Wikipedia:Teahouse

Welcome to the Teahouse...                        

A friendly place to learn about editing Wikipedia.

Click here to
ask a question

jmcgnh, a Teahouse host

Question forum

Host profiles

Guest profiles

Experienced editor? Become a host!

Learn more about the Teahouse

Articles to improve

Question archive

Guest archive

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

Help Wikipedia

Requested articles

Are the topics listed in the Requested Articles page all notable? Is there someone evaluating their notability after they are listed there? The reason is that I am interested in helping write some of them but it would be frustrating if someone tags it for deletion after an article is written. Thanks! Darwin Naz (talk) 00:04, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

@Darwin Naz: That's a good question and the answer isn't immediately obvious. If you go here to the history of the "music band and performers" RFC page, you can see several deletions on the grounds that three or more independent sources were not provided along with the request. If you go to the page its self you can see that it has guidelines for submissions and that the list is curated according to whether these submissions have been met or not. If you go to this link and look at the submissions for business and economics, you'll see similar curation efforts, but with slightly different terms. Each category provides its own guidelines and standards for notability, which makes sense really because notability isn't a standard measure in every category. Athletes are notable if they enter competitions. Artifacts are notable if their discovers publish information on them. Public figures are notable if they receive press coverage.

• My advise would be to ask this question on the talk page of a category which interests you and become familiar with the conditions for inclusion on that particular list. the short answer would be no, there is no guarantee that a list entry will be notable for the simple reason that as an editor, when creating an article, it is ultimately up to you to establish the notability of that subject. The conditions for inclusion on AFC lists are naturally lower than those for entry into the encyclopedia. Edaham (talk) 00:41, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Edaham for the reply. It is certainly difficult since I discovered that editors could have different interpretations of notability and it does not help that the guidelines also leave room for such multiplicity. I am taking note of your suggestion particularly about notability as not a standard measure in every category. I think that there are safe Requested Articles but there are those I am unsure of but are interesting for me to write. As some would probably agree here, writing is a bit tedious and interest is crucial in completing an article. Discussing it in the Talk page sounds good. I just expected that contributing an entry in this list would be, well, a less roundabout process. Again, thanks! Darwin Naz (talk) 01:05, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

@Darwin Naz: Leaving it up to editors to interpret guidelines is actually a core component of the values on which Wikipedia is based. Some policies have varying flexibility. What does that mean? It is an inflexible policy that notability must be established. Everyone follows that one and it isn't likely to be changed. It is a flexible policy with regard to what constitutes notability. If disputed, establishment of notability can be based on consensus. The flexibility, or multiplicity as you put it, sometimes results in debates on talk pages, which are protracted and difficult to resolve. These debates however are a part of how successful crowd sourced projects work. Were notability policies inflexible (For example, a requirement that they must be mentioned in a scholarly journal), we would quickly find that they unduly exclude subjects which are not able to meet the required guidelines. For this reason the differing interpretations and ensuing debates are the lesser of two evils. Edaham (talk) 01:33, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Edaham the difficulty in resolving debates is partly the reason why I am turning to the Requested Articles list. I am hoping I could avoid such protracted process with the expectation that entries have been vetted by others. Anyway, you made excellent points and I would be keeping those in mind. Thanks! Darwin Naz (talk) 23:14, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Uploading a photo to page in creation

Hello, and thank you for the friendly help. How do I upload a photo into the draft I am creating? Thank you! Zuzuroo (talk) 19:15, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Carole Basinger. Since your subject is a living person, the photo must be uploaded to Commons. If you took the photo yourself, you can upload it using Commons:Special:UploadWizard. If it was taken by someone else, have the photographer upload it there. —teb728 t c 19:48, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Responding to User:teb728 Must the photographer be a Wikipedia User? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carole Basinger (talk • contribs) 19:04, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Carole Basinger. I just noticed your follow-up question. No, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials and Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. —teb728 t c 21:36, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your help, teb728! Another photo question: My article is currently in my Sandbox, as I am still working on it. At what point should the photograph(s) be uploaded by the photographer(s)? Once it is in Draft, or before? Thanks again Zuzuroo (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:07, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Carole Basinger. A free content image (which is probably the only kind you would have on a biography) can be uploaded to Commons at any time. A non-free image like say File:Guster - Parachute.jpg (which would be used like only in an album article) can be uploaded to Wikipedia only when the article in which it is used has been published to article space. —teb728 t c 21:42, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Again, thank you teb728! I would like to contact the photographers to upload images, but will wait until it is published.Zuzuroo (talk) 20:39, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Pls approve the article asap!

Hello everyone,

I received a message that I should connect all the articles with the sources of Draft:Benjamin Schnau . I did that already on my last change.

What are you still asking for?

User Whispering is saying it would be OBVIOUS I don't do anything to make the article better which is an assumption he is doing which is offensive and rude and completely not the case.

I did what was asked for before already and now get that as a reply. Very unsatisfying.

Pls review the page its all connected.

Thanks in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by Franklin187 (talk • contribs) 21:28, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

@Franklin187: The article is probably not going to be approved right now because:

• Many of the sources you cited are not reliable.
• I'm having trouble finding which sources are independent.
• It's unclear what sources support what article material.

I've left instructions on your user talk page that explains the simple way to write articles that will not be rejected or deleted. You just need to summarize at least three professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources that are independent of Schnau but still specifically about him. That's it. Writing unsourced material and slapping on dozens of questionable sources is a waste of your time and ours.

Also, why does it need to be approved immediately? Ian.thomson (talk) 21:34, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I didn't say immediately I said as soon as possible which is different.

I'm having trouble finding which sources are independent What do you mean by that statement 'independent'. All these articles are independent created based on the work he did.

• It's unclear what sources support what article material.

If you check the articles and sources you see the titles and the movies he was working on which is what the article is talking about??

https://www.stern.de/panorama/gesellschaft/benjamin-schnau--ein-deutscher-und-sein-harter-weg-nach-hollywood-7860132.html http://www.manilaupmagazine.com/issues/vol3-8/mobile/index.html#p=80 https://christoph-ulrich-mayer.com/unkategorisiert/von-den-besten-lernen-speaker-made-in-hollywood-2-2/ https://www.astrid-arens.com/the-german-oscars-2018/?lang=en

All these sources for example above are independent journalistic resources. I clearly don't understand what the problem is with that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Franklin187 (talk • contribs) 21:41, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks in advance for your reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Franklin187 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

@Franklin187: What you need to do is provide in-line citations. There are two in the article, which are insufficient. Also, both of those sources are IMDB, which is not a reliable source. IMBD is written by its users, not professionals.

As I've already explained here and on your user talk page, all you need to do is summarize three professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources that are independent of and unaffiliated with Schau. These should be in-line citations.

If you get on that as soon as possible, the article can be approved as soon as possible. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:42, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I have a feeling we are talking about different things here.

I'm talking about the external links you look at the reference field.

I added the journalistic sources to the reference field. Is that better? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Franklin187 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

The draft still doesn't cite any sources. Until it does, it certainly won't be approved. Maybe you need to read Help: Referencing for beginners? Maproom (talk) 21:54, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Franklin187: My first post says I'm having trouble finding which sources are independent because you dumped the majority of references in the external links. It's unclear what sources support what article material points to the fact that you're not using enough in-line citations. Many of the sources you cited are not reliable addresses both sections.

It isn't an either/or problem, both are problems.

The work you have done so far has been a waste of your time because you did not do it right. If you just follow the instructions I left at User_talk:Franklin187#How_to_write_articles, you will have this over with as soon as possible. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:55, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hi Franklin187. It might seem strange to you, but the only thing you should put under the heading References is {{Reflist}}. Each actual references goes immediately after the statement that it supports, and the system inserts a reference number and lists the references where you put {{Reflist}}. I hope this helps you to understand how Wikipedia does references. Dbfirs 22:02, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

@Dfirs: thanks for the info. That means I just put

right under the word 'References' and thats it? Thanks in advance.

@Dfirs: Hi, Could you pls check again now, I connected everything between sources and text of the article. Pls let me know. Thanks for the effort. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Franklin187 (talk • contribs) 23:18, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

• Franklin187 Do you work for or represent Benjamin Schnau? 331dot (talk) 23:25, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Franklin187: You've just replaced the text with external links instead of adding in-line citations to the end of the supported material. If you would just read the 8 simple steps I left on your user talk page, you'd get this over with sooner instead of wasting your time (and ours). Ian.thomson (talk) 23:28, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Franklin187 I converted the first of your references to a ref as an example of what should be done with the rest. —teb728 t c 23:35, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

@teb728 Thanks for this example, that helped a lot. I did what everyone told me. Pls let me know. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Franklin187 (talk • contribs) 00:32, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I did what everyone told me. Except you didn't, though. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:34, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

@Ian.Thomson: I'm assuming you are talking about point 4, 5 and 6 in the link you sent me? What do these 3 points mean. Even reading them doesnt fully makes me understand what to do? If I'm assuming wrongly, I would appreciate if you would let me know what exactly you are talking about. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Franklin187 (talk • contribs) 00:45, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

• Franklin187 I will ask again; do you work for or represent Benjamin Schnau? 331dot (talk) 23:25, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

331dot: Yes I do! Why are you asking?

You will need to review and comply with the conflict of interest policy as well as the paid editing policy and formally declare that on your user page or user talk page. The latter is a Wikipedia Terms of Use requirement for paid editors. Thanks 331dot (talk) 01:00, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

No this is a misunderstanding I don't get paid for that. What are you talking about? I do this in my free time.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Franklin187 (talk • contribs)

If you are employed or hired by him to be his agent/representative/public relations person, you are a paid editor and must declare it. We have no way of knowing if you are on your free time or not. If you are just editing at his request and are not paid or employed by him, it is still a conflict of interest that you must declare. 331dot (talk) 01:40, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Guys can someone pls do me a favor and just tell me know what is still missing on this article beside that. I got this link to this article explaining the steps of how to create an article but have no idea what that means? I added in-line citations, what else is missing. I don't get it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Franklin187 (talk • contribs) 01:50, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

There are no deadlines here; feel free to take all the time you need to learn about what you have been told and make the needed declarations. 331dot (talk) 02:05, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

If you work for Schnau you must create a User page and declare that. Even if you are not being paid to create a Wikipedia article. David notMD (talk) 04:07, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Franklin187, after you have posted the required declarations, there are still points outlined in the post on your talk page that you have not addressed. The most important ones are a) citing sources properly, b) showing the person is notable, and c) removing promotional phrasing. You have gone some way towards a) by placing some of the URLs to your sources within <ref></ref> tags, in the relevant places, but there is still a list of unidentified URLs (not connected to any part of the article) in the "References" section, and you do have to cite the sources, that is, clearly identify them so that a reader can understand what the source is, and potentially find the information even if the URL should go away. The link to the information about that (which is also in point 4 in the list on your talk page) is Wikipedia:Citing sources. As for b) it doesn't really look as if you followed the advice in point 2. on your talk page - the sources in your article are still basically the same as they were before your draft was rejected, and as far as I can see without spending too much time looking into unidentifid URLs, there is really only one (Stern) that is independent and talks about Schnau in depth, as opposed to mentioning him in passing. This is what is required. (There are also several inadequate references on the page, including but not limited to links to Netflix, YouTube, and Wikipedia itself, which do not meet the requirements for "professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources".) As regards c), the draft is not entirely promotional, but it is also not neutrally written. That is often difficult when writing about topics where there is a conflict of interest, but it is not impossible. But again, before you look into these things you have to address the conflict of interest issue. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 08:40, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

@bonadea: First of all thanks for your comments and feedback. Very valuable. I appreciate it. I addressed the conflict of interest on the user page. And would now work on the points you made in your comments. Is that ok? Thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Franklin187 (talk • contribs) 21:40, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

If you don't work for him, what is the urgency in getting the draft approved? 331dot (talk) 22:33, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Franklin187 has declared COI on User page. I cut and rearranged a lot, but still needs work, especially on referencing. And I also ask, what is with all the urgency? David notMD (talk) 12:16, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

@331dot There is no urgency at all. Sorry if it came across like that. I just want to figure out what I still need to do to be all correct. @David notMD thank you very much for rearranging and cutting, I appreciate it. As mentioned to 331dot, there is no urgency, sorry if it came across like that. I just like to figure out stuff as soon as I can. I will rearrange the other references as you did and let you know once I'm done. Thanks for starting that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Franklin187 (talk • contribs) 21:08, 25 December 2018 (UTC) @David notMD I rearranged all the other references. Please let me know what you think. Thanks in advance Hi everyone, I hope you are well. I just wanted to follow up on my last changes. Can you pls let me know the status. I'm assuming I finished what David notMD has started. ThanksFranklin187 (talk) 22:24, 28 December 2018 (UTC) --Franklin187 (talk) 22:24, 28 December 2018 (UTC)-

Username change?

