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

New entries

Relying on publications may not be the ultimate wisdom. In a particular (german) case I had endless discussions due to the fact that Wikipedia would rely only on published sources, and to those rather blindly, but not on "common sense". I realize that taking what has been written may be easier than thinking, arguing, investigating, even judging oneself. But in this age of fakes and of articles that nearly always have a bias and like to emotionalize the readers, cool personal judgement of the reviewers might be needed.
 In the present case I wondered why I didn’t know what this thing was that I saw advertized on TV (on a harmless Bollywood channel, Zee one), and that "guaranteed orgasms". So I googled this womanizer: Lots of promotions, ads etc.. But Wikipedia had nothing on this subject, neither the German nor the US version. So I thought, maybe it’s too touchy a subject. Turns out "vibrator" is explained at length and without restraint. Now if you look at newspapers etc. these sex toys aren’t featured ("covered") as often as, say, cooking recipes.
 I would have liked to ask: Is womanizer on Wikipedia’s index, taboo? But then I tried to write an entry, I took time, produced a very factual short explanation, and still: "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject." What do you expect in a case like this? Or is it really better, not to mention the device? – In short: Please rely more on your own judgement, if something is important to know. This is a lexicon for the public, for those who want to know (quickly) what’s what, not a scientific, proof-fast thesis. And let us have a quick way to check if there is a chance for a specific entry. – Fritz Jörn (talk) 18:26, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Fritz Jörn. Almost all Wikipedia policy is determined by consensus, and very occasionally parts of it change, as people make proposals and persuade enough other editors that the consensus changes. You are welcome to try to change this policy: the place to propose it is at WP:VPP. --ColinFine (talk) 19:56, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Colin, for your suggestion. The rejects I got naturally came from one person, with a lengthy standard statement. Naturally disappointed I will try no further: I know what a Womanizer is, having researched elesewehere; if the useres of Wikipedia want to know too, is now less important to me, I’m afraid. And to change a well accepted and proven Wikipedia policy I would not want. I argue for sensitivity and common sense with new subjects that may not have "significant coverage". –~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fritz Jörn (talk • contribs) 03:49, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Fritz Jörn. I have read your draft and did a quick research. I think it would have helped if you first developed the article further, outlining its distinction to a vibrator. This could entail reference to its inventor or origin/development and how the device works (e.g. how it stimulates through suction and pressure waves or how it mimics oral sex). A Huffington story also cited a study that showed the device can address orgasm disorder for menopausal women. Darwin Naz (talk) 00:09, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Fritz Jörn, and welcome to the Teahouse! Just a quick note: The suggested HuffPost piece (here) was written by a non-expert contributor (RSP entry), and should not be used in the article because it is questionable. The line "I learned of the study when I was contacted by a Public Relations firm" also undermines the credibility of the piece. While the contributor piece would not count toward notability, Lifehacker's review is a little bit better and is usable in the article.

Please refer to the Referencing for beginners guide for an overview of how citations should be formatted. In most articles, the only link that should be in the "External links" section is the subject's official website. Reviews should be in placed in citations, instead.

Also, in Draft:Womanizer, the sentence "The womanizer is expected to replace the vibrator as sex toy for women." is uncited and promotional, so please remove it. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! ​​ — Newslinger talk 08:29, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

​Regarding your comments on the notability guideline, one of the reasons we require at least 2 independent reliable sources with significant coverage before a draft can be published is to prevent companies from using Wikipedia as a promotional outlet for run-of-the-mill products. If a product is unable to meet this requirement, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia, but please feel free to write about it somewhere else. — Newslinger talk 08:41, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Colin & Fritz Jörn, interesting discussion. In an era where fake news is quite a prominent part of our daily lives, Wiki's policy of sourcing seems a tad sweeping. Why should anything that appears in an online or print media be taken as gospel, especially in controversial news that has little educative value, which I presume is the primary motive of Wikipedians? Wiki is across the board a space of knowledge and inspiration and anything not pertaining to that must be flagged and removed by Admins, I feel. ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nayaki75 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Let me reassure you that Wikipedia policy is not that "anything that appears in an online or print media be taken as gospel", Nayaki75. Sources need to be evaluated on their merits and information cross-checked across sources. See WP:RS. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:37, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you all for your friendly replys. They warm my heart. But please understand that from afar I will not try to improve the entry with more citations (I just don’t have them in Germany), and to work on an entry that might end in the wastebasket. If I have triggered an entry for someone else to write I’m already happy, and your users will find an explanation of the rather unexpected use of the word womanizer. At first I just had tried to add it in the womanizer disambiguation with a short mention, but the system wouldn’t let me without a full-fledged Wikipedia entry. (I think it might be nice and politically correct to describe the harware piece completely chaste with a twinkle.) By the way I have no contact to the inventor nor do I work for a company any more, see Joern.com. – Fritz Jörn (talk) 10:18, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello Fritz Jörn Welcome to The Teahouse (and welcome to the Wikipedia Runaround) I fully concure with your distain and flustration. Wikipedia tends to have a snobish "we know all, you know nothing" facade that gets irritating when hours of editing gets deleted with zero to little feedback, and what little feedback is given turns out to be generic "one or two keystroke" form responses that require additional hours of reading only to come to a WTF moment where you understand that no one understands your POV, but further you feel like Sisyphus because no matter how hard you try you end up no better off than before you first tried

