turtle pie, not recipes! See Pumpkin pie, Pecan pie, Key lime pie and others for examples. David notMD (talk) 11:53, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Policy on deleting controversial wording that leads to edit war.

If there are certain words that are controversial in an article, even relatively minor, e.g. X is a large..., No, X is a small..., that provokes an edit war, what's the best way to handle it? ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk 01:58, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Дрейгорич and welcome to the Teahouse.

Any dispute, large or small, about the content of an article, should – after the first revert – result in a discussion on the talk page of the article to try to find a resolution to the disagreement. There are further steps in dispute resolution that can be brought to bear if the initial discussion ends with an impasse. An edit war can only occur if both sides ignore these procedures. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:33, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Дрейгорич. Edit warring is never acceptable. Do not edit war. The first step is to discuss the matter on the article's talk page. Warn other editors against edit warring and report them to the Administrators' noticeboard/Edit Warring if they persist. Pursue the various forms of dispute resolution. But never edit war yourself. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:51, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk 02:53, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Tables/Templates

Hi there, I've been trying to add new nominations to an artists list of awards. I cannot figure out how to add a row and place the new noms. I also don't understand how to color a box in a table. For example "Wins" are green and "Nominations" are red. If you can give me some step by step help as a new user it would be wonderful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukeaanthony (talk • contribs) 03:58, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Lukeaanthony. Welcome to the Teahouse. For a brand new editor like yourself, editing tables is likely to be quite a challenge. (it took me ages to understand the basics!) The easy way around it is to post what information you want changing on the articles talk page (along with a reference to support it, of course) and hope that it will be acted upon by another editor. That said, you can find a lot of detailed help on tables at Help:Tables, and links to related pages. I would always advise either testing a brand new table (or copying an existing one that you wish to edit) into your sandbox and experimenting with it there first. We do have some things we call 'templates' which help you do certain tasks or make certain changes more easily. In this case, we have {{Table cell templates}}, though that page might looks pretty scary to you, too. You might probably find this introductory page to Table the simplest place to start. I'm sorry I haven't given you a nice and simple answer to your question, but I hope you might find this a useful start. If you're still stuck, do come back, but remember to link to the page and clarify which table you want to change, and please sign every talk page post with four keyboard tilde characters (like this:~~~~). Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:53, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lukeaanthony. I see you use VisualEditor. Most table help is for the source editor and some things are not possible to do in VisualEditor. See Help:VisualEditor/User guide#Opening VisualEditor for a way to switch editor. In the source editor you can often copy and adapt existing code. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:02, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Questions - Created My First Article Draft

Hi there, I've started my first draft on Wikipedia. I tried to get more comfortable with editing first in general, but now I have attempted to create a draft for an article. Anyways, I have two questions:

1. One of my sources is the film/film cover itself that the article is covering. While I have referenced other sources to verify most of the information within the article, I should probably cite the film/film cover if possible. I wrote more about that issue on the draft's talk page. 2. It's currently a draft. While I have no issues with the process itself, how should I submit it for article review? Is it ready for submission or does someone here have a suggestion on something I should attempt to do before I submit it?

Clovermoss (talk) 04:39, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Clovermoss. Your draft has serious problems with its sources. The Barnes & Noble website sells the DVD so is not an independent source. The other references are to IMDb which is not generally considered a reliable source, especially for establishing notability. Please read Citing IMDb. We need significant coverage in reliable, independent sources to establish notability. You need to add better sources. The draft in question is Draft:Dora Saves The Crystal Kingdom (DVD). Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:23, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response! I'll look into your link and try to find better sources. Is there any way to cite the cover of the DVD itself, or would I be better off trying to find a better source anyways because it would be a primary one? Clovermoss (talk) 05:30, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: Also, just to clarify - citing IMDb and Barnes and Noble were my attempts at trying to verify the information I got from the primary source (the DVD film/film cover that I was unsure of how to cite, if at all). It probably be a good idea to find better sources anyways, though. Clovermoss (talk) 05:35, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your most important task at this point is to establish that this DVD is notable, and that requires references to significant coverage of the DVD in reliable, independent sources. Only after you accomplish that goal should you give any thought to citing primary sources, Clovermoss. It is easy to clean up an article about a clearly notable topic. It is impossible to create an acceptable article about a topic that is not notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:44, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK! Thank you! I'll try to work on the notability issue, because (at least) my current understanding is that unless an article is notable, it isn't an article, correct?