Hello, thank you for taking questions. Is it possible for me to change my username? If so, how can I go about this. If not, how can I legitimately set up a different account without falling foul of rules. SadKid01 (talk) 07:06, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

1. yes you can
2. probably not applicable in this instance, and not recommended
   

Please see here WP:UNC and here Wikipedia:Changing_username. Cheers Edaham (talk) 07:10, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Procedure followed and question accordingly resolved. Thanks WaynfleteRd (talk) 02:33, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Are snapshots/screengrabs of Google search results allowed in articles?

Hi. Just now I created the page Pellet gun usage in Jammu and Kashmir. I want to add a screengrab of a blurb of an article from TIME magazine related to this topic that shows up in Google search results, currently right at the top. The point of the screengrab will be to show how the media reports on such a topic. This screengrab will be part of a larger prospective section on the page titled "Media reportage" with examples on how different terms are used when it comes to who actually uses pellet guns in Jammu and Kashmir. Are such screengrabs allowed on Wikipedia? Thanks. Regards. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 11:57, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

DiplomatTesterMan Screengrabs can be manipulated. You're better off simply including the URL in a citation. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:49, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

@Timtempleton: Thanks for the reply. The problem with this specific instance is the the blurb for the TIME article says something else, something misleading, which isn't mentioned in the main article itself. Why this becomes a more important example it that it is TIME magazine, and the blurb is first thing appearing when I type "Kashmir pellet guns". This is the article "Faces in the Darkness: The Victims of ’Non-Lethal’ Weapons in Kashmir"... the blurb on Google says - "India's army injured thousands with pellet guns." This is what I want to use. Can Google search results be archived? DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 15:55, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

I think i will just leave this out. thanks DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 16:07, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

@DiplomatTesterMan: welcome to the Teahouse. What you are suggesting is a form of original research, which is not allowed. You'll need independent reliable sources discussing and analysing the media coverage - not instances of media coverage which you yourself analyse. In addition, a Google search is never a good source since what comes out on top is different for people in different parts of the world, and also depends on other searches you have made. So I'm afraid the answer is no, a Google search (whether it is a screengrab or a direct url to the search) is not a useful source. --bonadea contributions talk 15:51, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

@Bonadea: I don't think what I am is suggesting original research persay. But thanks for the reply. I think I will just leave this out. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 15:57, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello User:DiplomatTesterMan; I must comment that in common usage in different parts of the world, a "pellet gun" refers to an air-powered rifle or pistol. The article you have written seems to be about a type of Shotgun with very small type pelletized ammunition... similar to "birdshot" from your description. Perhaps your addition should properly be a sub-section of the more comprehensive "Shotgun" article? Cheers, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 15:54, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

@Hamster Sandwich: My article is not about pellet guns or pellets in general (though I have mentioned briefly what it is on the page, according to sources, specifically relating to this issue being discussed). The article is about their "usage" in the specific region of Jammu and Kashmir. It is a big issue in the region, a national debate often, and has been internationalized due to the area being so called disputed between India and Pakistan. The coverage of this article is beyond the scope of being included within the shotgun article. There are more than enough reliable and notable sources to justify a standalone article in my opinion. I can add a small section if you want into the original shotgun article as you suggested. Maybe even into crowd control articles. I am also not placing this within original Kashmir conflict articles since they are already so large. I will again add a small section in the main articles once this is stabilized. Thanks for the comments and suggestions. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 16:06, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

I created the article only just today. There is a lot of expansion left. Considering the nature of the topic, I am sure there will be a couple of interested editors other than me. Regards. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 16:09, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

To summarize my comment from above, the term "Pellet gun" itself might be considered to be a colloquialism in context of the broader usage of the term in general, and in particular where Wikipedia articles that cover the subjects Airguns, Pellet and similar. Perhaps something like "Crowd control in Jammu and Kashmir"? Or "Riot suppression in ..." although that seems a bit POV. Like I always say, "One persons righteous protest is another persons riot to control." Regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 16:16, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

• Addendum: Very light shotgun pellets are more widely known as :"Peppershot" indicating the very small size of the projectiles.

@Hamster Sandwich: Hey. This is a good name suggestion! "Crowd control in Jammu and Kashmir"?" Currently I had pinged users related to whether the article title is suitable or not. Thanks! I will suggest it on the talk page of the article. @Talk:Pellet gun usage in Jammu and Kashmir Thanks! DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 16:23, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Very happy to be of any assistance! Please try to remember to update the article if crowd control techniques change over a period of time there (as it may happen). By renaming the article to "Crowd control in..." it would give editors a chance to add material from the historical past that deals with the topic as well. Cheers, and happy editing! Hamster Sandwich (talk) 16:41, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes. The scope of the article drastically increases and allows it to be more comprehensive and thorough. I see that someone already created the page "Crowd control in Jammu and Kashmir" just now which is currently a redirect. Thanks MarkZusab. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 16:59, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

This one is "in the books", for all intents and purposes. My thanks to the editors who contributed here. Regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 20:12, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Can anyone help me with my peer review?

the link is here any suggestions? thanks --I love rpgs [please ping me! ] 15:59, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps this is not the place to make this request... ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 06:56, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Making a page

Hello, I am trying to publish a page for the Sudanese protests which happened this month. I sent a draft but I haven't received any notifications for it. Can somebody help me please — Preceding unsigned comment added by MadeThisFor2018 (talk • contribs) 20:31, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:2018_Sudanese_Protests I found the draft. Can someone help me publish it. I will edit later because I am very busy and I do hope someone helps out — Preceding unsigned comment added by MadeThisFor2018 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

There is a backlog for such requests. So, please, be patient as this can take several months. Ruslik_Zero 20:41, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

@MadeThisFor2018: It's never a good idea to submit a draft article for review if you aren't willing or able to work on it yourself. If, as here, it's a developing news story, its quite likely that someone else will create a page on it themselves, leaving reviewers little choice but to turn down your draft. That said, this sounds like a significant topic, so I have added three references from internationally-respected news outlets, and have left a request for interested editors at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sudan. Hope this helps a bit. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:56, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

I have contributed some information to your draft as well. Good luck. Darwin Naz (talk) 05:06, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Withdrawing a GA nomination

Hi, I’m just curious but how do you withdraw a GA nomination? For instance, I believe the GA nomination for Boyle County High School should be withdrawn as I don’t think it meets the criteria for a GA article. —KYschools1 (talk) 07:48, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello, KYschools1, welcome to the Teahouse. It appears that you initially nominated this page yourself (diff). If you re-read the nominating instructions at WP:GAI, you'll see that if the review process hasn't already started (which clearly this one hasn't), then, as nominator, you simply delete the GA Review template on the article's talk page. I'd suggest you put an article up for WP:PEERREVIEW first, in future. This requires far less volunteer commitment and will simply give you a number of easy pointers to address if you think you really want to commit to taking that article forward to GA, or indeed to simply improve it. Had had someone other than yourself nominated it for GA review, my advice would have been to have contacted the nominator and discussed your concerns on their Talk Page and agree amongst yourselves whether it's appropriate to continue, or to remove the GA nomination. Does this help? Nick Moyes (talk) 10:27, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

I nominated it and it wasn’t reviewed yet. I just removed the template from the article. I will put it for peer review soon as I see some concerns in the article. —KYschools1 (talk) 20:16, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion to article

Hello, could someone help and provide me some suggestions to improve the article recently issued, to ensure that is correctly referenced, copyright compliant and well comprehensible? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tullio_Bassi

regards A.B. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baxialby (talk • contribs) 14:28, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Insert the refs in the text after the sentence(s) being supported by the citation and the ref itself appears in the References list. And sign your commends by typing four of ~ at the end. David notMD (talk) 19:50, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Baxialby, welcome to the Teahouse, and seasons greetings. Thank you for inviting feedback. I'm afraid there is quite a lot wrong with it at the moment. Most seriously, you have cooy/pasted a lot of content straight from Bassi's website. This is completely against our policies, and you MUST remove them all immediately, please see here. You should only add content from sources that are independent of the subject, and it must be written in your own words. The other problems are highlighted in templates that other editors have already added to the page. In summary, these other issues you might wish to address include the following:

• The lede paragraphs do not readily communicate how well he meets our notable people criteria.
• There is too much non-encyclopaedic trivia which should go.
• It is unclear which references support which statements. See referencing for beginners for guidance. It is preferable to put them inline, right after the statements they support.
• Most importantly, you must show how he mets our notability criteria. I am unable to follow the references to make that assessment.

I hope this feedback is of some use. I'm sure other editors could make further comments for you. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:28, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

@Baxialby: Thank you for addressing the copyright violation issue so quickly. I've also had a go at tidying up the article, as well, and adding a few templates where statements are unsupported. I still feel the article (which I note was recently rejected at WP:AFC) fails to demonstrate our notability guidelines for people. I visited Italian Wikipedia where I see there is no page for him (why is that?), nor for any of the so-called 'notable' orchestral musicians for whom you have credited him with making their instruments - nor are they to be found here on en.wiki. What you really need to supply us with are some links to books or newspapers which show that Bossi has been written about, in depth by one or more independent sources. Blogs and passing mentions in lists of makers simply aren't sufficient. Unfortunately, just like so many other brilliant and worthy men and women of science, medicine, academia and culture, if he hasn't been written about in some detail by reliable sources, he simply isn't going to merit an article on him here (unlike so many here-today-gone tomorrow minor TV non-entities who do manage to attract that coverage). Do make sure that you only include information from published sources, leaving out any content that you happen to personally know about him, but cannot support. Sorry I can't help much more, but I fear the article may not, as it stands, do will in a deletion discussion, and I would suggest that Italian Wikipedia might have been a far better place to have started with this article. Best wishes, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:43, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

How to make my page visible on search?

I want to make this page popular among visitors. What should I do to make my page available on search?— Preceding unsigned comment added by S3hira (talk • contribs)

@S3hira: What page would that be? Ian.thomson (talk) 16:49, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

S3hira, Wikipedia is not the slightest bit interested in whether pages are popular or not. If you want to make a page popular, please use social media, not Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 17:17, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Need help from someone who can design Football Kit

Hello, Recently, a new jersey design unveiled for India national football team, its different from general straight stripes or parallel stripes, or boxes. I have gone through Template:Football kit/pattern list#Stripes 2, but didn't find such stripes on arm. Here is the new jersey design, https://www.foxsportsasia.com/football/asian-football/afc-asian-cup/1002013/afc-asian-cup-2019-india-national-team-kit-and-price-revealed/ It has "orange" colour tiger stripes on arm, pattern of which i didn't get anywhere. Can anyone please design the "home" and "away" color for the article, to put in the infobox. It will be a great help. Than you Dey subrata (talk) 16:55, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Dey subrata and welcome to the Teahouse. I've asked at the football WikiProject page as they are more likely to have someone who knows how to answer this specific question. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:06, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Problem with the "Boxing Day" article

Some crazy stuff is going on at the Boxing Day article and I really think this needs administrator intervention. I'm new to this, so sorry if this is the wrong place to ask.InfoManiac297 (talk) 16:59, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

This is being addressed on WP:ANI Thanks for pointing it out! Schazjmd (talk) 17:06, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

WP:AN, rather than WP:ANI. The vandalism has been reverted, the article protected, and the vandal blocked. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:10, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Delete "Wrifraff101"

Can someone please report Wrifraff101

their edit of the page for "boxing day" is ridiculously inappropriate. I would also suggest any other accounts they have be deleted aswell. I am not sure how any of this works, as i do not have a wiki account — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:3021:83D:4000:C111:37F0:3DB1:9E8 (talk) 17:14, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

See the section above. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:16, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Thyroid Hormones - wiki page

Not so much a question. I don't know how to edit the 'thyroid hormones' wiki page where I have noticed has an error. Reference [2] is a paper by A Pilo et al fro m 1990. This clinical paper is biased and should not be used on this page. The main problem of the study was that participants was given 5 drops of Lugol's oil twice daily for the entire duration of the study. So this has given a massive bias to the whole paper.