I also have hit the conclusion that this site is next to useless.

sure there are many honest editors on this site but this site rewards activity with increased access to tools. which in turn allows those with ulterior motives to get faster promotions by "gaming" the system. I have no idea if you have encountered anyone who is trying to infiltrate Wikipedia upper eschilon but a way to leave a trail of these abusive edits (along with the real ones) without accusation one way or the other so patterns will be easier to find. They need a place inbetween "full published" Wikipedia and the incinerator called "revert"... i suppose some may think a sandbox does this but as you pointed out there is little access and no reliable way to disperse sandbox articles (you virtually need to contact every person before they find out where / what is in article) most bug report sites allow search of all articles written but if sandboxes are ignored there theoretically could be thousands of people writing about this womanizer but you have no way to connect with them since you cannot even link to a disambigous page.

you might want to persue a "sub wiki" that would retain your article with other rejects that includes infoboxes as why rejected, editor who rejected, those who concure, and those who help improve article, thus weekend editors could come to the (lets call it) Wikincubator to nurse their baby to health.

but I'm afraid i can only promise to support as i too have encountered the the quick click reverts personally and even saw one guy's article deleted because English was a second language for him (a few misspellings and many gramitical errors, the editor deleted the article instead of doing what a Wikian EDITor is supposed to do, EDIT!!!

so much for my rant, i hope you will persue further, if you do try then write on my "wall" or whatever it's called, I should notice in a month or two (i stopped visiting more often after my 3rd or 6th all-nighter was again reverted /or/ deleted) Qazwiz (talk) 10:24, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Qazwiz, know that you are not alone in this view as I have similar experience and frustrations. I hope, however, that these do not deter you from contributing and helping improve Wikipedia. Darwin Naz (talk) 23:44, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Cordless Larry but my observations in the last few weeks seem to be unfortunately deviant from what you say. My issues are the following:

1. 1. In an educational resource like Wiki that children of all ages use, why use yellow journal style material like Sexual Harassment allegations on any person's page no matter how well they are sourced or not? How can children be benefited by these 'information'? Certainly, Wiki is not to be used as a space by Admins or Editors for allowing these to be posted. They must be flagged and removed instantly. Those interested in gossip can find the relevant allegations in so many other online sources but they should never be part of Wiki.
2. 2. Why delete well sourced material that I (among several others) had personally researched and cited adequately in some pages like N Ravikiran with absolutely no effort to check the sources or point out specific sentences that may have needed citations?
3. 3. Why delete sections like awards without due diligence from any of the Admins in his page? Even a cursory google search would by anyone would have revealed that many of the deleted ones did not merit deletion at all.
4. 4. Why delete a whole page of Chitravina N Ravikiran - which I and presumably others used to researh into his compositions? I even pointed out that they be renamed as N Ravikiran Compositions. Any objective person would have needed only a couple of minutes to note that that page contained at least 30-35 citations from reputed media. Similarly it would have been obvious that barring one or two sentences that was similar to N Ravikiran page, the rest of the info was not only distinctive but study material for scholars about Indian classical's most prolific composer today. Yet, there were insistent moves to delete that page.
5. 5. I protested and was asked to transfer relevant content there to N Ravikiran page and when I did it, it was immediately summarily deleted even within a minute or two. How could anyone reasonable not see that the information was well sourced and contained facts like list of a composer's works?

The above points out to personal bias and a desire to undermine a prominent figure rather than objectivity which I am afraid is not healthy for a site of immense value like Wiki. I hope that my concerns are addressed seriously and sincerely by all Admins in good spirit:-) Nayaki (talk)