Also... I have another question that's unrelated to this draft and I'd appreciate some input on that too, if possible. I've been editing off and on the past month, and yesterday one of my edits were reverted. I didn't have a problem with the reversion itself, but I was kind of confused about why it was reverted. I left a message at the talk page of the user that reverted my edit yesterday, but so far I haven't received a response. Do you have any suggestions on what I did wrong and might have been a "productive" edit in that case? Clovermoss (talk) 05:58, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that you are asking about these edits, Clovermoss. I am by no means knowledgeable about the Marvel Universe and have little interest in it. But your edit is unreferenced and may possibly be introducing your own personal interpretation. Please read No original research which is a core content policy. I do not know why the other editor did not respond sooner but I have been off Wikipedia most of the day because I was attending my granddaughter's first birthday, a trip that involved 200 miles of driving. Please remember that we are all volunteers and have other things going on in our lives. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:05, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that people have lives outside of Wikipedia, I didn't mean to be rude or anything. Thank you for adding your input, I really do appreciate it. Clovermoss (talk) 04:22, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so I have done some research on the notability of the subject I drafted an article on. My conclusion is that the subject of my draft is not notable enough for its own article. I think this because even though Dora The Explorer is a notable topic, this specific DVD set is not notable enough for its own standalone article. Also, there are several other DVD sets like this one that I were able to find mentioned in a list on Wikipedia, but that list article seemed to have sourcing and notability issues itself, suggesting that an article on one of the list would also likely have notability and sourcing issues. Also, nothing about Dora Saves The Crystal Kingdom stands out that much from every other DVD set on that list. I can't find any sales figures, but it's unlikely that it sold more than any other Dora The Explorer DVD set. It wasn't the start of some successful project or spinoff. The only potential aspect of notability would be a video game that adapts its premise from it... but it doesn't seem like that decision was made because the DVD was popular, and if it was I am unable to reference and cite a trustworthy source for that information. So... what should I do? My understanding is that articles that aren't notable enough to be articles would be deleted, correct? So do I label that somehow? Should I transfer this information to the talk page of the draft page if it's just going to get deleted? Clovermoss (talk) 07:15, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps some of the content could be transferred to a list article, but when you are finished with the draft, tag it for deletion according to the instructions at WP:G7, Clovermoss. An administrator will delete it for you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:05, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you! I really do appreciate all the help. I've been going through that community portal thing and trying to learn more of the policies and stuff, but there's a lot to go through and I appreciate the effort that goes into answering all of my questions. Clovermoss (talk) 04:22, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so I've added the template, and I think I did it correctly. Am I supposed to submit it for the article review process or just leave it like that? Also, I've tried to summarize some of the stuff about decisions and whatnot on the draft's talkpage... I wasn't sure if it would be helpful or not but I wanted to be safe instead of sorry. If you have any feedback on that or anything else, please let me know. I'm trying to do all of this as correctly as I can. I did mention you briefly on the draft's talk page (that you brought up the issue of notability). Is that a good or bad thing? Is it something I should avoid? I'm sorry for all the questions, by the way. Thank you for volunteering your time to try and help me. Clovermoss (talk) 04:56, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have tagged the draft properly, Clovermoss. I will leave it to another uninvolved administrator to delete it, since I have already expressed my opinions about it. Your comments on the draft talk page were fine, but not really necessary in this case. Deletion is the pretty straightforward outcome. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:13, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hi Clovermoss. If you want to have the draft deleted, then adding {{db-g7}} will accomplish that and you don't really need to do anything else. An administrator will eventually get to it. I don't think there was anything wrong with your talk page posts, but the talk page will be deleted as well when the article is deleted per WP:G8 unless there's some specific reason for keeping it that benefits Wikipedia and might be helpful to have for future reference. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:19, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you both Marchjuly and Cullen328. Also, future reference, how should I determine when I should write on a draft/article's talk page? Again, thank you for all of your help. Clovermoss (talk) 05:28, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's no right or wrong time so to speak, but it rather depends upon what you're posting. As long as you not treating the talk page as sort of an online forum for general discussion about the subject matter but are instead discussing ways to improve the article/draft in a Wikipedia sense, posting should be fine. For example, if you want to talk about ways to improve the page of a actor or explain the reasoning behind an edit you made to the article, then that's OK for the talk page. However, if you want to talk about how great or how bad the actor was in particular role or how great or horrible person they are in real life, then that's not really OK. You can find out more about talk pages at H:TALK.

FWIW, I think what Cullen328 meant by "not necessary" was that since you were the creator and only major contributor to the draft, tagging it with "db-g7" bascially assures that it will be deleted. If, however, another editor came a long annd felt that there was still hope for it someday becoming an article, then they could' use the draft's talk page to explain there reasons why along with their desire to continue working on it.-- Marchjuly (talk) 05:37, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

China

The Chinese Wikipedia seems to be working from my location without VPN? Can any one confirm this? has there been any recent change which could explain this? It was being blocked for some time. Edaham (talk) 07:34, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Edaham. I'm Rebestalic.

I'm not a host here, but I would like to remind you that this is the English Wikipedia; questions about the Chinese Wikipedia aren't really relevant. By the way, I think that you sound a little like you want to vandalize; vandalism is not welcome in any language of Wikipedia.