In order to calculate conversion and production rates they used T4 and T3 molecules that were marked by radioactive iodine without understanding that this meant that the very high stable iodine dose given to the participants during the experiment to protect their thyroids from damage down-regulated deiodinase activity. This altered the natural secretion rate and under estimated the amount of T3 produced by the thyroid. This down regulation of deiodinase activity was not noted in the paper. Also the small number of participants, 14, cannot be be valid as representative of the population as a whole, nor can the fact that they were all healthy and none had hypothyroidism, so therefore the thyroid secretion rate cannot be representative of hypothyroid patients.

As individual human thyroid in vivo secretion rate is so difficult to determine, the clinical papers involving rat thyroid secretion is usually substituted and JJ DiStefano writing in the mid-1980's suggested that it was 4:1, not 14:1 - T4:T3.

Since discovering this anomalous A Pilo et al paper I have been trying to correct it everywhere I can. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gatzpo (talk • contribs) 19:35, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

The article Thyroid hormones currently states T4:T3 release ratio as 14:1 and cites Pilo. Will need a review citation based on human data if you want to update this. Also by "...I have been trying to correct it everywhere I can." looks to be places other than Wikipedia, as the Wikipedia article has not been edited. OR am I missing something? David notMD (talk) 20:13, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Articles for Deletion subject subscription

I thought I saw a page where you could subscribe to specific subjects in Articles for Deletion and you would be notified when articles in those subjects came up on AfD. You could also set the number or articles per month you wanted to be notified about. But I can no longer find that page. Please help. Aurornisxui (talk) 19:53, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

It's not quite what you wanted, but you could put this page on your watchlist. User:DumbBOT/ProdSummary TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:07, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

@Timtempleton: Thanks for the suggestions, but not really what I'm looking for. Aurornisxui (talk) 20:58, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Could you be thinking of Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting, Aurornisxui? I have a couple of the deletion lists on my watchlist, to keep a track of what's going on in particular subject areas. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:04, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry:, Thanks, that looks interesting and I've bookmarked it, but it wasn't what I was looking for. Aurornisxui (talk) 21:29, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry: I just started exploring what you suggested and it's wonderful! Thanks again very much! Aurornisxui (talk) 01:03, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

@Aurornisxui:, could this be it? Wikipedia:Article_alerts/Subscribing Schazjmd (talk) 21:56, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

@Schazjmd:, Thank you, I saw that, but this had a list of subjects you could sign up for to be notified when your subject came up on AfD. Aurornisxui (talk) 22:08, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

@Aurornisxui: This might sound rude (and I really don't mean it to be), but it seems to me that if you're still not getting what you're after, you're either asking in the wrong forum, or are not being precise enough in what it is that you do seek. (none of us here are mind-readers to know what it is exactly you do want). So, if you're still stuck for an answer, you might perhaps get a more useful answer if you post your question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Deletion sorting? Gosh - that sounded even blunter than I felt it might - genuinely not intended. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:54, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: No, no not rude at all, I didn't know where else I could ask, knew here probably wasn't right. I tried to add all the details I remembered in the hopes someone would recognize what I meant, but I only saw it once, briefly. Thanks for directing me to that talk page, I'll try there. Aurornisxui (talk) 00:01, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

@Aurornisxui: Oh that's good to know. Perhaps you could pop back and ping us if you do get an answer? I find the Teahouse is a great way to learn new skills...and it works in both directions. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:04, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Did more searching and found it Wikipedia:Feedback request service. Not AfD after all but I found it from the main AfD page and I wouldn't have known the difference when I first found it. Thanks again to everyone. Aurornisxui (talk) 00:58, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

@Aurornisxui: As a former boss once said to me: "Consider yourself reprimanded!" (LOL). Glad you found what you sought in the end. I must go off and play with the AfD alerts as I think I could do with keeping my eye on one or two favourite topic areas myself. (In my opinion, too many editors around here seem to treat the proposal of articles for a deletion discussion as akin to "treading on bugs" because they don't have the time or the common sense to investigate and improve what they don't understand, and a few even seem to treat the destruction of poor quality, but nevertheless noteworthy, articles as some sort of badge of honour.) BTW: I use a lovely little script calledPage Collector that allows me to add pages I might be interested in later on to a 'useful pages' list -a sort of 'watchlist' for interesting guidelines and other and wikipedia pages. You might find it worth installing if this happens a lot. Cheers Nick Moyes (talk) 01:27, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: I agree completely. I actually left AfD after about a week because it seemed to me that Assume Good Faith didn't apply. But I think I can be of help fixing articles that need to be fixed. I get frustrated with the agendas, arguments, lack of searching, and lack of fixing the article, but that's something I like to do anyway. I don't know anything about using scripts, but I will check this one, it would be nice to just see articles I might be interested in. ETA, I just looked at this and will definitely have to try it, it would certainly be better than an abundance of bookmarks that aren't always useful. Thanks! Aurornisxui (talk) 02:15, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I did think that what you were describing sounded like the feedback request service and probably should have mentioned that. Anyway, I'm glad you found out about some other interesting tools in the process, Aurornisxui! Cordless Larry (talk) 09:56, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Did Google Books change something?

I can no longer look at previews of pages in Google Books. I get search results, but when I click on one of them, I'm taken to a page for that book, with no preview, and the entire page is "greyed out", so that while I can see the info, I can't select any of it, or click on any links. I've tried this on multiple browsers. Has anyone else experienced this? Thanks. Ewen Douglas (talk) 20:49, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

@Ewen Douglas: Could you link to one of the books that's happened to you with? I've not had that happen on the books I've checked today. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:51, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Sure, try this link. I have a feeling it's just my computer but it's odd that it's happening in multiple browsers. Thanks @Ian.thomson:. Ewen Douglas (talk) 22:07, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I take it back. Chrome and Firefox are giving me the greyed-out book page. Safari is somehow still handling my searches the normal way. I'm still trying to sort this out but any advice is appreciated. Ewen Douglas (talk) 22:10, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

@Ewen Douglas: Huh, that link does do what you showed me, but when I search the book myself and open it it still takes me here instead. I'm on Firefox. For some reason, you're at https://www.google.com/books, while I started off at https://books.google.com/ . Are you starting off at www.google or at books.google? (Well, now that I try going at it through www.google myself, that doesn't seem to be it, either, unless you're going at it through some way I can't think of). Ian.thomson (talk) 22:21, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

I noticed the www.google and books.google difference as well, just now. I start at the same place in all 3 browsers - google.com, then click the Books link. Not sure why 2 of the 3 browsers are now handling the search differently and sending me to www.google, which is where the problematic page is, and Safari is still sending me to books.google where the results are fine. It's quite irritating, especially since I use Chrome the most and Firefox as a backup. I'm still trying to figure it out. Ewen Douglas (talk) 22:27, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

I've discovered a sort of workaround - I can right-click on the link featured in the search results (which is still a books.google.com link), then paste that in the address bar of Chrome, but then I still have to remove most of the tail end of the link, and only then am I allowed to see the preview text that I was previously allowed to see instantly. Most confusing. Ewen Douglas (talk) 22:35, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

@Ewen Douglas: Just a thought: have you tried this searching in an 'Incognito' or'Private' window? Sometimes when I'm researching a topic I only get a partial return for a page I had previously seen in full. Going Incognito in Chrome sometimes gives me back the full search results. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:06, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

That worked as well, thanks for the tip, @Nick Moyes:. So it's obviously something connected to my google account that I'm signed into on those 2 browsers. Wish I knew what it was, though. Ewen Douglas (talk) 07:59, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Translation

I was translating pages from English to another language, using the translate function, however I notice that the infoboxes don't usually function ( an exception being taxonomy.)

How can one fix this?

Ériugena (talk) 21:47, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

You'll find advice at WP:Translate us#Here's how you can help, bullet point 8. --David Biddulph (talk) 21:51, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

This states that " If you want to add templates, do that, too. (Note that templates for such items as Infoboxes have different wording in other language Wikipedias, and can't simply be copied from one Wikipedia to another." This is not exactly the case, as I have stated before, the infobox for articles to do with 'taxonomy' ( for instance, a species of plant) all show up in the translated article on the right hand side (well this is the case for translating from English into Irish Gaelic!). This poses the question, hopw does one translate an infobox from English into Irish Gaelic or another language, when no subject is in the list of preformed infoboxes in the target language? Ériugena (talk) 22:01, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Owner Permission to Use Photos

The owner of some photos recently gave me his permission to release the photos as Creative Commons. I noted this when I uploaded the photos, used the photos in a new Wikipedia article I created, and forwarded his emailed permission to Permissions. Would you suggest taking any additional steps?

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:E.S._Schubert.jpg
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bust_of_Dred_Scott_and_Descendants.jpg
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sacred_Heart_Close-Up.jpg

— Preceding unsigned comment added by WayneofNottingHill (talk • contribs) 23:00, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

@WayneofNottingHill: Welcome to the Teahouse. No need to worry about Image 1 - it's clearly recorded your OTRS submission. Provided your email eventually clearly demonstrates permission has been correctly given for free use for both commercial and non-commercial applications, you can do no more. Images 2 and 3 show no such permission has been submitted for OTRS, and a warning notice states the images will be deleted in 6 days time if you don't demonstrate the relevant permission. Was it your belief that you had? If so, you could perhaps add a note to the image that an OTRS submission had been made - and then follow it up. Maybe give the same OTRS ticket number if you submitted them at the same time, which I suspect you did? Or, you could go back to the owner of the image on the blog and ask them to edit their blog to show a CC-BY-SA Creative Commons licence is given for that image. The folks at OTRS would then follow that link and confirm if the correct licence was cited.  Hope this helps. (And please remember to sign all talk page posts with four keyboard tildes (like this: ~~~~). Nick Moyes (talk) 00:33, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

@WayneofNottingHill: You say that Schubert is the owner of the photos: Is he also the owner of the copyright on the photos? Ordinarily the photographer owns the copyright (unless they specifically transfer the copyright). In particular the portrait was certainly taken by a professional photographer. Also, there are several flavors of Creative Commons licenses, and not all of them are acceptable to Wikipedia. On your file description pages you specify CC-BY-SA-4.0, which is a good license. In order to avoid delays, be sure that the OTRS message identifies Schubert as the copyright owner and CC-BY-SA-4.0 as the specific license. —teb728 t c 08:33, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

@WayneofNottingHill: If Schubert holds the copyrights on these photos (I say "if" because as pointed out by teb728 the copyright holder of a photo is the photographer who takes it, not the person being photographed, unless it's a work for hire or there's a copyright transfer agreement.), then you'd be better off having him email his WP:CONSENT to WP:Contact OTRS because OTRS volunteers don't accept forwarded emails (at least a few OTRS volunteers have told me this is the case). -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:21, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

oops I misnamed an article

I'm working too late without coffee, while updating another laptop, and wanted to post an article before I left for dinner. However, in my rush, I misnamed the article "Edward P. Hunter" instead of "Edmund P. Hunter." Can someone please correct my error? Thanks, Jweaver28 (talk) 00:39, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done Nick Moyes (talk) 00:45, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

federal crimes should be listed in a person's biography posted on Wikipedia

There is a biography for Adam Milstein on Wikipedia. Nowhere in the article does it mention that Milstein served a federal prison sentence for tax fraud. I mentioned this once before, and a brief statement was posted to the Milstein Wikipage for a few days, then someone went back onto Milstein's page and deleted the information.

Adam Milstein is a professional propagandist who uses his money and power to influence everything from US state and federal elections to media reporting. His actions are fascist in nature and extremely biased.

Wikipedia should suspend the account that is deliberately whitewashing Milstein's biography and post the historic truth about Milstein's activities which are readily available for reading outside of Wikipedia.