Date formats

Is the chart in the date format a suggestion or a rule for WP? There are a number of formats or styles that are identified specially as inappropriate and recommendations sometimes follow. I started to edit a particular style in WP since sometimes in the same article the inappropriate style and preferred style were consistent. Unfortunately, especially after advising that the style as incorrect some have been reverted based on the previous style based on their opinion was correct. It is my understanding that when it comes to commas in the "month year" style and the "day month year" style commas are not to be used to separate the parts unless it is a quote. All the dates revised have not been quotes. What is what? Is this a matter of some "quirk" of that particular English/Language/Grammar? I looked at the coding to see if there was any such notation and found none. I would appreciate it as those who insists on the previously existing format care to have a basic level of courtesy to explain on the talk page(s). Thank you.2605:E000:9149:8300:7C35:42EA:E43D:D94A (talk) 09:14, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi IP 2605:E000:9149:8300:7C35:42EA:E43D:D94A. You'll find more detail about this in MOS:DATES, but date formats are like national varieties of English in that there's no one particular house style that is preferred for all articles. Generally per MOS:DATEVAR and MOS:DATEUNIFY, you should try to stick with whatever style was used by the article's creator or first major contributor (as long as it's not a bad date format) and try to keep the formatting consistent throughout the article. In some cases, as explained in MOS:DATETIES, a particular format may be preferred for certain subjects, but you shouldn't really just change a date format simply because it's your preferred format or it's the one commonly used in your home country. You can propose such a change on the article's talk page if you think it should be made, but you should at least try and establish a consensus for it first, particularly if it's an article which is heavily edited and watched by lots of editors. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:11, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Further to this, IP 2605:E000:9149:8300:7C35:42EA:E43D:D94A, since I am one of the article creators/first major contributors in question. When I first submitted an article for review for Good Article status, I was told that the preferred format in English Wikipedia is month (not abbreviated)/day/comma/year, unless it's in a quotation, in which case the format in the quotation should be used, if different. My personal preference is day/month/year, but I conform to the preferred format. This is why I've been reverting your edits, and I explained this when you were registered under a previous IP address. I would have been happy to discuss this with you through my talk page (since you don't have one) and save both of us some time and effort. Wreck Smurfy (talk) 23:39, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

You are aware of the chart in the date format section that does specifically say that it is inappropriate? Not only that there are many instances in WP style development that things change. This is very much now that various styles have been explored through the years have been found to be revised and so why it is included in the inappropriate chart? So to say that at "X" time it was okay therefore until time burns itself up it will be followed is on face value ridiculous? nd there are many instances where in the same article the styles differ? So basically it is being said that for clarity different styles regardless as to inclusion in the inappropriate chart are welcomed?2605:E000:9149:8300:EC1F:6BF6:5F84:F209 (talk) 18:42, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I find it difficult to follow your style of writing, and a reply that consists of a series of rhetorical questions is also difficult to answer. Perhaps the answer to all of them is "Yes". What I can tell you, as the creator of at least one article that has been rated as Good (331st Rifle Division), it would not have received that rating if the date formatting was wrong. In fact, I had to correct my previous formatting to get the Good rating. However, more importantly, you are wasting your time, my time, and that of several other editors over something that is, by any objective standard, trivial. Wikipedia has bots to handle these trivialities. I would suggest, in all sincerity, that you turn your attention to something more productive, like some actual content. I am trying to work with you, not against you. Wreck Smurfy (talk) 03:35, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

If a rating is the basis of maintaining how an article should not be edited to current standards then that WP would not be editing. Could it be that at the time the article was greenlighted that was the practice but according to the chart in date formats it clearly says that the style is inappropriate and even goes as far as to provide examples of approved formats. It could also be the situation that when the article was greenlighted that that was what the administrator thought was current. It is not. The WP system is not infallible; it is not written in stone because that is why there are countless screens of style standards. All that can be said is that from what has been responded to with my question directly on the talk page of date formats is the following: "My understanding is that if an article consistently uses one of the styles in the acceptable date style table, then that style shouldn't be disturbed without good reason. But if an article uses some other style, including the ones in the table of unacceptable styles, then the dates may be changed to one of the acceptable styles. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:22, 25 January 2019 (UTC)" The talk page was consulted directly as what seemed to be coming from previous answers was not definitive to explain just why "X" could be found in the date format section. The first reply to this question here said that there are different appropriate styles for different English language places. If that is so then the chart most probably would have provided that clarification. There is no such content there and so far that differentiation has not been pointed out in the format section. Just as WP follows proper grammar then it should also follow proper style otherwise there can only result confusion. Again, despite what may have as previously expressed being rhetorical, WP articles are not written in stone. They are constantly being reviewed and even "*" articles can be found to have either style that is no longer followed or outright grammar inconsistencies. Any justification based on what was suggested at the time of a rating status as the reason why an article should be treated as written in stone is not an adequate justification. Just as significant is grammar ask any attorney about what role can punctuation serve in the legal field WP should adhere to what is stated in the date format section so as to encourage the least amount of confusion especially for those who may not have a great grasp of the language and then perpetuate with additional articles styles that have been found to be inappropriate. As for belittling my contribution to WP, I would suggest that there be considered some refrain so as to not appear imperious. It can be noticed that at any time did I personalize these statements by stating "you" or "yours" etc. There are many aspects of editing in WP that can be followed if that is what the editor feels comfortable with. It should be a pleasant experience to follow the policies, guidelines and standards otherwise proper grammar would not be used.2605:E000:9149:8300:C9E:6B46:95A6:3A0C (talk) 08:52, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to make one more effort to encourage you to constructively contribute to Wikipedia. 1. Do not reply to a post in the Teahouse, or any other talk page, without using the requisite number of colons; 2. Ranting is a waste of everybody's time, mostly yours; 3. You have been banned from editing repeatedly, under several UP addresses, and you have yet to learn a lesson. Good night and good luck. Wreck Smurfy (talk) 04:54, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