Thank you,

Rebestalic (talk) 08:29, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Rebestalic: What makes you think this user wants to vandalize? Have you viewed their user page? 331dot (talk) 08:34, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I ask is that the front page when typing Wikipedia.org defaults to search the cn version by default. This gives Chinese people who don’t check the language option before they search that Wikipedia is inaccessible in China. I have long thought that the default option for Chinese browsers in the PRC should be English, therefore giving Chinese people a chance of retrieving anything at all. After having given one or two lectures in China regarding En Wikipedia use, I’ve discovered that at least 50 percent of people are under the impression that it’s totally blocked. I have been telling these people that only the Chinese version is blocked. Am I now wrong in thus explaining. @Rebestalic:... not sure where to begin with that. I’m a relatively experienced user and therefore won’t take offense, but this is the teahouse. There’s lots of new and potentially fragile users asking questions here. You need to exercise exemplary understanding, assume good faith and act constructively whatever the editors level of experience might be. In summary: just no. Edaham (talk) 12:42, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your explanation. I apologize.

Rebestalic (talk) 20:53, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How to get my father credited with his artwork : File:Les Girls.jpg

My father, John Fernie, was an artist and many of his items show up on Wikipedia without any mention of the fact that it is his work. We don't want any renumeration we would just like to have him credited.

Please see File: Les Girls.jpg for an example. His info is here: www.johnfernie.com

I would love to have a page created for him... can I hire anyone to make the submission?

Thanking you in advance for any help.

Bruce Fernie — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.181.163.32 (talk) 11:01, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at File:Les Girls.jpg. The information about that file indicates that the copyright is probably owned by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, and the picture is considered usable on Wikipedia under "fair use" principles. It seems likely that your father signed over his copyright rights to MGM. I don't think there is any article on Wikipedia that discusses the picture itself, so there is no obvious place to put a discussion about who created the poster. Regarding your suggestion to hire someone to create an article about him – please know that paid editing of Wikipedia is rather discouraged. There are some guidelines and policies about that. Even the idea of unpaid editing about topics that someone is very closely associated with at the personal level is a very tricky one. I suggest starting by looking at WP:COI and WP:Paid editing. —BarrelProof (talk) 14:35, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce, any author who chooses to write a biography will need references to secondary sources about the subject.... see WP:CITE and WP:N. You could add those sources to your web site.... then you could request an article be written; see WP:RA. If you choose to edit Wikipedia yourself; I suggest you register a user name and use it exclusively - put a WP:COI declaration on your user page if needed. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 20:57, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bruce. Just going to add that it might be possible to add your father's name to file information for "Les Girls" file by adding the parameter |Graphic Artist= to the {{Non-free use rationale poster}} template being used for the file's non-free use rationale so that it appears on the file's page, but I don't think there's much more than that which can be done unless you can clearly provide a reliable source which is independent of your father or anyone/anything connected to him which can be used to verify that he created the poster art for the movie or which discusses his involvement in the process for creating the poster for the movie. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:29, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Articles

On average how long do articles take to be reviewed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alonzo956 (talk • contribs) 11:42, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if there is hard and fast data out there, but if you are simply going through the New Pages process, the current backlog (with a few exceptions), goes back to the end of August. If you are going through the articles for creation process, the wait is slightly longer, as the oldest (with a few exceptions), date from mid-July. That being said, sometimes articles can be reviewed quite quickly, especially if there are no issues with them. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:54, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a template for "more detail needed"

I am frustrated by an article which states:

In November 2014 the CCG invited the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists to conduct a review a review of maternity services in Cumbria and the Morecambe Bay area.^[1]

Which really begs the question: "and what were the findings/recommendations of this review?" Is there a template to address this? The original editor might be able to find this information more easily than me.
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 13:47, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "MATERNITY SERVICES IN CUMBRIA TO GET INDEPENDENT REVIEW". North West Evening Mail. 12 November 2014. Archived from the original on 1 April 2015. Retrieved 1 December 2014. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

Hi ThoughtIdRetired Not sure if there's a specific template for something such as that. Perhaps {{Explain}} might work? You can also try asking for help on the article's talk page or at one of the WikiProjects listed at the article's talk page. The cited source is from 2014, so any review probably would be finished by now (if one was even performed). Perhaps there's something about the outcome of the review published in the same newspaper. I tired searching "Maternity Services Review" on the paper's website and got some hits here that go back to around the same time period; so, maybe there's a follow up article buried somewhere in the paper's online archives. The other alternative might be to remove the sentence altogether if the results of the review cannot be found by anyone. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:03, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - it's a big subject. The review was completed and is a substantial read. I was hoping to prod the original editor to do some of the work - especially since there are many developments since. Much of my information comes from attending meetings that are open to the public, so someone who gets information from published sources would find it less onerous to edit this article (in that they know where to find citable sources). It looks like the talk page is the best route.
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 16:10, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How can we improve Wikipedia?