This is a travesty when information is being submitted for permanent record on Wikipedia, with a total ignorance of the truth of this man. Its like writing an article about Hitler, and completely ignoring Hitler's human rights atrocities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fd52944 (talk • contribs) 04:59, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

@Fd52944: Could you provide a WP:DIFF of where you added the edit? Also, see WP:BLP. Wikipedia is not censored but all information must be reliably sourced. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:08, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Fd52944. The article currently states "In 2009 he was convicted of minor tax fraud." If you want to add more details about this conviction, then you need to furnish a reference to a reliable source that discusses this matter in depth. Put forward your argument at Talk: Adam Milstein. Calling a person's actions "fascist in nature" and "extremely biased" is a policy violation without extremely strong sourcing. Be cautious. Comparing tax evasion to invasions of other countries, aggressive warfare and genocide is hyperbolic. You are unlikely to persuade people by using such rhetorical tactics. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:35, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

}}U|Cullen328|Ian.thomson|Fd52944}}My two cents. There is no such thing as MINOR tax fraud. The insertion of the adjective appears to be an attempt to minimize the crime. Like calling a felony a minor felony or even a misdemeanorOldperson (talk)

````

Error

Why does my Edit keep getting say Error when i am about to save the changes on an Article? This time, i have put References/Sources as evidences for my Contribution at an Article... thanks for answering, i'm just curious why and how to solve this problem... i think the CAPTCHA is broken.... i just need help. Thank you again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FauxWhistle9262 (talk • contribs) 06:03, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi @FauxWhistle9262: Welcome to the Teahouse. Do you have any more details on the type of error you're getting? When it happens, what it looks like, what it says, what article(s) you were editing, any of that would be useful. Thanks, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 06:18, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Janet Robin

Hi- my team was trying to update my wikipedia page. Everything listed can be sourced. I would like to know how we can remove the warning header saying it's written like a resume... it's more of a biography. And the close connection is because the updates are from people who have worked with me. Please help as I'd like the updates to go through as well as I'd like a new photo implemented. Appreciate any help you can lend. Thank you, Janet Robin Team — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:CD5E:D739:546C:68CA:EBE2:4818 (talk) 07:38, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi IP 2602:304:CD5E:D739:546C:68CA:EBE2:481. If you are indeed Janet Robin, then neither you nor any members of your team should be editing the article directly. Please refer to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Biographies of living people#Relationship between the subject, the article, and Wikipedia for more information. In addition, if any members of your "team" are being paid or compensated in any way to edit the article, then they need to comply with Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:54, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

how publish draft article's?

hi sir , how i published my draft article's?. i cant find option of publishing the draft. please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muhammad Faheem Muhammad Ameen (talk • contribs)

@Muhammad Faheem Muhammad Ameen: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. In looking at your draft, I would see that you seem to have a common misunderstanding as to what Wikipedia is. It is an encyclopedia and not social media for people to tell the world about themselves. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is only interested in what independent reliable sources state about article subjects that are notable as defined by Wikipedia. In this case, that would be defined at WP:BIO(please review). Wikipedia has no interest in what an article subject wants to say about itself. Wikipedia also strongly discourages writing autobiographies, please review the autobiography policy at WP:AUTO.

For these reasons, I regret to say that the draft article about yourself is not acceptable, as you are just posting a social media-type page about yourself. You would only merit an article if independent parties have significantly written about you on their own; and in order for you to be successful in writing about yourself, you would need to forget everything you know about yourself and only write based on what those independent parties have stated. Most people cannot do this, as people naturally write favorably about themselves. If you want to write about subjects other than yourself, you may want to use the new user tutorial to learn more about Wikipedia. I'm sorry this message could not be more favorable. 331dot (talk) 09:51, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Edit the box office collection of the movie hebbuli

This movie hebulli has collected 95 crore+ ,and the source of its box office in Wikipedia (at present) is of its 1st week collection. Here is a reliable source Soure=ttps://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thenewsminute.com/article/hebbuli-s-huge-success-amala-paul-gets-tag-rs-100-crore-actor-61504%3famp

Therefore this movie should be placed in the highest grossing indian movies (kannada).And its page also needs to be updated.

I would appreciate if someone edits these 2 pages. Add 'h' at starting of the source. I am also sure athe thenewsminute is a very reliable source. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ Anchitya (talk • contribs) 2018-12-27T11:05:55 (UTC)

Hello again, Anchitya. You have found a source which says it "has grossed over Rs.100 crore", it is true; but the lack of a source for that data, and of a precise number, make it suspect: does the information come from an independent source, or from the distributors, or the actor's publicists? Especially considering that another source, which looks more impartial, says ₹45 crores for India, and ₹56 crores worldwide. It's clear that the ₹20 crores in Hebbuli is not right, but I haven't seen any reliable independent sources which talk about 100 crores. Note also that this very question was discussed Talk:Hebbuli in May 2017, without any resolution.

I've gone ahead and updated Hebbuli, and added it to List of highest-grossing Indian films, both with the 56 Cr value.

A couple of administrative things, Anchitya:

1. Please sign postings on this and other talk/discussion pages, with four tildes (~~~~)
2. Please make clear in your question which articles you are talking about, preferably wikilinking them. (So above I put [[Hebbuli]], which displays as Hebbuli).
3. I'm not sure why you mangled the URL above (and in your previous post). You can put URLs in questions, and it's much easier if you do so. But a specific URL is much more helpful than a google URL.

--ColinFine (talk) 12:55, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

References

regarding edit

Good morning Tea House Have a nice day

Once again Masroor Chaudhary is with you. According to reliable sources: Maghfoor Ahmad Ajazi Sister Noorun Nisa was married with Chaudhary Mohammad Kalimullah a Land Lord of Dist. Darbhanga Bihar India. There are few authentic references (Historical Proof) are mentioned as below:-

1. Huma Urdu Digest Delhi 2. Times of India Independence Day Issue 3. Bihar Vibhuti a book 4. Tarikh Ain e Tirhut (History of Tirhut) - Authar Munshi Bihari Lal Fitrat 5. Reyaz e Tirhut Authar Pandit Ayodhaya Nath

These are some references are for your kind review and perusal. Now please accept my edit on Maghfoor Ahmad Ajazi Page.

Thanking you in advance

Best Regards,

Masroor Chaudhary — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masroor Chaudhary (talk • contribs) 11:19, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

If you give us proper bibliographic information, Masroor Chaudhary, then one or more of those might be acceptable as a source. But at present you have not given enough information by which a reader at any time in any country could find the references and verify it. It doesn't have to be easy for them to get hold of it: it might be something that they would have to order a scan of from a major library. But it must be possible in principle. Which month and year of Huma Urdu Digest? Which page? What is the reference? Which month and year of Times of India? Which book, who wrote it, when and where was it published? and so on. We don't need 5 references, we just need one which is published, reliable, and with enough information that a concerned reader can locate it to check. --ColinFine (talk) 13:04, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Need Clearity on Orphan article, Nomination for deletion, Advice

I actually added link to Ganiyu Olatunji Olatunde But still confuse if the article is still an Orphan

Question: How many incoming links needs to be in an article for it not to be an Orphan and what makes an article an orphan?

2. I took my time to go through this article ( Chike Ukaegbu)and feel is not notable enough.

Reason: I took my time to look through Most of the citations and they are not properly source and I am 90% in doubt if he is notable

Questions: How do I nominate it for deletion?

3. In copyediting, is it possible for me to work on about 90% of the contents to make it suitable?

4. Plan writing an Article on political Party and their National chairmen / Party founder, want to inquire if such is notable enough to be on Wikipedia.�

Odiri (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:57, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Odiri. To take your questions in order:

1. Ganiyu Olatunji Olatunde currently has one link from another article, and so it is not an orphan. More links would be better. I am not convinced that the article establishes Olatunde's notability - is "acting vice-chancellor" really a "highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society"? In any case, there should be at least one independent source.
2. The process is detailed in WP:AFD#Nominating article(s) for deletion
3. Sorry, I don't know what you are asking. Copy editing is always encouraged. Are you asking if copyediting can make an article acceptable when the subject does not meet the criteria for notability? The answer to that is, No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability.
4. Very possibly. We can't possibly answer that in general. PLease read WP:GNG in general; and WP:ORG for parties, and WP:NPOL for their leaders. You can come back and ask about particular cases. --ColinFine (talk) 13:18, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Session Hijacking

Is session hijacking is considered compromising an account? 36.84.65.146 (talk) 12:59, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

The account would be a compromised account, can I ask whether your asking because of specific circumstances or just hypothetically? You can find more info on wikipedia policy here. and for general questions Reference Desk may be more suitable next time. RhinosF1 (talk) 13:09, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

How do i reply on talk?

Hello everyone in the tea house , i am not at all used to the ways of communication on Wikipedia and i need some help with replying to others on "talk" Thank you! (Sorry if this question was too short) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orengi Harvey (talk • contribs) 15:52, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

@Orengi Harvey: To reply to a section on a talk page, look at the section title, look to the right of it for a button that says "edit" (it may be a pencil if you're on mobile), and click that. Then go completely under what you are replying to, put one more colon (:) than is present in the section above, and reply from there. Put four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your talk page posts to sign it (but not article changes!). You can see more in this guide that I wrote, especially the sections on Links, italicizing, bolding, green-text quoting, and signing and also Indenting and responding. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:16, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi, Orengi Harvey and welcome to the Teahouse. There are some ambiguities in your question, so I'm going to make a best guess: if that doesn't help, please come back and ask further.

There are many talk pages: each article has a talk page, for discussions about improving that article; and each user has a talk page, where other editors may communicate with them. I'm guessing that you want to reply to one of the users who have posted on your user talk page User talk:Orengi Harvey? If so: you can reply to them on your user talk page, or on their own user talk page, as you prefer. Replying on your user talk page keeps the discussion in one place, so that is what I would recommend. But if you do so, they will not get a notification that you have replied (they would if you posted on their talk page). What you can do is to ping them: there are various ways of doing this, but what I do is to use the template {{u}}. So if you want to reply to Boleyn, for example, you put {{U|Boleyn}} somewhere in your message, with the double curly brackets; then as long as you sign your post (with four tildes ~~~~) the user will get a notification.

To add to a section on a talk or discussion page, just pick "Edit" at the top of the section. Start on a new line, and precede each paragraph of your reply with one or more colons (':'): each colon will indent the text one more step, so if replying to something already indented you use one more than they did.

I hope this answers your question. --ColinFine (talk) 16:23, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello

Hello, Teahouse, thank you for the invite. I'm new at this so am not sure if I can ask questions here about proper editing and citation rules or if I do that on another talk page. I will post on that page as well. Thank you.Trubea01 (talk) 16:09, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

@Trubea01: Yes, you can ask questions here. Different talk pages have different purposes and may or may not be appropriate, depending on what kind of question you have. I have written a guide that covers this and many other issues many new users face. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:16, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Setting up a wikipedia for the band Peace of Blues

I'm new to setting up a wikipedia page and was doing one for the band Peace of Blues.

Can someone with experience look at the page and help me with my mistakes as I keep getting notifications on correcting problems? thanks! It is currently a draft page!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Peace_of_Blues#cite_note-9 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kephers (talk • contribs) 16:11, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello @Kephers: The biggest thing that is going to keep the page from being approved is your sourcing. Writing an article first and adding sources after just results in trouble, it's far easier to just summarize sources. The quality of your sources are also a problem.

I recommend finding three to seven (five is good but you must have at least three) professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources that provide in-depth coverage specifically and primarily about the band but are still not dependent upon nor affiliated with the band, its members, its label, or associated acts. Without at least three such sources, the article will never be approved so there's no point in even trying without three such sources. Then summarize and paraphrase those sources, putting citations at the end of them.

There's information on this and more in this guide I wrote. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:23, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Question on Edting of Bessie Stringfield's Wikipedia page

Dear Host and editors,

This morning, Dec. 27, 2018, I started editing the Wikipedia page for Bessie B. Stringfield, in order to correct factual errors and add the correct citations (references/sources) for the corrected information. I made a few edits, then when I tried to publish the latest edit, I got an error message saying "edit conflict" and that someone else was editing the page at the same time. I didn't know what steps to take next, as the Help guide was unclear. When I refreshed the Bessie Stringfield page (its "home" page), all of my edits had been taken away, and the incorrect information had been restated. To give an example: In the first sentence, it says that Bessie Stringfield was the first African American woman to ride a motorcycle across the United States. This is not verifiable and it is misleading. It gives the impression that she rode coast-to-coast in one ride. The correct information is that she was the first woman to ride "around" (make meandering long-distance trips by motorcycle) eight times in her lifetime. How do I reinstate the correct information, and also how do I reinstate other correct information and the source citations that I'd inserted elsewhere? Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Trubea01 (talk • contribs)