An imperious attitude is not what can generally be thought of as cooperative or is that a point that seems to be unrecognized in these replies. I have absolutely no control over what IP address I am issued by my internet provider so if it is an intention to in some way discredit a another contributor? That issue has been repeatedly addressed in the past and to have gone to the effort to look into things it should have been evident ";" WP endorses the use of IP addresses as user identification. In fact, at times the IP address will change while editing is happening during the same session. Pleas refrain from attempting to direct to what direction someone contributes to WP a that implies a sense of ownership which it seems is an attitude of being uncooperative. If it is believed that editing according to WP standards is behaving badly when maybe it is time for this issue to be addressed at a community level? To base a reason for reverting edits that are in line with WP standards based on what an administrator advised is only evident that being imperious is supported. If it is noticeable to a reader that additional punctuation might make something more understandable to them then it should be assumed that a certain level of mental agility exists that to instead say otherwise is again a sense of being imperious. That should be evident with a history degree when reviewing original sources and it seems that is not applicable. All thr best.2605:E000:9149:8300:4560:D1CF:6806:3065 (talk) 07:33, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Could someone with authority close this discussion as there seems to be a differentiation as to what is the proper date format for the question at hand. The "Help" page says one thing and another contributor rests the reverts on an action when an article was to be rated at some time. It would seem clear enough what is to be followed and any variances should also be explained in the same section All that can be said is that if the style is to have commas then there are millions of improperly punctuation instances in WP.2605:E000:9149:8300:4560:D1CF:6806:3065 (talk) 07:49, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

IP 2605:E000:9149:8300:4560:D1CF:6806:3065|2605:E000:9149:8300:4560:D1CF:6806:3065: If you're going to be assigned a different IP address each time you post something and you plan on contirbuting regularly to Wikipedia, then it might be a good idea for you to register for an WP:ACCOUNT; you don't have to, but it will make it easier for other editors to know it's you making the edits and might help others from mistakenly assuming you of inappropriate using multiple accounts. Just a suggestion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:51, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

@Wreck Smurfy: Just from looking at the article 373rd Rifle Division (Soviet Union) and 331st Rifle Division (Soviet Union), the IP might have a point about the choice of date format and comma use. When you begin a sentence with a phrase such as "In month date year", you would add a comma after the date and the year per MOS:DATE; however, if the phrase is "In month year", then common practice is that you only need a comma after the year, at least in most national varieties of English I'm familiar with. Writing "In month, year," and "In month, year" seem to be both incorrect, though the latter case might be acceptable if the the month and year are part of two separate "parts" of the same sentence. As for the article in question being a GA, that's certainly quite an accomplishment; however, that's doesn't necessarily mean the comma use is correct and it could've been something that just wasn't noticed at the time. Since the article is about a military unit, you might want to ask about this at WT:MILHIST since the date formats used in military articles might be different from other types of articles; however, just look at the FA articles 13th Airborne Division (United States) and 21st Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Skanderbeg, they seem to be using the "In month year," format. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:14, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Looking for music articles to work on

Relatively new to Wikipedia and just getting back into the swing of things. Can someone here who works on music articles give me some guidance on ways I can help? Sorry if this is a stupid questions. Grimothy29 (talk) 23:15, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

This one looks like a good starting point, and here is a page that may be helpful; it is an interesting walkthrough.Tamanoeconomico (talk) 00:25, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

You might also take a look at the WikiProject Music. Schazjmd (talk) 00:31, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Adding Grimothy29 so he sees there are replies. Schazjmd (talk) 17:55, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, I will check it out.Tamanoeconomico (talk) 17:40, 28 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grimothy29 (talk • contribs)

Category:Timelines of cities in the United States

Some of these places such as Timeline of Albuquerque, New Mexico could be moved to a shorter title Timeline of Albuquerque and still be unambiguous. Should I comply with the guideline WP:USPLACE or is it fine to apply WP:IAR to this? Mstrojny (talk) 20:21, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I haven't got a reply in 2 days. How long does it take for a volunteer to answer my question? Mstrojny (talk) 23:55, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Normally you would get a reply rather earlier. My own view is that we ought to be consistent. The article Albuquerque, New Mexico is not entitled Albuquerque, although there is a redirect from the latter. WP:USPLACE gives a ref for a list of those cities which do not require the state name to be included, and Albequerque is not on that list. I would recommend that "Timeline" articles use the same naming convention as that for articles on the city directly, but I see no reason why you couldn't have a redirect from Timeline of Albuquerque. If you have a differing view you could discuss it at WT:Naming conventions (geographic names). --David Biddulph (talk) 00:28, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

@David Biddulph: I have created a proposal here if you would like to have a say in the proposal. Also, can you notify other editors about this proposal? Mstrojny (talk) 11:09, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Why I didn't create

--Вадзім Медзяноўскі (talk) 05:52, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello Вадзім Медзяноўскі and welcome to the Teahouse. It's unclear what you're trying to ask here; please be more specific. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 17:05, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Can you create a disambiguation page for zip-line? It could also refer to Zipline International, Zipline Creative , and Zipline Safari. Mstrojny (talk) 13:32, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done --Gronk Oz (talk) 14:27, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