Other websites are starting to creep forward and if wiki doesn't take action we will no longer be the best website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThePersonWithNoUsername (talk • contribs) 16:40, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your seventh edit since creating a Wikipedia account earlier today and you want to phrase that as 'we'? On a more general note, Teahouse more of a place to ask questions about how to edit Wikipedia. David notMD (talk) 17:08, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ThePersonWithNoUsername and welcome to the Teahouse.

If you're concerned about what you may consider the stodgy appearance of the Wikipedia website, there are other websites or even browser plugins that take Wikipedia's content and reformat it into styles that may be more appealing to other readers. I'm an advocate for separating content from presentation. Having hundreds of Wikipedia mirrors experimenting with different presentation styles seems to me to be a good thing (if only the search engines were a little better at recognizing the common origin). Will we be able to agree on one best presentation style? I doubt it. But such agreement is not required. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:39, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one such example:[3]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:12, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Khmer New Year

Why the article Khmer New Year Can't proposed the caption a bout my cultures Khmer New Year Kh.wikipedia translate to official English ?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iknow7 (talk • contribs) 16:41, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Made this its own question, as it seemed unrelated to the improve Wikipedia question. David notMD (talk) 17:04, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The editor who asked this question appears to be yet another sock of user:Phnom Penh Skyline, who has been blocked, and created several other socks in an effort to put original research into the encyclopedia. An SPI has been opened. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:20, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is it ever acceptable to use corporate websites as sources?

Hello experienced Wikipedia editors, I have recently been working on an article for a popular dessert 'Turtle pie.' I have received help from a couple other editors, but I have another question: Is it ever acceptable to use corporate websites?

I'm not really getting 'information' from them, I just put them there to SHOW that they sell this product. I said in the article 'The pie gained popularity when frozen food brands such as Marie Calendar's and Edward's started selling frozen, pre-made turtle pies.' I included sources to the pages here and here. Onece again, I'm not getting any information from them, just using it as a way to show they sell the product.

Thanks, --Wyatt850 (talk) 17:17, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Wyatt850 and welcome back to the Teahouse.

Sites whose primary purpose is to sell a product are generally avoided as references. The general guidance for this is at WP:REFSPAM. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:50, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wyatt850, the claim is that the pies gained popularity when those companies started selling them. Referencing the company pages might show that they do sell them, but it proves nothing about their popularity increasing. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:59, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Took out the "gained popularity." Article still needs references to published content about what turtle pies are. David notMD (talk) 20:32, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Wyatt850. I will answer the question in your section heading. Corporate websites can be used for mundane uncontroversial corporate facts, once the notability of the corporation is established by references to significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Examples where corporate websites would be acceptable sources are the name of the current CEO and the city where the corporation is headquartered. But a corporate website is worthless for establishing the notability of a product like a pie. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:20, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Wikipedia

Is it okay to find out information from other websites to put into articles. World of Cyclones (talk) 17:37, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey World of Cyclones. That largely depends on what what types of information you're trying to include and where you're getting it from. Some website may be useful for some types of information, while other website may not. Maybe if you could be more specific we could be more helpful. GMG ^talk 17:57, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't u provide a cup of tea here?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anvi Singh (talk • contribs) 18:01, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@World of Cyclones: It's always worth stopping for a cuppa and pondering over how reliable any website actually is before you cite it as a source to support statements you add. Is there any editorial control (as there would normally be in a news website)? Or is content able to be posted by any person (like IMdB or even here on Wikipedia, for example!)? Is it someone's personal blog, or perhaps a corporate website or personality trying to promote themselves? Is it a museum, university or government website where content is liable to be rigorously checked first? Is the website directly connected with the subject under discussion, or is it totally independent and seemingly reliable? These can be quite difficult to assess sometimes. There are two pages I would like to give you links to. These are: a) Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and b) Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard (for discussing issues around particular sources). Hope this helps a bit. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 19:41, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have releated article but someone removed my article url

I have added a link of my website article which has the same topic article but mean as custard just removed that article link without reading any of my article and its frustrating. If I'm unable to add related topic URL and also i have added one line that their types of system software but still mean as custard removed my all edits. I can't even add little bit information. if possible solve it or else I have to use another alternative of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shuvmajumder (talk • contribs) 18:05, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Shuvmajumder. Mean as custard put a message on your user talk page explaining why they removed the link, including wikilinks to the pages which discuss the policy on external links in articles. Wikipedia works by consensus, not by one user's opinion on what should be in there. You were entitled to add the link, if you thought that this improved Wikipedia; but Mean as custard was entitled to revert your addition if they thought it was not an improvement. Your next action (according to the recommendations in WP:BOLD) is to discuss the matter on the article's talk page, and try to reach an consensus with Mean as custard and any other editors who join in. Reapplying your edit, as you did, is called edit warring, and is not allowed, irrespective of the merits of your edit.