You'll have to try making you're edit again as you're edit isn't now recoverable. An edit conflict occurs when 2 or more editors edit at the same time RhinosF1 (talk) 16:26, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

How long does it take for revisions and inserted citations to be publicly published?

Is there a time-lag in between the time a new editor makes factual revisions and adds new citations to a page, and the time when the revisions are publicly posted? I thought the chnaged were published immediately? Or maybe someone else undid my revisions?Trubea01 (talk) 16:23, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

@Trubea01: I'll get to your other questions in a moment but instead of posting a new sections for everything you can edit an existing section by looking to the right of the section title for a button that says "edit." Click that and use that instead of posting new sections. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:26, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

You'll see who undid your revisions, and why, at the history page for the article in question. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:30, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Some edits were reverted by User:Bbb23. He may be able to help so I'll ping him. @Bbb23: RhinosF1 (talk) 16:33, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Original Sources

Good day: I am in process of writing an article about the Service History of Porte-class Gate Vessels, East Coast, Canada and Great Lakes 1971 to 1975. The sourced material is contained in the Fonds of the sea captain who commanded these operations. Commander F.R. Berchem died Mar 2018. As Executor of his estate, I have been directed to place these materials in a suitable museum/archive. Until that task is done, I hold them. These form the source material upon which I base the article, and they are not yet catalogued in a public archive. I am in the process of scanning the documents should your editors wish to see them as part of your publishing protocol. See the beginning of the draft: User_talk:Zimmerman,_G.L./sandbox/Canadian_Gate_Vessel_1971_to_1975

How do you advise I proceed? George Zimmerman — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zimmerman, G.L. (talk • contribs) 16:43, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

@Zimmerman, G.L.: If the sources are not published in any way, they're not sources as far as we're concerned. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:49, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello! There is, at the present time an article Porte-class gate vessel in Wikipedia. Perhaps you have access to some published material concerning the topic which could be added. Newspaper articles from reliable sources could be added, provided the page # and date is included (?) The question mark is for theseemingly mutable nature of what constitutes a "reliable source" here in Wikipedia. User:Ian.thomson is absolutely correct in reminding us that things like personal diaries, even of notable people are not a correct source, unless they have been further published by a reliable source. Regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 17:33, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Sources

Thank you for inviting me I want to ask how can we check a source is credible or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReginaMills007 (talk • contribs) 18:32, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

See WP:CITE for help. I'm also about to post some advice on your talk page. RhinosF1 (talk) 19:15, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Page Header

I'm currently creating a page header for my user-space. How do I create a magic link that links to the talk page of whatever page the header is on, so I can use the header as a template and then link it to whatever talk page that header is on. I'm looking for something along the lines of:

If you have any questions feel free to put them on the [Talk Page Link | Talk Page] for this page [Page Name]

Is there a magic link that identifies the page and the talk page. I've seen it done in some templates, but I've spent an hour raking through them and can't find the specific code.

Thanks in advance,

Jake Symons (Talk) (Contributions) (User Space) 19:39, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Jake Symons: You can find all the magic words over at Help:Magic words. The one you're looking for is {{TALKPAGENAME}}; the full wikimarkup for the link would be [[{{TALKPAGENAME}}|Talk Page]]. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 20:26, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Also, a friendly heads up that you have an extra colon at the end of your userpage link in your signature :) ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 20:27, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I'll fix the colon and I've bookmarked that page, I should have done a search for Magic Words :) Jake Symons (Talk) (Contributions) (User Space) 21:06, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

submitting a revised page after first one was declined

hello! i wonder if there is a step by step guide to how i go about deleting an old submission which was never approved and replacing it with a new and improved submission addressing the reasons for the declination before? it's the schools for chiapas/sandbox page and i have a new submission all ready to go in Word. can i somehow just copy it all with the new references, etc. and paste it into place for submission? if so, can anyone help with directions on how to do that. i have tried with simple cut and paste but that does not seem to work. thank you for any help you can provide! kimberly rosa — Preceding unsigned comment added by SfC-EpC (talk • contribs) 20:08, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

You should make all changes on the same page as the original submission rather than a separate page/document so other editors can help. Then click the resubmit button. There's more information in the article declined box on the page. RhinosF1 (talk) 21:19, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

• Note: Could you link to the article? RhinosF1 (talk)

hi and thanks for your reply--i was trying to make the changes on the same page as the original submission, by copying and pasting from the revised document that i have in Word. do i have re-type the whole thing into the wikipedia page? and if so, how do i include the endnotes/references? it's signficantly different, so it's not just about adding or deleting, etc. we've include updated information and then with many more endnotes/independent references, which was the reason it was declined the first go-round. the original is located at User:SchoolsForChiapas/sandbox. not sure how i can attach the new/updated article here? kimberly — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.198.58.105 (talk) 23:37, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I highly recommend just following this set of instructions on how to write articles instead of addressing every new problem as they pop up. If those instructions are properly followed, an article will not be deleted or rejected. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:45, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Difficulties Dealing with Another Editor

I asked about how to deal with what I feel is bias in the Incapacity Benefit article on the Request for Comment page, where the editor and I was told that it was too early in this dispute to ask for an RfC and I was sent to here. I have posted here in the past about a different issue.

I have been editing a number of articles relating to welfare for people with disabilities in the UK, including Employment Support Allowance, Incapacity Benefit, Work Capability Assessment and Criticism of the Work Capability Assessment. While I have been editing these articles, I have come accross an editor name Dr Greg Wood. Dr Greg Wood appears to have some very strong feelings about the Work Capability Assessment. While I was editing the article on Criticism of the Work Capability Assessment, I looked at a section describing a doctor who used to work for Atos- the company who used to administer the Work Capability Assessment- who made some allegations against Atos in the media. The doctor wasn't named in the article. I looked at the references and found out that this doctor was also called Greg Wood. I reported this to the conflict of interest noticeboard, and another editor has dealt with this. I have noted this here for context.

In the Incapacity Benefit article, I removed a lot of what I felt was irrelevent content. The article mostly seemed to discuss the Work Capability Assessment. For those who are unaware, the Work Capability Assessment is used to determine eligibility for Employment Support Allowance. Employment Support Allowance is the benefit that replaced Incapacity Benefit. He reverted my edits. In the summary, he gave the reason for putting the content back as "undo deleterious change". I admit I have made mistakes; I could have explained what I was doing a lot more often. But I still think several of the articles Dr Greg Wood has worked on are problematic and he doesn't seem to accept there could be a problem. He doesn't seem to cope very well with editors disagreeing with him. After I edited the work capability assessment article, he re-classed it on the quality scale as a "D", and wrote in the essay summary that it was "Nowhere near a B now" (I know there is no D. It showed up as unassessed, so I changed it to a C.) Previously, he had assessed the article as a B.(I know this doesn't really matter, but I think this shows Dr Greg Wood's approach to editing Wikipedia). On his talk page, he has accused me and another editor of having conflict of interest. (I'd just like to say here for the record that I do not have a conflict of interest. I myself claim ESA. I do not and never have been paid or asked to edit Wikipedia by anyone. I have never had a job at all, so I have never worked for any organisations involved with the UK benefits system. Nor does anyone in my family or any friends).

How can I deal with bias in the articles Employment Support Allowance, Incapacity Benefit, Work Capability Assessment and Criticism of the Work Capability Assessment? I'm fully prepared for someone to say that Dr Greg Wood is right or that the articles aren't biased, but my personal feeling is that if Dr Greg Wood doesn't stop changing articles to fit his personal viewpoint, the articles on these topics will remain biased and the article on Incapacity Benefit will continue to have a large amount of irrelevent content that I can't remove without being in trouble. It looks as if only me and Dr Greg Wood have edited these articles recently, so it's unlikely that another editor would give their opinion.

I have read about dispute resolution, but I was under the impression that this was for more serious issues (for example, threats of violence, contact off Wikipedia). I also don't want to end up in trouble myself for trying to deal with this if I'm in the wrong here. What can I do? CircleGirl (talk) 20:46, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

factual correction reversed

I am told that an alteration I made to the page of Abdul Minty has been reversed. The only alteration I recall making was to correct his date of birth but I do not know how to get in touch with Shellwood to find out why he altered it back. The date he quotes appears in a number of places but it is not correct https://commonwealthoralhistories.org/2017/interview-with-abdul-minty/ "4 May 2017 - Biography – Abdul Minty. Born South Africa, 1939. Graduate University College London. Appointed the Honorary Secretary of the British ..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.5.46.176 (talk) 21:39, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

These changes were made nearly two months ago but I'll ping Shellwood as he might be able to give us some insight although as you've said if many sources show the incorrect information without anything definitive showing othwrwise it's likely he thought you were incorrect. (pinging @Shellwood:)

Also, remember to sign your posts with ~~~~ RhinosF1 (talk) 21:44, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi 82.5.46.176, the source used in the article says 1933, but you seem to have found an other one stating something different. I feel I'm not in any position to judge which of the sources is most credible and leave this up to you. May I suggest that you in order to avoid situations like this in the future add the reference when you make changes like this. Shellwood (talk) 23:30, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Various articles about him give the different dates of 1933 and 1939, but I knew him when he lived in London and can confirm from my own knowledge that the year of his birth was 1939 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.5.46.176 (talk) 23:31, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Adding to an article

Can you please add a picture of Smenkhkare's coffin as the article picture? The Pharoah I mean.

Yep. That's all I want. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Egypt Freak (talk • contribs) 21:57, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Egypt Freak. The article in question is Smenkhkare and that article says that there is no scholarly consensus that the coffin and the mummy are actually of Smenkhkare. Some experts believe it is Akhenaten. Accordingly, I do not believe that the photo of the coffin belongs at the beginning of the article. Cullen<sup>328</sup> Let's discuss it 22:19, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Edit the box office collection of hebbuli

Courtesy link: Hebbuli

Box office = 56 crore Soure= ttps://bestoftheyear.in/movie/hebbuli/ .Some really good guy did edit the page.and someone removed it.It really is a reliable source. no one can find a source which says'the movie has not grossed 55 crore.' There also needs to be some editing in the page'list of highest grossing indian films '.(k annada).

I really want this to be updated please. T

Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Anchitya (talk • contribs)

 Already done ―Abelmoschus Esculentus <sup>talk / contribs</sup> 05:20, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Need help troubleshooting infoboxes

Hey all,

I came across the page for Susan Crown, and the infobox is all messed up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Crown

I tried figuring out how to fix it myself, but just couldn't get it to work in the preview. I'm sure I'm missing something simple, but is there a chance someone could tell me what that simple thing is?

Thank you! Capromeryx (talk) 09:47, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out Capromeryx. I fixed it thus. The link to Yale University was closed with only a single bracket. —teb728 t c 09:56, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Ah, that's perfect. Thanks again, have a nice day. Capromeryx (talk) 10:09, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Is it possible to edit under an IP range, constructively?

Hi. So, I'm having a small doubt which may or may not relate to sockpuppetry. Just a general (maybe yes) query. Before asking this question I want to know whether or not you all respect IP editors. I have been editing constructively which seemingly comes under a CIDR IP range of 182.58.0.0/16, you can see most of my edits under species-related articles such as Rana tigerina or Hoplobatrachus tigerinus 1, 2 etc., reverting vandalism and text insertions via original research (synthesis of original statements).

So I have a doubt over it, since may be it can get used on other ranges as well and can get misused under vandalism charges. Likewise there was a significant amount of original research and a aggressive Point of view insertion with pure personal analysis 3. I'm afraid that I may be attributed for that, because my range is pinging a lot and changes drastically in that given range. I personally help by giving a hand in reverting vandals and solve misinterpretations. In case I'm, in my humble opinion, not getting the connection (if in future) for the sock-puppet cases. My question is am I allowed to work on an account and contribute (like this) constructively for privacy issues? That is, not as a sockpuppet but for legitimate use. Please help me! 182.58.170.239 (talk) 09:54, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Creating an account would not violate policy as long as you did not defend your IP. If you're worried but an alternative account disclosure on your user pages. RhinosF1 (talk) 09:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

See WP:SOCK RhinosF1 (talk) 10:00, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

OK so can I use my IP and my account together for legit purposes? 182.58.170.239 (talk) 10:10, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