@Gronk Oz: Is there a primary topic to zip-line? If so, can you format the page so that it shows the primary topic like this one. If not, can you move the page to the appropriate title? Mstrojny (talk) 15:00, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

@Gronk Oz, David Biddulph, and MarkZusab: Because the disambiguation page is created with the compound word form, is it OK to move the title of the primary topic from Zip-line to Zipline? Mstrojny (talk) 19:49, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

The title of the primary topic article should be determined by how it is most commonly referred to in reliable sources. If you want to move it, I would recommend not doing so yourself but suggesting it on the article talk page. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:03, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

@David Biddulph: I have created an RM here. I personally have no opinion on whether the move should take place, but if you are interested in joining the discussion, please feel free to do so. Mstrojny (talk) 20:16, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

@Mstrojny: David Biddulph and MarkZusab beat me to it, and made the change you suggested. As for how to treat the variations in spelling (zipline vs zip-line vs zip line), I don't really have an opinion. (Well actually I do, but my opinion is that it's a trivial matter, so I don't mind whichever way it goes.) --Gronk Oz (talk) 21:51, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Request process to update a Wikipedia page

Wikipedia was kind enough to create a page on my new position but it is incomplete and I would like to know my staff can reach out to for including more personal background information, adding service record, awards, etc.

Thank you,

Greg Slavonic Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Manpower & Reserve Affairs)

405-641-9013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:140:8D00:15A0:5591:6398:A28F:13BF (talk) 17:06, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Greg. Thanks for asking, rather than just getting them to plough in and do it. The thing to realise is that the article Gregory J. Slavonic is not your article: it is Wikipedia's article about you, and you have no control of the content. You and your associates are strongly discouraged from editing the article; however, you or they are welcome to suggest changes on the talk page Talk:Gregory J. Slavonic: if they add the template {{edit request}} (with the double curly brackets) somebody will come along and decide what to do about the suggestions. Any information to be added must appear in a reliable published source (personal knowledge, and unpublished information, are never acceptable in a Wikipedia article) and as far as possible in a source wholly independent of you. (I actually think that the existing article is a bit light on independent sources, and of those, News OK really doesn't have very much information. The rest of the sources, while reliable, are primary sources: the foundation of Wikipedia is what people unconnected with a subject have chosen to publish about the subject. If your staff can suggest any further independent sources for information about you, that would be helpful too).

If your staff want to go ahead with this, they should consider creating accounts: it is not required - they can edit without logging in as you have done - but it's easier to track who is responsible for edits. If they do create accounts, they should be individual (sharing an account is not permitted), and the account names should not suggest that they are "official" for anybody or anything. They may use their real names (as I do) or make up pseudonyms as they wish. They should then read about conflict of interest and paid editing before they do anything else. It would be helpful if they read referencing for beginners as well: suggestions will be easier to deal with if they include citations to sources; and while these do not have to be properly formatted on Talk pages, it would be easier if they were. --ColinFine (talk) 18:07, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

P.S. "Wikipedia" does not create articles. An editor Iowajason created the article about you back in September. AntonyZ added a big chunk, and TheRoadIsLong deleted content that was not appropriate or not adequately referenced. David notMD (talk) 19:49, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

from sandbox to get it 'out'

dear people try to get the written text into www - I mean public. so after ... I did it in sanbox .. and then? what to do? anyone konws how to do this THANKS + who can read this + are you answering to the email adress?

send bottom or where to is it sending???? public???? I donT understand how to contact you ---its like since so long - I had done everything + a person tilt it- because I put my photo from me inn

this is the snadbox page

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gewaechshaus/sandbox

love Micha Das Bach — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gewaechshaus (talk • contribs) 17:34, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello Micha, welcome to the Teahouse. I have good news, and I have bad news to give you. Firstly, the good news : another editor (MarkZusab) has helpfully added a 'submit template' to your sandbox page which would allow you to submit your article for review. You would simply click the blue 'submit' button for another editor to be prompted to review it ...a process that can take some weeks, as we are all volunteers here. We don't give out personal email addresses or communicate in that way - everything is done openly online here.

But there is very bad news, too. The article you have written about yourself is far from being acceptable to Wikipedia. You are not allowed to use Wikipedia to promote your artistic or business activities. As far as I can see, none of the references contribute to the essential requirement of demonstrating that you meet our notable artist requirements. Although they demonstrate that you have been busy over many years as an artist, and that you have participated in a number of exhibitions, they are not sufficient in my view. What you need to do is include detailed references to reliable independent sources that have written about you in detail and in depth, or to demonstrate that your work has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

The other bad news is that you very clearly have a 'Conflict of Interest' (COI), which you must declare. Wikipedia strongly discourages users from writing articles about themselves. Please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and follow the instructions for declaring that connection if you are set on having your sandbox reviewed by our Articles for Creation team. You should also read WP:YOURSELF to understand the reasons for not pursue this self-promotional path, and to let other, non-involved editors writing about you instead.