I agree with Mean as custard that the article you linked to does not meet any of the criteria in WP:EL, and so would not support reinstating the link. But if you think it should be in, it is up to you to convince us, in a discussion on a talk page, that it does meet the policy on external links, and is an improvement to the Wikipedia article. --ColinFine (talk) 20:06, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Shuvmajumder: I, too, would agree with Mean as custard and ColinFine that the article link you added to the page called Offshore custom software development was really not good enough for use on Wikipedia (though it was not, as Colin suggests, added as an external link, but as a reference to actually support the article in its lead sentence. You say that you wrote the blog post yourself, and certainly its date of publication yesterday coincides with the creation of your user account here. We do require users not to add personal blog posts to Wikipedia, but to cite only what we call "reliable sources" (i.e. those written by authoritative websites, media sources, or in published books or journals for example).

I also have to admit to being bemused by the article, as I can find nothing online to suggest that this is actually a separate topic that is notable enough in its own right to be appropriate for Wikipedia. (rather in the sense that 'foreign travel' would seem an unlikely topic for an encyclopaedia, even though we know it exists - someone will probably now shoot me down on that, of course!) Perhaps if you could focus on adding one or more such reliable source to demonstrate that the topic title actually exists in its own right, and is separate from the equally weirdly-named Offshore software R&D that might stave off my feeling that it should be removed from this encyclopaedia, or at least be turned into a redirect, especially bearing in mind that we also have two other pages, one of which is a redirect from IT Outsourcing and another completely different page being a redirect from IT outsourcing. It all seems rather a mess of topic-promotion to me which only serves to confuse the reader. At least, it does me. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:00, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating an article for assessment

Hello, Rebestalic here.

The quality of the article "Donaudampfschiffahrtselektrizitätenhauptbetriebswerkbauunterbeamtengesellschaft" is currently ranked as "unknown". I would like to know what class it is. Do I need to nominate the article for assessment, or do I do something else?

Thank you, Rebestalic (talk) 21:20, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Convenience link: Donaudampfschiffahrtselektrizitätenhauptbetriebswerkbauunterbeamtengesellschaft John from Idegon (talk) 21:35, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rebestalic, except for GA and FA classification, which have formal review processes, anyone can review an article. However, reviewing standards are set by the WikiProjects that follow the article, and this article has not been assigned to any projects. And I'm clueless as to what project would be appropriate. Not the most helpful answer I suppose, but it does give you a starting point (finding the appropriate project). John from Idegon (talk) 21:42, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mummy Juanita

There is a copyvio in this article. Copyvio from https://allthatsinteresting.com/mummy-juanita-lady-of-ampato and a bunch of other websites...Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 21:30, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article dates to 2004, with a large part being an early-done translation from Spanish Wikipedia. When did copyright get into article, and is there not enough non-copyright to salvage it? David notMD (talk) 21:56, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Earwigs Copyvio. Huge Violation. Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 21:57, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible that the All That Is Interesting site (dated 2017) copied FROM Wikipedia? I have had that happen to articles I have worked on. David notMD (talk) 21:59, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This Website too Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 22:00, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello thegooduser and welcome back to the Teahouse.

You may have been too hasty in nominating this page for deletion. I agree, this does not seem like a copyright violation by a Wikipedia editor. Instead it is a violation by the All That Is Interesting site to have copied WP material without attribution. When you find reverse copies like this, it sometimes makes sense to leave a note on the talk page to advise other editors of the copy direction. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:09, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Should I untag the page then? Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 22:11, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Thegooduser: (edit conflict)Yes, but the second website article you linked to above was a wordpress blog posted in 19 July 2013. The copyvios you've flagged up appear to have already been in the article way, way before that. I'd suggest you remove your CSD template and reconsider it further. You can always add it back in again if you feel you were right. (You might also like to read the single comment on that page left by a blog reader, which is quite enlightening) It is a common trap to fall in to, and it's happened to me. On one particularly embarrassing occasion here at the Teahouse I accused a new user of blatant copyright infringement. I was totally in the wrong and had to apologise profusely! Nick Moyes (talk) 22:15, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't read the blog.... The pictures scare me and give me nightmares. Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 22:25, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! There must be a lesson there somewhere...don't edit things that give you bad dreams, maybe? Cheers. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:13, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a {{Backwards copy}} template to the talk page of the article including the two links that Thegooduser found and mentioned here. It's still possible that there is yet some older source that our article and these other websites have copied from. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:33, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please help

How do you get written articles on the knowledge panel?? AkwesiSark (talk) 22:47, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AkwesiSark, welcome to the Teahouse. If you refer to Google's Knowledge Graph then it's controlled by Google and their algorithms are often secret. See also Template:HD/GKG, a stock answer to people who report errors. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:34, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Needs Sources Help

Thank you so much for reviewing my wikipedia article! I saw that there was a comment regarding to my lack of resource and I would love to get help with it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by PatarHD123 (talk • contribs) 23:47, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources (not "Resources") means that the draft, which was declined, had no citations/references that provided the information. Secondly, the reviewer doubted that the subject meets Wikipedia's definition of notability. Also, the article appears to be autobiographical, which is frowned against. Wikipedia is not a social media site where people can create their own profiles. Rather, it is an encyclopedia where the topics all have multiple articles already published about them. David notMD (talk) 00:11, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is the position on making excessive minor edits and no Edit summary?