No, stick to 1 account. Stop using the IP once you create the account. RhinosF1 (talk) 10:13, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

But only for legit purposes like editing constructively and reverting some vandals. 182.58.170.239 (talk) 10:15, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

To avoid conflicts, per WP:SOCK use only 1 account at once unless it's for certain purposes. for more info on editing while logged out see WP:LOGOUT RhinosF1 (talk) 10:19, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

OK thanks! 182.58.170.239 (talk) 10:21, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

If you need anymore help, let us know. RhinosF1 (talk) 10:23, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes I need some help, if I create a account and contribute constructively by following rules and all and in some cases I adopt WP:IGNOREALLRULES, with which I use one account and one IP address (or say IP range cause it deviates a lot), if I do that and contribute in a constructive manner via reversion of vandalism constructive fully (published academic sourced) cited and referenced contributions, without any conflict of interest in any of the aforementioned articles. Can I still continue contributing one with the IP address and the second with my account?

Actually I'm confused upon that only otherwise I'm good. @RhinosF1: 182.58.170.239 (talk) 10:55, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

An observation: I have come across editors that declare on User page that they have more than one account. Caveat is that they never use the two accounts to edit on the same articles. You are specifically asking if you can use an account and an IP "...together for legit purposes." The answer to that is "No." David notMD (talk) 11:08, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

OK But Why? 182.58.170.239 (talk) 11:26, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Because the Wikipedia model works on Consensus, and as such it's important that we know that each participant on a particular page is a distinct individual, as otherwise one person using multiple accounts or IP addresses can give the impression of consensus when none exists. You won't get in trouble for genuine accidents, such as forgetting to log on, but if someone regularly refuses to follow our rules on this without providing a very good reason for doing so, we'll eventually conclude that they're someone who's here for the wrong reasons. ‑ Iridescent 11:29, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

OK I know the fundamental model of working and passing the context is through WP:Consensus but if I follow it and participate in the discussions with only one account and no IP address at all, can I still use my account and IP for similar legit purposes and not to converse in my existing articles rather the different ones? I'm quite confused about this, I'm only going to follow a strict proposal so I need some dire help. Can I really use if I do not engage in inappropriate actions or rulings like exchanging votes and deceiving others by forged votes, commissions of legit and totally legit contributions. Please help in this! 182.58.170.239 (talk) 11:34, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello, is anyone here 182.58.170.239 (talk) 11:38, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

HELLO @Iridescent: @David notMD: @RhinosF1: @!: ANYONE HERE HELP ME! 182.58.170.239 (talk) 12:31, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

You've had the answer explained to you, repeatedly. No, you can't use multiple accounts unless you declare the link between the accounts; yes, you can edit logged out if you have an account and you won't get in trouble if you sometimes forget or be too lazy to sign in some of the time, or may be unable to for technical reasons, and therefore make IP edits; no, you shouldn't do this routinely without good reason as unless you actually have a reason for using multiple identities it makes it harder for other editors to view your editing history, and consequently constitutes disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. ‑ Iridescent 11:51, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

OK but I don't want to prove a point instead I'm saying can I actually edit with one account and consequently edit with my IP address without being disruptive as I'm always here to collaborate and seeing my edits isn't hard at all. Please say if I'm given the permit to work under two accounts or not, thanks. 182.58.170.239 (talk) 12:30, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Please help me over this! 182.58.170.239 (talk) 12:31, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. Is that clear enough? David notMD (talk) 12:48, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

NO ―Abelmoschus Esculentus <sup>talk / contribs</sup> 12:54, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

seriously ........... 182.58.245.48 (talk) 17:20, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I asked for help not repetitive no's seriously I'm having a seizure and was hesitant to post a reply .... 182.58.245.48 (talk) 17:28, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

First- as per decorum- please allow me to welcome you to the WP:Teahouse. I can appreciate your concern, it is quite understandable. I am not an expert on the security measures of Wikipedia, so I cannot address your question directly, nor do I wish to press you on why editing "anonymously" under an IP is a necessity for you. I can offer you a personal example where I myself in the past hesitated to enter a password on a strangers computer on various occasions while travelling... There are a variety of reasons, of course. I could also give examples where IP editors have made contributions to the project that I took the time to thank them for, and I invariably encourage them to establish a user account, and use it exclusively, when they have the abilty to log into WP in "safe and comfortable" circumstances. I encourage you to do the same here, in this space. Good luck, and happy editing! Hamster Sandwich (talk) 17:40, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

• When I was teaching in China, there were a few times I edited while logged out because the school's "security" software is regarded by all other countries as invasive malware (like hell were they getting my password). In my edit summaries, I identified myself by my account name, edited as though I was logged in, and avoided any situation where having a second account could be (dishonestly) advantageous. For example, I counted any reverts I made through that IP as reverts made under my own account for purposes of 3RR (not that it mattered because I didn't go near edit wars). Some other users create a second account for situations like these.

If, when editing from an IP, you identify yourself by your account's name and if you go on to make a log of the IPs you use on your user page, that will discourage (otherwise perfectly reasonable) concerns about sockpuppetry.

If you never connect your account with the IPs but your edits from when you're logged out do not overlap at all with those from your account, that will also further discourage (otherwise perfectly reasonable) concerns about sockpuppetry.

If you edit from an IP and from an account in the same article without connecting the two, there will be concerns that you're trying to appear to be two people, which gives you two voices, which is dishonest to the point of bad faith if issues of consensus comes up.

If you edit in the same area with an IP and an account but otherwise treat the two as one entity (e.g. you as a person never carry out more than 3 reverts in a 24 hour period, for example only doing one revert with the IP and two with the account) -- it's just going to be obvious that you're editing while logged out. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:51, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

 Comment: For me I'm losing the will to help you, you've not as far as I can see made a single edit outside of Teahouse, you're ignoring what we've said and are asking the same question multiple times, you've made a blatant attack against us in a edit description [1]. I've linked clearly to the policies and multiple users have explained them. Please don't make attacks against us but if you were having siezures then I hope you get better soon. Other than that, rant over, thanks RhinosF1 (talk) 18:25, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

(Clarifying, RhinosF1 is talking about the IP, not me). Ian.thomson (talk) 18:39, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, to confirm, I am referring to the IP. You seem to be a great help at Teahouse Ian RhinosF1 (talk) 18:44, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I am sorry to read that you had a seizure. I hope you have recovered. My brother died from an epileptic seizure at age 34, so you have my sympathy. The answer is still "No" for multiple accounts. You appear to be editing articles as IP 182.58.206.149, starting earlier this month, and state on that Talk an intention to not register an account. That is your prerogative. You also declare that you will not sock puppet. Nice to read. Other editors choose to remain IPs and their edits are treated no differently from account editors. David notMD (talk) 19:52, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Nice to see what he's posted there, as long as he follows the rules (and based on that he doesn't want an account so that shouldn't be an issue) then there should be no issues. Sorry to hear about your brother @David notMD: RhinosF1 (talk) 20:01, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

OK I'm not making a attack or such I was terrified for that answer of so many no's so I just opined whether y'all are trolling or not... also I'm thorough with the rules already I think I can stick to one IP while editing different articles which are above my interests from my now new account (not to be disclosed obviously) and I too know that Checkuser's are'nt established for fishing purposes, so only strong evidences can pull this matter. Thanks for getting those rules and I'm sorry for your brother's loss @David notMD: I was near than terrified to see multilevel multiple no's pop-up on my screen so I was scared about that. I got some points (additional ones) and got to know about multiple accounts rule may be I'm underestimated over that so-called-attack but that was just a wondering opinion as to how you take it seriously no issues though. I'm good on my way and I'm going to create only one account. Because I know when time comes, it comes due.. no one can escape.. except honestly my accounts are just connected to one account and one IP. I just hope that I'm not caught in a sockpuppetry act and I'm not going to anyways. Because I'm now thoroughly known to the rules. Also the CheckUser might need evidence for suspected sockpuppetry he can't directly run a CheckUser on me unless it it looks like a duck quacks like a duck walks like a duck swims like a duck then it is a duck and for my case it is implausible as I work on two different streams (or article in different categories) to avoid confusion and questioning between two entities (or people) on same topics. I think it is best to restrict discussions in my IP account and move on with my newer account. Although it needs proofs to prove sockpuppetry I guarantee the proofs will be inconclusive and the case will be closed. My account will be present and I'll work through it to help other editors with discussions and of course a final agreement with which we all can agree upon. Again guys thanks a lot for this precious help I'll be more than happier to work through this community. And hope to avoid some unavoidable games here :) 182.58.245.48 (talk) 03:37, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Again, I hope you stick to your promise of not sockpuppeting but I recommend for the avoidance of doubt that you CLEARLY and UNAMBIGUOUSLY state on the user pages of both accounts that you have a legitimate alternative account (like I've done for my bot account). Saying, you were terrified of our response is ridiculous we were just getting frustrated, but you're edit description seems to me like an attack against us, accusing someone of being a troll is NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES just 'questioning'. Anyway, enjoy your editing. RhinosF1 (talk) 04:05, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

OK it isn't a attack I was having a seizure while watching so many no's come across my screen that seems to be ridiculous when asking for help... it's just your opinionated description.. not even correct I'm just saying "trolling" can be described under many circumstances like saying so many no's and following with a big no is to me a trolling behaviour if you're all frustrated... that's your job to keep yourselves calm and wait for the perfect moment to counter or such (as you did right now to defend yourself) I don't think it's adequate enough to reflect the frustration also I don't think you've taken it all correctly and only got dependent upon one word .. 'troll'.. you dropped other words... that is just biased in my humble opinion.. if you decide to help like that by repeating certain characters then best of luck... just found one flaw in Wikipedia... attacks may be defined in many ways and.my wordings are neutral to display the equivalent of frustration as I needed help... thanks for the help though and bye.. also don't comment more.. my questioning and comments were right and your approach as "blatant attack" was wrong ... seriously if you take this as an attack when someone has a n opportunity to give such a reply by giving so many no's is just not good.. thanks again I learned many things from here I also learned some people do come to defend themselves if their flaw is detected or determined instead just accreting it.. my god just too much... anyways thanks again guys I learned all the fundamentals and core principles of maintaining this vast encyclopedia will stay more like AFD CSD etc.. :) 182.58.245.48 (talk) 04:38, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Dear IP editor... I feel your frustration... I do. From firsthand experience. This Teahouse forum is supposed to be (and anyone please feel free to correct me if I am wrong) a polite, and welcoming place for editors to ask questions. Just as you have done. I do not understand either the frustration that certain editors have displayed here. As you say, there are fundamentals and core principles of the project, and so to are there very basic rules of engagement for the editors who choose to help here. They were, to my eye, largely ignored by the several of the "helpers" to engage you. They did try to help, in their way, but I felt- even though I am not equipped with ready answers to your questions- that I should attempt to engage you with a spirit of WP:AGF.

I am going to let you in on a little Wikipedia secret... Almost nothing that editors manage to do to it, cannot easily be undone. Some dink can come along and put some heinous words in an article, and you can be sure that within minutes it will be gone, editor blocked, maybe page protected and the whole thing put up for discussion at any number of notice boards.

I made a point of welcoming you, because the helpers to this page have essentially taken a vow of "politeness" and the expectation is that we should exercise extreme patience. And if we do not, part of our pledge is that we will accept the criticism where we have erred in that respect. For the interested editors who have commented here, in abrupt, rude and in a way which any other editor could see were nothing short of inflammatory. I am as impressed as this IP editor with the quality of your responses. Please rethink your commitments to this page if you cannot exercise an extreme measure of civility and polite discussion. Regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 04:57, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for replying IP, firstly, I am guessing the Barnstar is from you so thanks a lot, next, I can see that you didn't mean to come across as 'attacking' anyone in your edit summary. I know I got a bit frustrated and it may be better if we BOTH wait at bit and think before we speak as I've said before I hope you get better soon and the seizures stop. Enjoy editing, RhinosF1 (talk) 09:21, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Why is my article delayed in publication?

Hi. I wrote the following article for Wikipedia some months ago, but it has not appeared:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ronald_J._Allen

Would you please check on its status? As far as I can tell it conforms to Wikipedia's requirements for content, form, etc.

Thank you. Ronald Allen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronald J. Allen (talk • contribs) 12:13, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Ronald J. Allen - and welcome to the Teahouse. First, you've never submitted it as an article. Second, it's not in Draft form (which is where it would need to be to be submitted). What you have done is written an article on your Userpage. Please take a look at WP:YFA, which will help you understand how to submit an article. It will also help you understand some of the problems with the way you have it currently formatted. WP:CIT and WP:CITE are also good to understand how to use and format citations and footnotes. Hope this helps. And don't be afraid to ask questions if you need further help. Onel5969 <sup>TT me</sup> 12:25, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