I have not commented on the lack on inline citations or the somewhat artsy-style of writing, which is non-encyclopaedic in tone.  Resolving those can come later. I have left a 'welcome' message on your talk page with more links about contributing when you have a COI. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:36, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

American College of International Physicians page

I just created and edited the article that should be linked to the list of one of the entries for what ACIP stands for, however, I'm not able to find how to link the material to what the page in reference, for that reason, we will highly appreciate your help in letting us know how to work the process to make it happen.
In advance, for your time, help and consideration, we thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mvgg6226 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

@Mvgg6226: Sorry but your draft article at User:Mvgg6226/sandbox consists almost entirely of copyrighted material. This is a copyright violation; Wikipedia cannot allow copyrighted material, even if it's only meant to exist for a short time to develop a proper article. You must express the content in your own words without copying or closely paraphrasing the original material. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:45, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Create a summary box for a bio page

Hello gentle and wise folks ... how do I create, please, the little summary box that sometimes appears at the top right corner of the page with details like name, parents, spouses, offspring, etc (in the case of a person) or various other details for other topics? Much obliged for your help!Mecla (talk) 17:46, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi again, Ive just spotted this. {{Infobox person}} should be the one you're looking for. RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 18:35, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

There are also various more specific infoboxes listed at WP:WikiProject Biography/Infoboxes and at Category:People and person infobox templates. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:42, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Editing "E H Carr". Can I suggest changes rather than make the change? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._H._Carr

In Wikipedia article for E.H. Carr, the following appears under "early life". At Cambridge, Carr was much impressed by hearing one of his professors lecture on how the Peloponnesian War influenced Herodotus in the writing of the Histories.[5] article is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._H._Carr

I am no expert in this area but believe "Peloponnesian War" should be "Persian Wars". Have read Carr but not Herodotus.

As I understand, the Histories were written in 440 BC and the Peloponessian War began 430 BC, ~5 yrs before death of Herodotus. The Persian Wars (by lookup) were from 499-449 BC.

Can I submit this as a suggestion, or do I go ahead and edit? I could be wrong somehow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John10k (talk • contribs) 18:13, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Be bold and make the change unless there is an established consensus against it as long as you're changes are reliably sourced. RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 18:32, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Need clarification about the page Alfred de Zayas

Last night I had a curious experience about 2-5 minutes after I had completed editing the Alfred de Zayas Wikipedia page in which I wrote the following:

The UN Independent Expert advocated for legal compliance within the territory of the Hawaiian Islands, by publishing a pertinent legal memorandum involving illegal American military occupation. The memorandum clearly states:

"I have come to understand that the lawful political status of the Hawaiian Islands is that of a sovereign nation-state in continuity; but a nation state that is under a strange form of occupation by the United States resulting from an illegal military occupation and fraudulent annexation. As such, international laws (The Hague and Geneva Conventions) require that governance and legal matters within the occupied territory of the Hawaiian Islands must be administered by the application of laws by the occupied state (in this case, the Hawaiian Kingdom) not the domestic laws of the occupier (the United States)."

The complete memorandum is published here: https://hawaiiankingdom.org/p…/Dr_deZayas_Memo_2_25_2018.pdf

However, my post was removed by Oshawah. The reason given was for supposed lack of citation, although I cited a link to his memorandum PDF using the website link above, and did so in the correct wikipedia citation format. So I re-edited and left 2 citations. The second citation was The Guardian newspaper which quotes the memorandum. I took a screenshot after the second edit, which is posted here. Again my post was removed, this time by "Melcous", who said it was for: "...making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Alfred-Maurice de Zayas. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted...Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Melcous (talk) 10:04, 26 January 2019 (UTC)" (reference the second screenshot in this post) This is removal of clearly factual and easily verifiable information that is significantly groundbreaking in its impacts and implications in Hawaii. I see no reason why this is "unconstructive" or "disruptive"? Please advise... — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpeakingTruthToPower4Freedom (talk • contribs) 19:01, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

The link that you posted above is dead. Ruslik_Zero 20:32, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Here is the correct link: https://hawaiiankingdom.org/pdf/Dr_deZayas_Memo_2_25_2018.pdf. There was a typo in the link SpeakingTruthToPower4Freedom posted above. MarkZusab (talk) 22:05, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, SpeakingTruthToPower4Freedom. You tried to insert the same content into three different places in the same biography. That is disruptive even if it was unintentional. You tried to link to the hawaiiankingdom.org website operated by David Keanu Sai. This is an advocacy website and not a reliable source by Wikipedia's standards, and your link is defective and not functional. You used advocacy language pushing a point of view, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. On the other hand, the Guardian reference is useful, and can be used to support neutrally written content about this opinion of de Zayas. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. The place to discuss the specific edit is Talk: Alfred-Maurice de Zayas. Your username motivates me to inform you that Wikipedia is not a place to right great wrongs. All that being said, I agree that the annexation of the Kingdom of Hawaii by the United States was a terrible injustice, and that Wikipedia needs to cover those events and their contemporary results accurately and neutrally. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:41, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