Such as when a History page is backlogged with a tedious amount of minor edits, and which leave no edit summary, making it extremely difficult to compare or verify edits. This could easily be abused to slip in incorrect statements or vandalism, or remove details that may have been important.

I've noticed certain users tend to have a pattern for this editing style. I cannot figure out why they won't just use the Show Preview button and then Publish once they have a substantial amount of content, instead of adding or subtracting a few words at a time and doing it over and over to the point where the History page is completely flooded. It's very frustrating because after a certain threshold, verification becomes near impossible without putting in tedious amount of effort just to compare changes. DA1 (talk) 02:16, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DA1. I think it might be possible to use WP:BLAME to find who made a particular change to an article, but I've never used it myself so I'm not quite sure if it would be helpful in this case.

As for a policy regarding a tedious amount of minor edits, I think that might be WP:DE; however, whether this is "disruptive" probably depending upon who you ask. In addition, although an edit summary is helpful and editors are encouraged to use them, it's not necessarily required per policy (at least I'm not aware of it being required).

If another editor is inappropriately marking their edits as minor when they shouldn't per WP:MINOR then you could politely ask them to not to do so either by posting {{uw-minor}} or a more personal message on their user talk; there might be something they set by mistake which marks all of their edits as minor, or they might not realize the differences in a Wikipedia sense. If they don't respond and continue on as before, then you can try to get an admin to help you at WP:ANI. Though blocking someone for this if their edits are otherwise policy compliant might be seen as a bit extreme. While I can see these types of edits can be annoying and it can be a pain to try and find the one bad edit in a bunch of other good edits, I don't think it's would be a good idea to try eliminate these types of "small" edits as long as they comply with relevant policies and guidelines. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:05, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly: By "minor" I meant it in the literal sense, not the "mark" that is used to indicate such. Some users flood the history page with tiny edits instead of using Show preview, and it becomes impossible to navigate or compare edits, especially when they leave no ES to go off of.

I've used that Blame function, I think from experience my results are mixed. Sometimes things come up, sometimes they don't. But that's not really my issue. When you're dealing with a situation where the entire article is being presumably reworked (by a single user), looking up a word or phrase from memory and seeing who added or removed it isn't useful, what's useful is seeing what's been changed that I don't know or can't see from memory. DA1 (talk) 03:21, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DA1: You should be able to use the selection buttons on the page history to compare a whole group of the other editor's changes as one. That way, you don't necessarily have to examine the edits individually to decide if you agree with their cumulative effect. I agree that this sort of letter-by-letter editing can be frustrating to look at, but at least the edit history can help reduce the problem. The other extreme, where an editor makes a lot of large edits all over the article all at once can be a lot more frustrating to figure out and I don't know of any tools to make it easier. And it's always legitimate to ask an editor whose edit summaries are blank or inadequate for letting other editors know what the intention was to improve their edit summaries. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:43, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmcgnh: I agree that bulk edits can also be a problem. That's two different extremes from opposite ends that are both problematic. But I've come across the worst and most extreme example of the aforementioned. How about this, please take a look at this article: [4] Any thoughts on this? DA1 (talk) 03:53, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again DA1. I think depends upon the editor as to whether they mark their minor edits as such. I think I've only used the minor edit button once or twice, but I do tend to always leave an edit sum. As for the example you've referenced above, I'm not sure there's a way to force people to either leave a clearly worded edit sum or combined their multiple little minor edits and tweaks into one more comprehensive edit as long as the edits they make comply with relevant policies and guidelines. For sure, you can leave them a message and explain why you think this editing style is not helpful or add {{uw-editsummary}} to their user talk, but whether they take you advice and change their approach is kinda up to them. I think that's all you can really unless there is something actually wrong with their edits or that you can establish that their approach is causing serious some disruption to Wikipedia in general. While this type of editing style might not be desirable in many ways, it's not in and of itself something which the community automatically deems to be tenditious (at least not as I understand TE); so, it's not really something that's going to warrant being blocked over. I personally find the bulk edit approach to be more problematic and something which has more potential for abuse, than lots of minor edits simply because in the latter case its usually much easier to figure out what has been changed by looking at the diff and often easier to fix an error without affecting other parts of the article by simply reverting the problem edit. Anyway, although this is an interesting discussion, it might be more suited for a policy/guideline talk page or maybe even WP:VPP than the Teahouse, since it's on those other pages where any changes to relevant policy/guideline are going to be more likely made. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:42, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Marking" the edits as minor was never an issue of mine. My issue was vague and ambiguous edits, and ease of review.