OK, it's now in your Sandbox User:Ronald J. Allen/sandbox. What you have written is completely unsuitable for Wikipedia. For an article about a person, what is needed is content based on citations written about that person, by other people. A selected bibliography of work published by the person can be listed as part of the article, but none of that is usable to reference what the person thinks or says or does. Right now, everything following "A church theology" rests on what Williamson himself has written. To help a little bit, I created real sections and added one reference. Good luck in your endeavor. David notMD (talk) 12:57, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

How do I put html onto a page?

How can I include a html code into a page?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dillbot17 (talk • contribs) 16:22, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Dillbot17, welcome to the Teahouse. Because we have our own 'wikimarkup' here, only a few html elements are enabled. Please see WP:HTML for more information on those you can use.

Could you also sign all future talk page posts by typing four keyboard tilde characters at the end, please. This adds your username and a timestamp. Speaking of usernames: unfortunately - and you really weren't to know this - your username violates our username policy because it contains the word 'bot', which is a restricted word, suggestive of automated accounts. Could I invite you to simply abandon this account, never use it again, and create a new one with a different name, please? The shortcut to read about this is WP:USERNAME, and the section within it on this matter is at WP:MISLEADNAME. I'm really sorry about this, but its better to deal with it straight away before you embark on your Wikipedia journey. Many thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:54, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Trying to add a citation

Hi, what am I getting wrong that when I attempt to add a citation, i get "error not saved" after entering the CAPTCHA? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phbm9684 (talk • contribs) 17:03, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Phbm9684, and welcome to the Teahouse. It's hard to tell what the problem is, without more information. One possibility is that you are trying to add a link to a site that is blacklisted. What is the citation you are trying to add? --ColinFine (talk) 17:51, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

How to upload pictures or attach photos

Please how can I add pictures to my edits on Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingsley kofi Sam (talk • contribs) 17:12, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello, @Kingsley kofi Sam:: You may want to look at Help:Introduction to images with Wiki Markup/1, as that is an extensive tutorial on image usage. Remember: Wikipedia prefers images that you made or that are free, and that non-free images should preferably be used only once. Feel free to reply with additional questions, and be sure to reply with a signature (~~~~ at the end at your reply). –eggofreason<sup>talk</sup> 19:37, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Reinstate an old article that goes to a redirect

Hi,

An article, Elissa F. Cadish was created in 2012 and a year later was condensed down to a redirect because of a failed judicial nomination. While the subject was a failed federal judicial nominee, she has since been elected to a state supreme court, satisfying WP:BIO. How do I remove the redirect to reinstate the former article for this person? Thanks! Snickers2686 (talk) 17:36, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Snickers2686. One possibility is that you edit the redirect directly, to turn it into an article: after following the redirect, you pick the link at the top that says "Redirected from ...". But unless you are very confident of creating an acceptable article on the first attempt, I suggest it is better to start it as a new article, and worry about putting it over the redirect at a later stage. If you use Articles for creation, then when you submit the draft for review, the reviewing editor will sort out where it should go. Alternatively, when the time comes, you can ask an admin to move your draft over the redirect. --ColinFine (talk) 17:47, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm looking for help to write an article about me as an MC, "Audio-Alpha"

Is there anyone who could help me put together something that won't get rejected when it comes to an article about me as an MC? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Audio-Alpha (talk • contribs) 17:54, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

@Audio-Alpha: Writing about yourself is a really bad idea -- see WP:COI and WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY.

As for writing an article that won't be rejected, I've written a guide for that. Eight simple steps that covers all the issues that new users usually face when writing articles. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:07, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

how long does it take for a draft to be published

how long does it take for a draft to be published — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.87.192.253 (talk) 18:02, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

However long it takes the author to cite at least three professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources that provide in-depth coverage specifically and primarily about the subject but are not affiliated with nor dependent upon it.

You can find detailed instructions on how to write a draft that will be approved almost as soon as anyone sees it here. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:05, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Lisa Bouchelle; musician biography

I have repeatedly attempted to update the Lisa Bouchelle bio, however while appearing on the Preview....the change doesn't show up. It concerns her latest video on You Tube for the song, 'If You Could Read My Mind,' which has over 113,000 views officially documented. What needs to be done? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ediththeelephant (talk • contribs) 21:22, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

@Ediththeelephant: I'm not seeing anything blocked in the edit filter nor any edits since the 8th. You're hitting "Publish changes" after hitting show preview, right? Ian.thomson (talk) 21:32, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Perceived Flyspecking Editors ... Is This Normal?

There seem to be two types of people on this side of Wikipedia. There are those neophytes (like me) who focus on the subject-matter (the meat) of any given article. They are generally very intelligent people with significant (sometimes highly technical) information to share ... and then there are those who focus on the 'process' of article-writing. They often act like cops, blowing their whistle and leaving public announcements with big red iconology and terse formats on talk pages. There is no discussion, No detail. No specificity. They zip in out of nowhere, act unilaterally, seemingly harass, and generally relish the unique power and responsibilities they have been given. And then they disappear.

They seem to be on a power-trip at times.

I am a serious editor who wishes to write substantive informational articles, but the way it is done is like a small taser every so often that feels like Skinner Box training ... always leaving a 'scarlet letter' in my in-box. Is this normal? I would think it could be done better than this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Architecttype (talk • contribs)

Hello, Architecttype and welcome to the Teahouse. Thank you for your observation - not normally the type of question we receive here, but I understand to some degree where you're coming from. I'll try to address it from my perspective, if I may (i.e. an expert in a limited range of topics with an interest across many areas, and with a desire to see this encyclopaedia develop, and to help others, yet not be damaged by trouble-makers). Be aware that I started to draft this reply to you before I realised you had rather unhelpfully deleted two edits from your talk page which would have allowed me to understand the context of your question far better. It is unreasonable to expect us to be mind-readers, though I do address the two concerns about your editing later on in my reply.

Wikipedia is currently the 5th most visited website in the world, with over 5.5 million encyclopaedic articles on English Wikipedia alone, all free to be edited by anyone at any time. We welcome knowledgeable experts, like you, who want to contribute in a really positive way. But on the opposite side of the spectrum we have a minority who love to disrupt, damage or deface articles. In between, we have keen editors who do not understand our rules and policies on such matters as copyright violation, promotion, ensuring a neutral point of view, or only using Reliable Sources. Keeping up with ensuring that experts, like you, only add content that is supported by Reliable references and in conformity with our Manual of Style and other policies, whilst also ensuring that vandals and puerile school kids don't damage our content - whilst also trying to create content of our own - can be a daunting task for any committed editor here. A wide range of relatively experienced editors try to help out by managing how content is added, and guiding today's newcomers to ensure that they become the content-creators of tomorrow. To that end, some of us volunteer to help newcomers in this Teahouse; others help elsewhere.

The problem we have is that there are relatively few editors committed to keep the place spick and span, and we encounter so many contributions that are not of the highest quality that we are supplied with a suite of easy-to-use template messages to help us welcome, guide, berate, warn or even report those editors who do not contribute as we require them to. Inevitably, these messages may appear to recipients as terse comments, dropped seemingly randomly on your (or others') talk pages. I don't think any of us are bully-boy cops - we try to support, guide, encourage, welcome, warn or, if necessary, report new editors for repeated bad actions. And we're always here to be questioned, challenged, or even reported on our actions, or to respond to requests for clarification. But, if you want a response, you will have to ensure you address your question properly to the editors who leaves a note on your talk page. The best way is to ask for clarification on their talk page.

I do accept that a very small number of editors here can sometimes be rather too terse in the way they interact with new editors, but I hope we get the balance right here at the Teahouse? By way of just one example of how we try to help new editors, late last night I spent a considerable amount of my time delving into the contributions of just one new editor, leaving critical (yet supportive) comments on their talk page about my concerns about how they were editing highly technical medical topics in a way that wasn't ideal. I felt obligated to support another editor's proposal that one of their contributions was so poor that it should be deleted but, before supporting that deletion, I tried to tidy up their referencing and read through their sources, only to discover that the content they had added was in not referred to in their citations. Yet they clearly had very technical expertise in the subject. I spent half an hour drafting a (hopefully) gentle message expressing my concerns at their gung-ho approach to editing. I wanted to encourage them to do better, not stop them. Whilst doing all this, another experienced editor with administrator rights gave them an indefinite block for bad-faith editing and a violation of our username policy. Whilst it didn't surprise me they had got themselves blocked, I really felt sorry for the newcomer and contacted the administrator to ask them to explain why this was done, and observing that I felt a permanent block seemed rather harsh under the circumstances. I finally got to bed at 2am, having spent three hours trying to balance issues around incompetent editing by a technically skilled newcomer, poor referencing and addition of unverifiable statements, plus discussions by other editors on the merits of merging one article they had created into another.

We honestly try to help new editors here on Wikipedia, but not all of us can dedicate three hours every night to just one person when there are 5 million articles potentially being edited, and 30,000 active editors. So short, terse instructions or warning messages may be all we can sometimes leave to ensure that this fine encyclopaedia continues to flourish and grow, and that the broad spectrum of editors contribute as effectively as possible. (I could have provide diffs to demonstrate what I've said above, but that would have been invidious.) It is, however, typical of how I, together with innumerable other experienced editors here, work collaboratively to help and encourage good editing. I am genuinely sorry if your perception of how we operate has led you to conclude we like leaving short, sharp, nasty messages for people as a 'power trip'. That couldn't be further from the truth and I think we all take great pride in the work we try to do here.

If your concerns revolved around this notice on your Talk Page, it does seem fair to me. It appears you pasted copyrighted content into an article, and that is not allowed here, and all your edits were deleted by an experienced adminstrator. Users who are warned and then continue to repeat such actions soon find themselves blocked from further editing because this is, effectively, content theft. However, this unsigned warning post by Breaking sticks about promotional editing was not clear to me, either. The simple response would have been for you to have post a question on their talk page - do not expect them to monitor every page they post on if you do not yet understand how to WP:PING another editor. I'm sorry this reply became so long-winded, but I do hope you find my reply helps to address any misconceptions you may have had about how we try to support and help new users. As always, we're here at the Teahouse to help you and other new editors with any problems you encounter. (We are on your side, honest!) Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 03:26, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I'm one of the uneducated, red icon cops on a power trip, just issuing a friendly reminder to all the technically fired-up super-intelligent Neophites out there to take a second to sign your posts with four keyboard tildes (~) at the end of each post you add to a talk page. Many thanks Edaham (talk) 05:47, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Architecttype: Given that you just came on board this month, your accomplishments have been remarkable - over a thousand edits, two articles approved, two more in draft, major additions to two more. The one major hiccup I saw was the removal of copyrighted content from one article. Wikipedia takes copyright violations EXTREMELY seriously, and I did see that you returned to that article without subsequent copyright problems. A minor note - you are labeling almost all of your edits as minor edits. Please review that definition and tag your edits appropriately going forward. Your knowledge and efforts on Sarasota architecture are lauded. David notMD (talk) 09:25, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful input. I appreciate knowing how to 'sign' my talk entries now. Yes, I removed the 'red alerts' from my personal talk page, mainly because I had addressed the issues mentioned in them (and besides, who wants to have a permanent 'F' on their report card?). As you could see, I rewrote the entirety of the article without pasting, (as with all of the articles I have written so far ... I even did my own photography) but felt that, in the case of the organization I was describing, they would have preferred their own self-definition than to have me mangle it through contorted paraphrasing in order to avoid the wiki-cops. Perhaps I should have added quotations? In the case of 'Breaking Sticks', it seemed like a bot-type of response. I attempted to contact that person to inquire, but didn't quite know the best way to accomplish it. In any case, he/she did not respond. I can appreciate the work of 'wiki-enforcers', particularly when one contemplates the global access of wikipedia, but I wish there was a better way to separate the wheat from the chaff. I think it's pretty clear that I have no agenda other than to improve a handful of architecture-related pages. As far as 'minor' versus major edits, when creating a new page, I do it offsite using html and import the whole thing in (except for some footnoting, where I feel more confident using the template tool). When editing existing articles, I do much of it online. Yeah, I've done lots of tiny changes and moved things here and there, but I'm a perfectionist and want the page to be great, both textually and visually. I tend to fine-tune things a bit. The only advice I would give you is that wiki-cops seem to rely on process rules far too much ... honestly, does it matter if an edit is checked as 'minor' or not, as long as the article is vastly improved? Wiki-enforcers need to have that latitude with contributors. Did they produce an excellent result? Yes? Then fine, let's not flag them for checking 'minor edit'. I know dozens of really competent people who could contribute wonderfully to Wikipedia, but they simply wouldn't tolerate the constant rap on the knuckles that you seem to dispense (sometimes with great relish. For example, the enforcer who wrote the word 'no' 97 times in a row in a discussion here in teahouse). The only people left to edit Wiki are those willing to navigate the labyrinth of process rules to do it, and I would submit to you that they are probably not likely to be the subject-matter experts you need to write the articles in the first place. Wiki-enforcers need to ask themselves ... in the end, what is most important, the process or the end result? Architecttype (talk) 12:29, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