While I can agree that perhaps my link was "dead" or was a misprint somehow, and that I may have been in error in placing the excerpt in multiple locations throughout de Zayas page, however I strongly disagree that the content of my post used advocacy language. I simply summarized what de Zayas himself wrote, and then published an excerpt from his memorandum. Can you please explain the words that indicate advocacy, beyond what de Zayas himself is advocating in his memorandum (after all this is his wikipedia page, can we not print or summarize his advocacy?). I suppose if I didn't use the words "pertinent" (legal memorandum) and "clearly" (states) it would sound less like advocacy? Other than that I am simply summarizing de Zayas and then printing an excerpt from his memorandum. And finally to respond to your last point in which I appreciate your sympathy for the situation- what de Zayas points out in his memorandum is that The Hawaiian Kingdom was never annexed by the United States and is therefore an ongoing military occupation- which is now a known legal fact of international law. Alfred de Zayas work on this issue has had a profound impact in Hawaii, and should be recognized somewhere in this page. Please advise what would be acceptable language... — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpeakingTruthToPower4Freedom (talk • contribs) 02:46, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps if I publish it like this:

The UN Independent Expert advocated for legal compliance within the territory of the Hawaiian Islands, by publishing a legal memorandum that states:

"I have come to understand that the lawful political status of the Hawaiian Islands is that of a sovereign nation-state in continuity; but a nation state that is under a strange form of occupation by the United States resulting from an illegal military occupation and fraudulent annexation. As such, international laws (The Hague and Geneva Conventions) require that governance and legal matters within the occupied territory of the Hawaiian Islands must be administered by the application of laws by the occupied state (in this case, the Hawaiian Kingdom) not the domestic laws of the occupier (the United States)." — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpeakingTruthToPower4Freedom (talk • contribs) 02:55, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

SpeakingTruthToPower4Freedom, as I told you previously, the proper place to discuss this matter is Talk: Alfred-Maurice de Zayas, and you have not yet posted there.

You wrote "In February of 2018, de Zayas advocated for legal compliance within the territory of the Hawaiian Islands, by publishing a pertinent legal memorandum involving illegal American military occupation. The memorandum clearly states:"

You simply cannot state "illegal American military occupation" in Wikipedia's voice. That is non-neutral editorializing. Use of the term "clearly states" is also non-neutral since those words imply that the opinions of de Zayas are more credible than other opinions on the matter. Using variations of the word "legal" three times in a sentence is poor writing.

When you write above that the theory that de Zayas supports is "now a known legal fact of international law", you are making an unsupported assertion. In order to say anything like that on Wikipedia, you must provide a reference to an impeccable reliable source that says that, and if other reliable sources contradict that (and they do), then the views of the contrary sources must be reflected as well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:25, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Sure, I will check in at the deZayas page- however since you are discussing this with me I will continue to respond here as well. First, it was not my personal opinion that Hawaii is under an "illegal military occupation"- that is exactly what de Zayas himself writes in the memorandum (and again its HIS wikipedia page). I was summarizing his statement using his language- not my personal opinion. However, I agree that the use of the word "clearly" and over-use of the word "legal" is biased and poor writing.

My personal opinion and observation that the situation is "now a known legal fact of international law", was never published on wikipedia, but a personal comment in our discussion. However, you can read Dr. Keanu Sai's PHD Dissertation which he had to defend against a committee of international law professors and experts. His argument was also accepted at the permanent court of arbitration, and by Alfred de Zayas. I do not know why you asked me to cite my sources on that statement as it was a personal comment in our discussion, but also because you did not cite sources for your claim that there are other legal opinions (or facts) in the matter. All that being said, I am more concerned with how I can publish the excerpt from de Zayas. Does the following form comply with your standards? Please advise:

The UN Independent Expert advocated for legal compliance within the territory of the Hawaiian Islands, publishing a legal memorandum that states:

"I have come to understand that the lawful political status of the Hawaiian Islands is that of a sovereign nation-state in continuity; but a nation state that is under a strange form of occupation by the United States resulting from an illegal military occupation and fraudulent annexation. As such, international laws (The Hague and Geneva Conventions) require that governance and legal matters within the occupied territory of the Hawaiian Islands must be administered by the application of laws by the occupied state (in this case, the Hawaiian Kingdom) not the domestic laws of the occupier (the United States)." — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpeakingTruthToPower4Freedom (talk • contribs) 04:11, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

SpeakingTruthToPower4Freedom, for the third time, discuss this at Talk: Alfred-Maurice de Zayas. You have not done so. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:32, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Discussion is now underway on the article talk page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:02, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Undefined Rejection

Hello,

I recently submitted two separate articles for publishing and both were rejected for an undefined reason..