I have actually left a message, asking the user to please use ES or combine his edits so that it isn't as tedious.

I'm not sure if this approach at dealing with this is really thought out. There is always an issue with reviewing articles in situations like this. It discourages user review. What's to say the edits are all good? Would you like to review the article I posted above, perhaps then we could rest assure that it's all good. Bulk edits have their own problem, but extreme cases like this (to me at least) are worse. I've reviewed bulk edits in the past but this type of flooding is impossible to deal with, especially when there's so many edits it spans multiple pages thereby making it impossible to compare between pages since the History page only supports comparison between a threshold of 1000 edits. DA1 (talk) 05:12, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Optimal Citation?

Hi I'm relatively new too the Wiki Project and Ive been having fun starting out just adding citations. My citations are pretty good sources but I was hoping to get some advice on formats for good citations with the authors name, date, and publisher. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssufer (talk • contribs) 02:55, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ssufer: Are they books/journals or websites? And are you asking about the format of how they're cited? DA1 (talk) 03:23, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ssufer, welcome to the Teahouse. It's brillant that you want to help out by adding good references to articles. There is certainly more you can do to improve their content, and this is extremely easy to do. Both of our editing tools contain drop-down templates via the 'Cite' button in their toolbars. Using either source editor or Visual Editor nyou should be manually adding journal name, author, date, page numbers, ISBN/DOI numbers, date accessed etc. And if you think you might want to use a reference more than once, you can even give it a name (ref name) which allows you to call it again and again without having to re-enter it each time.

One wonderful tip (which can make life even easier) is only found in Visual Editor: when you call the cite button there, the drop-down template that appears has an 'Automatic' tab which allows you to paste in an ISBN number, DOI number, of even a Google books reference. It automatically looks up and fills in most of the details for you, if it can, but is then worth checking for minor errors/ommissions. It's not very good at page numbers or getting every field totally correct, but it's so much quicker. When I started, I did all this by hand. Until I discovered these tips, I manually entered every references, which took forever Does this help? Do come back with any further questions. (The last reference you entered here today (diff) should actually end up looking like this when entered simply by pasting in the DOI number withon Visual Editor before any tweaking at all.^[1] Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 07:39, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Clements, Edith Schwartz (1905). "The Relation of Leaf Structure to Physical Factors". Transactions of the American Microscopical Society. 26: 19–98. doi:10.2307/3220956.

Rejected yet better than accepted articles in the same space... what gives?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Hunger_Relief_International

I fail to see how the HRI article reads like an advertisement. I worked a long time to get it neutral and in large part believe I accomplished this. If it wasn't neutral in select areas, perhaps a contribution could have been made rather than a summary rejection that it was unworthy to be posted on a user-generated wiki? I'm fairly new to wikipedia and want to learn more and help out as much as I can. But I'm completely flummoxed how some pages can get approved while ones like mine (above) can be dumped.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feed_the_Hungry has almost zero content and it was accepted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feed_the_Children contains 6 out of 14--or nearly half of all references--going back to it's own website (obvious self-promotion).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Hunger_Relief_International only has 2 of 8 references going to its website (for financial and charitable work references).

In addition to Feed the Children having 50% of links promoting their homepage, FTC also lists charity watch organizations like Guidestar and two local news channel websites. (Those two news references, by the way, were about fraudulent activities by their president--not for anything great they were doing).

Hunger Relief International only has 25% of references linking back to hungerreliefinternational.org (again, as financial and charity work references), also lists charity watch groups like Guidestar, and then follows with links to CNN, Forbes, and two separate non-profits.

I have no part with HRI--neither as donor, volunteer, employee, contractor, member, user, etc.--but if FTC and FTH's article is passable, how does HRI get rejected?

Thank you and I appreciate your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Influentialchristian (talk • contribs) 04:13, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On the page of Dr. Meera chandrasekhar you have mentioned some thing to edit/correct to improve the article.

Sir/madam,

I (74) have created the above article from ID : Rangakuvara. This I keep for editing English articles. Radhatanaya is used for Kannada articles.(I have contributed 900+ articles in kannada language.

Since I'm a senior citizen, and can not read and understand elaborate rules or conditions, please help me in a few lines. Like "Yes" or "No" format. thanks. --Radhatanaya (talk) 04:14, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Radhatanaya. Welcome to the Teahouse. Firstly: If I understand you correctly, you have two different user accounts which you use for editing two different language wikipedias. You should only ever use one account across all language wikipedias. The article Meera Chandrasekhar has been edited by both of your accounts - and this must not happen. My advice is to decide which account you will cease using from now on and then add a link to both userpages which clearly states the relationship of the one account with the other. Using two accounts leads to editors being blocked, I'm afraid. See WP:MULTIACCOUNT for more on this important rule.