P.S. I was just notified that an article I wrote was autobiographical. It is not. I am not that person, nor have I ever met that person. As a matter of fact, I just wrote another article on an architect who died a month ago. I am not that person, either, although I met him in a Publix bathroom once fifteen years ago. For the article in question, Guy Peterson, I used the already-existing article on living architect Max Strang who has a similar page, as a rough template. Strang's is without all the offensive wiki-enforcer blather at the top. His article seems to be acceptable, even though it is very similar to the one I authored. I can tell you, as a subject-matter expert, that both architects are equally worthy of articles, perhaps Peterson more-so, in terms of accomplishment and awards (Peterson fits somewhere between Strang and I.M. Pei and his article reflects this, I think). Virtually every sentence is supported by footnoting. It is just this type of uneven article treatment by wiki-enforcers that drives contributors nuts. Was it somehow in response to our conversation here in teahouse? Wiki-enforcers can be capricious like that. Please advise. Architecttype (talk) 12:49, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Architecttype. In a huge collaborative editing project such as Wikipedia mistakes are bound to be made. When they happen, it's best to try and assume good-faith and try to resolve any issues through civil discussion without labeling other editors one way or another. We as editors don't WP:OWN the articles we create and edit, and for sure it can be quite frustrating at times when we wake up and find our "work" from the night before has be changed by someone else. However, that's the nature of an encyclopedia that anyone anywhere in the world with an Internet connection can edit at anytime. So, while aiming for perfection is a noble goal, Wikipedia is by its very nature WP:IMPERFECT.

I think most experienced editors try to aim to be WP:HERE as much as possible; so, if they add a maintenance template, etc. to an article (such templates are generally helpful and are not offensive at all in my opinion) or a user warning template to a user talk page, then they are usually doing so in good faith. While your knowledge about things architecture is an asset, another important part of editing is simply learning how to work collaboratively with others. Being an subject-expert is not going to gain you any special privileges as explained in WP:EXPERT and article content is still going to need to be determined through WP:CONSENSUS.

As for the minor edits, it might not be such a big deal as you say, but at the same time there's really no need mark an edit as such unless the edit is really minor. Some editors mistakenly check "This is a minor edit" when probably they shouldn't, but it's not the end of the world. Such a thing usually only tends to be an issue when a person is marking all of their edits as minor, is advised not to do so by one or more other editors, and then continues on doing so despite the warnings. Like anything on Wikipedia, making a "mistake" once or maybe even twice, is generally not a big deal; however, repeating the same "mistake" over and over again after being advised not to is usually when things start to be seen a disruptive. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:03, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. It would seem to make sense that subject-matter experts should exert greater influence over their subject-matter than random Wiki-contributors. I know nothing about the Kardashians, and you will never see me edit their articles. I believe I have stripped the article clean of anything insightful, and think it has reached the appropriate state of superficiality. I assume that's what it needed. With such changes made, I've pulled the banners ... and didn't check 'minor edit'. Wikipedia can, and should, be so much better than this. Sad. Architecttype (talk) 14:19, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Bellezzasolo. When I was a younger editor, I felt exactly the way you do, with my first edit. This clearly violated policies against original research, although it could have been discussed at the mathematics refdesk. I felt especially perturbed because mathematics is a field with outright facts, unlike say, English. The culture on Wikipedia can take a bit of getting used to, but policies have developed for a reason, and, as you keep editing, you will generally come to appreciate them! They do help maintain the quality of articles, although they can be intimidating at first. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 15:48, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Suggest you read WP:OWN and Wikipedia:No original research. Wikipedia is a collective effort. Separate from content, there is an intention to adhere to Wikipedia style. Once you have created an article it is open for others to add, subtract, etc. If you disagree with changes, the place to address that is the Talk page of the article. Wikipedia is not a place for editors' insights. Many an editor - myself included - has been reverted for adding original research, insight, synthesis, etc. Is what it is - an encyclopedia - not a place for experts to share their wisdom. David notMD (talk) 15:53, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

How to attached a photo

Hello friends, Would someone please let me know briefly how to attached a photo on page? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mona3003 (talk • contribs) 03:24, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Mona3003, welcome to the Teahouse. To help us answer your question, could you tell us which image you want to add, and to which page? If it relates to Draft:Elia Youlesivanson, you are better advised to focus on adding Reliable references and establishing Notability first, and worrying about adding images later. Please remember to sign all future posts with four keyboard tildes (like this ~~~~). Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 03:31, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Related to a "new?" user writing "I began editing in 2004 and became an administrator in 2006."

Hi. I am not sure whether what the User:Amanverma121 is writing is accurate or not on his userpage related to being an admin and want to ask if writing something like that is alright? On xtools.wmflabs.org there is a cross besides whether the user is an admin or not. Also I checked the admin list (here full list of accounts with administrator privileges} to see if the user is in the list of admins or a former admin Wikipedia:Former administrators/full. Can't find the users name there. So now I want to ask if a user can write that they are an admin without actually being one and am doubtful how to go about such things. Have I overlooked another way to check if a user is an admin or not? (since it will be really silly if the user is really an admin somehow)
(Note: I only came in contact with this user because the user made edits to a page I also edited sometime back Kartarpur Corridor, and when checking the page to see updates, saw the users update) Regards DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 07:40, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh wait!! Ummm, does the user mean an "administrator" in real!??? Opps? DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 07:50, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, DiplomatTesterMan. I have removed the incorrect claim from Amanverma121's user page. This editor has very few edits over many years and cannot possibly be an administrator. This type of deception is disruptive. Cullen<sup>328</sup> Let's discuss it 08:06, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Cullen328, thanks for the follow up. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 08:08, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Page Creation

How do I create a page for my organization and also for the key personnel of the organization on Wikipedia? Here is the organization's name: Initiative for African Citizens. Secondly, can I make reference(s) from the organization's policy document and other documents of the organization?Stepheniyke (talk) 08:07, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Stepheniyke. Any article must summarize primarily what reliable independent sources say about the organization. Documents published by the group itself can be used only for basic uncontroversial facts but these sources do not count toward establishing notability, which is your first and most important task. Please read and study Your first article and if you have any personal connection with the group, study and comply with our conflict of interest guideline. Cullen<sup>328</sup> Let's discuss it 08:17, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Stepheniyke I don't get any Google hits for "Initiative for African Citizens": If independent reliable sources have not given substantial coverage to a subject, an article is impossible. And even if an organization is notable enough for an article, often the key personnel are not separately notable. Also since as Cullen says Wikipedia is primarily interested in what third parties say about a subject, references to its policy document would probably not be useful in an article, but if independent reliable sources have discussed its policies, you could reference that discussion. —teb728 t c 10:54, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Template question

Hello, are Templates case-sensitive? Julian Khachan (talk) 09:04, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

@Julian Khachan: As far as I'm aware all pages are case-sensitive excluding the first letter, I'll double check though now. RhinosF1 (talk) 09:38, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

WP:NCCAPS has more info RhinosF1 (talk) 09:42, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello

Hello Everybody,

I have already done more than 1500 edits on Wikipedia English. Please tell me what facilities in Wikipedia is available to me and how I can improve my work. I appreciate that.Alex-h (talk) 09:13, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

I Have Reviewed your user groups. You can:

• Edit Pages protected as autoconfirmed (See Wikipedia:Protection policy for more details on protection)
• Edit pages that are Semiprotected
• Upload images
• Create Articles In Mainspace
• Move all pages except Files
• view the detail information in AbuseLog
• using the API
• View and edit your preferences and Watchlist
• Have one's own revisions automatically marked as "accepted"
• Move Pages that are Pending Changes Protected
• Overwrite Existing Files via the "Upload new Version" link
• Skip the CAPTCHA's
• Reset failed or transcoded videos so they are inserted into the job queue again

For The Full List for All user groups, See Special:UserGroupRights. Victor Schmidt (talk) 09:52, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Here is added Maghfoor Ahmad Ajazi sister's husband name with brief details.

Dear Tea House Have a nice day

Once again Masroor Chaudhary is with you. As per your instruction, i am providing you reliable sources regarding edit to Maghfoor Ahmad Ajazi Page. I think that it will be enough for reference.

1. Bihar Vibhuti, Vol.3, Bihar Abhilekhagar-2014 2. Tarikh Ain e Tirhut by Munshi Bihari lal Fitrat-1883 3. Afkar e Milli New Delhi Spl. Bihar issue Page.254, July 2000 4. The Muslim Heroes of Bihar By Fakhruddin Ahmad, Page 34-36 - 2013

I think that with reference to the above sources, i can edit to Maghfur Ahmad Ajazi Page.

Best Regards,

Masroor Chaudhary — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masroor Chaudhary (talk • contribs) 09:57, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Masroor Chaudhary, it does look as if one of those might do it. You only need one - I would choose one of the more recent ones. It would be really helpful to include the Publisher, and also the ISBN if the book has one. See Template:Cite book for the information you should provide. (You don't have to provide all those hundreds of parameters, of course, but author, title, publisher, year, language, and page is a pretty good set to aim for. You can insert the information and citation directly into the article (see WP:REFB), or ask at the article's talk page. --ColinFine (talk) 10:49, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Text box with my username appearing in an article

Howdy. I'm hoping someone can help explain the significance of a box that appeared on an article I recently edited. I made a minor edit to the article a few hours ago, and when I returned, there was an unfamiliar message at the top of the page. I do recall adding it to my watch list, but I'm worried I might have hit another button, causing the text to appear. Can you please explain it's meaning, if it is publicly posted, and if it needs to be removed?

This box appeared above the article's first paragraph:

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MinorEnglishMajor (talk | contribs) at 22:49, 28 December 2018 (Removed terminal punctuation from incomplete sentence). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version. (diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Thanks in advance, MinorEnglishMajor (talk) 12:34, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

@MinorEnglishMajor: no, you did nothing wrong - it is not text that appears on the article itself, only if you click a permanent link to that particular version. Right now it's the current version, but if and when somebody makes another edit to the page, the colour of the box at the top will change to pink and the text "current revision" will change to "old revision", as a warning to anyone who starts editing that old revision. (Here is what the permanent link to the revision previous to yours looks like.) Hope that makes sense! More info on permanent links here. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 12:43, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

How to add camouflage colors of a sports team

Hi,

First of all, I would like to thank everybody who helped in my previous question. I missed to acknowledge the first time I asked.

I'm trying to add the team colors of a Philippine basketball team AFP Cavaliers. Their jersey colors are camouflage and white, and I'm using Template:Color_box, but I don't know how to put the camouflage color because there is no other professional or amateur team I know that has a regular camouflage jersey. The sample can be found here: https://www.untvweb.com/news/game-2-ng-best-of-3-championship-match-ng-afp-cavaliers-at-pnp-responders-sa-untv-cup-season-4-ngayong-gabi-na/.

PS: They use camouflage jerseys because they are the team in the league that represents the military and has actual military personnel as players.

Thank you in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elivic (talk • contribs) 13:05, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

May I insert a picture taken from a referenced publication?

Please help: Is copyright applicable to a picture from a referenced publication? if not how should it be inserted? Mtl-371 (talk) 13:21, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

If the picture is copyright, then you should not insert it at all unless you can show WP:Fair use. Dbfirs 15:44, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Request

Please merge the histories of "File:The Accidental Prime Minister (Official poster).jpg" and "File:The Accidental Prime Minister film.jpg" and also rename the page as "File:The Accidental Prime Minister (film poster).jpg" without creating a redirect. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 15:22, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

edit 'the list of highest grossing indian movies'

a movie hebbuli has grossed 56 crore and needs to be in the 3rd position in kannada section source=ttps://bestoftheyear.in/movie/hebbuli/

thank you