Secondly, the most important thing to do on the article Meera Chandrasekhar is to add references to support each of the 'factual statements' so that others can check and see that they are not made up. Did she really win all those awards? Probably. So please give a link which proves that.
The first paragraph makes no sense to me: Meera Chandrasekhar (ಡಾ. ಮೀರಾ ಚಂದ್ರಶೇಖರ್), is a Curators’ Teaching of Physics and Astronomy at the University of Missouri, United States. If you mean Professor, please state that.
We do have a policy of excluding Indic scripts from lead paragraphs and Infoboxes. So please remove these. (See WP:NOINDICSCRIPT if you need proof.)
Some links to what might be supportive references have been put into 'External Links'. This is wrong. Please follow the format used in other articles here - and presumably on your home language wiki, too, by including them in the text. Information about living people which is not supported by references is likely to be deleted.

I'm sorry I cannot give "yes"/"no" answers as you have not asked simple questions that command that type of reply. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:22, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IP addresses account

I recently was welcoming new users and I realized that IP user accounts were more than users who opened an account with their username. As I was welcoming them , some were being blocked and others I guess they may not use the account. What can be the cause of not opening an account with a username to an extent that IP users are becoming more than username Users? , Spurb ^(talk) 06:58, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IP users account for about a half of users and represent approximately one third of activity on Wikipedia. Wikipedia guidelines regarding civility and assuming good faith do not make special dispensation for IP users, who should be treated with the same respect as other users. Some have been contributing for a very long time and have a great deal of experience contributing to articles. Those with experience won't mind if you send them a welcome message, but may have their own reasons for not creating an account, which is their decision. In practice, profiling an IP user is sometimes more difficult as it is easier to attribute edits and behavior to a registered account, however this does not mean that one should assume that IP users are here to vandalize the site. A huge majority of helpful Wiki-Gnome edits I see on my watchlist were made by unregistered users. Edaham (talk) 07:28, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Igloo

To control the quality of such edits I installed igloo tool , unfortunately it failed to launch. How to launch igloo? Spurb ^(talk) 06:56, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Spurb: Partial reply: I've never used it, but in the absence of anyone else responding to you immediately, have you tried the advice on this section of the Igloo page? It suggests Igloo doesn't launch with every 'skin' that users select, so a refresh or your browser and a check of these notes might be one suggestion. Let us know how you get on. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:16, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Publishing Pages

How to publish my own page, I have one ready. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Contributer7 (talk • contribs) 08:33, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Contributer7 and welcome to the Teahouse. If you could link to the draft article you've prepared, we can offer some feedback to you on its readiness for publication. Alternatively, you can use the Articles for Creation Wizard and receive feedback there. Nick Moyes (talk) 08:38, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

new Wikipedia page

What to do if new Wikipedia page is not showing in Google search.?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2401:4900:36C2:8E59:1561:CADC:3E0A:CA18 (talk) 09:36, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi anonymous IP. The short answer is to wait. Newly-created pages go through a process of 'new page review' before Google is permitted to index them. This stops spammers and vandals damaging Wikipedia and its reputation with inappropriate content. This process can take minutes, but often takes much longer. There are currently 3,500 such pages awaiting volunteer input in this way, going back to early September. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:11, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which page is it? Some new pages are draft pages and user pages which will not be indexed. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:24, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

new page/timing

hi. I've submitted 24 August 2018 a new page (subject "Edward Williams Architects") but I've no news about it since then. could you please tell me anything about the revision/publishing timing? thanks! silvia

link to page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Silvia_cesa_bianchi/sandbox — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silvia cesa bianchi (talk • contribs) 10:45, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback on article

Could I please have feedback on my article I drafted. Thanks in advance! -Max Draft:Karolina Watras

[1] Piazza, James A. (October 1994). "The Democratic Islamic Republic of Iran in Exile". Digest of Middle East Studies. 3 (4): 16. doi:10.1111/j.1949-3606.1994.tb00535.x.

[2] Varasteh, Manshour. Understanding Iran's National Security Doctrine.

[3] ttps://www.nytimes.com/1983/01/10/world/iraqi-visits-iranian-leftist-in-paris.html

[4] "MATERNITY SERVICES IN CUMBRIA TO GET INDEPENDENT REVIEW". North West Evening Mail. 12 November 2014. Archived from the original on 1 April 2015. Retrieved 1 December 2014. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

[5] Clements, Edith Schwartz (1905). "The Relation of Leaf Structure to Physical Factors". Transactions of the American Microscopical Society. 26: 19–98. doi:10.2307/3220956.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[1]