Could you please help me to understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Professor talbot (talk • contribs) 20:06, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

In each case the reviewer left a comment on the draft page. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:10, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

And you are actually three for three on declined. Bluntly, your references are not good enough to confirm these businesses or people as notable by Wikipedia's standards. A couple were one-sentence mentions, when what is needed are longer, more detailed publications about the topics. One was a interview with the subject. What a person says about themselves or their business is not a reliable source. For Draft:Jersey Champs in particular, your 2nd and 3rd refs are both to the same interview. Your 1st ref is just a company financial profile. David notMD (talk) 20:15, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Professor talbot, I am sorry but I have deleted your drafts as unambiguously promotional. Please be aware that Wikipedia is not a promotional platform. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:17, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

OP now blocked as a sock. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:40, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

How to start?

What can I do here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drunkguyash (talk • contribs) 21:16, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Drunkguyash. Welcome - you've made your first edit here at the Teahouse. Great to hear from you. There are a million things you could usefully do here to improve the worlds greatest online encyclopaedia. The trick is finding ones that interest you, and ensuring you go about doing it the right way! Let me help you by suggesting you try our interactive introduction. It's called The Wikipedia Adventure, and offers you the chance to collect 15 badges on your userpage as you learn the basics of editing (improving) this encyclopaedia. There are tons and tons of things that need doing to improve existing article, so this page: (Wikipedia:Task Center) is a summary of the different types. Best advice is to find one or more articles on things that interest you. Look for minor changes you can make to improve it - like spelling, punctuation, or better wording. Avoid adding any personal opinions or "things you happen to know but can't prove". This is a big no-no here. Later, you can learn to add references to support statement that don't yet have any evidence to prove that they're right. Adding references is extremely important, but can be a bit tricky at first for complete newcomers. In due course, assuming you decide to stick around, do take a look at Help:Referencing for beginners - but maybe just try some simple editing first. You did make one test edit to an article which has just been reverted - that's OK. But in future, do use your 'sandbox' to experiment with how edits look. There's a link to your own sandbox at the top of the page, or you can use Wikipedia:Sandbox which anyone can edit as a test. You could add a few lines about yourself and your interests on you own userpage, too. This helps others understand your motives for wanting to contribute here... just don't reveal any personal details, especially if you're a minor. I'm sure you'll have a million and one other questions, so do come back to the Teahouse anytime, but ask us only a few at a time! If you can remember, type four keyboard tildes (like this:~~~~) at the end of every talk page post. That automatically adds your username and a timestamp. that we we all know who said what, and when. Good luck, and let us know how you get on. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:22, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Improperly marked my first two edits as minor.

My sincere apologies but my first two edits I classified as minor when the difference is more than superficial.

I've attempted to locate the option to uncheck minor edit but have been unable to do so.

Am I missing the option or will it require the assistance of a more senior editor to make the change on my behalf?

Thank you.

Vcpecon (talk) 21:30, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

@Vcpecon: Welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for being vigilant. This isn't something that can be corrected, as far as I know. Just be more careful in the future. RudolfRed (talk) 21:35, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

@RudolfRed: Noted and thank you for the quick and helpful reply. Vcpecon (talk) 21:42, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Is it OK to use self-published statistics?

When a website displays statistics, can you use those in an article or are they to be deemed as self-published and unreliable? Should one wait for a secondary source to publish the numbers? Asking on behalf of Draft:TSUKI_Project, as it has a counter of members (not right now, but when the draft gets a reply the official website may be out of maintenance mode again), but I'm not sure if it's OK to use its official member count, or just use the count specified in a secondary source (as the original author of the draft has done)... Anyone know what's proper to do here? ShindoNana (talk) 22:18, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

@ShindoNana: That is probably OK. Wikipedia does allow using self-published info in some cases. See WP:ABOUTSELF. RudolfRed (talk) 22:52, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) A subject's own website is not appropriate for establishing WP:Notability, but once independent WP:Reliable sources have shown notability, then the website can be quoted for a limited amount of basic facts that are not likely to be disputed. Secondary sources are usually preferred at Wikipedia. Dbfirs 22:55, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, ShindoNana. I must disagree with RudolfRed on this matter. According to WP:SELFPUB, self-published material is allowed as long as "the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim". In this case, the topic is a cult with a deranged and delusional belief system. Such cults are motivated to inflate their influence and membership. I would not accept a single solitary thing this cult says as being factual. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:02, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Thank you for that correction. I must admit I was thinking in more general terms and did not review the draft page. RudolfRed (talk) 23:09, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

... and I made the same mistake by replying in general terms and not checking the subject.  Dbfirs 23:15, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you both for the swift replies, that makes sense. I could definitely see a cult do that, so I'll stick to the used secondary statistic, then! ShindoNana (talk) 22:50, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

How to edit a user's page

I still can't edit users pages — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polycarp Iwodi (talk • contribs) 23:05, 27 January 2019 (UTC) I want to edit users pages,especially those i know i've played a part in their careers.

See WP:user pages. The main user page is usually considered to belong to the individual user so you should not normally edit these without permission. Sub-pages and sandboxes may be used for collaborative editing. WP:user talk pages are for communicating with the users. I see that you have been editing User:Polycarp Iwodi to make it look like an article. This is not permitted. Perhaps if you changed it to first-person it might be acceptable, but this page is intended for you to say something about yourself and how you intend to improve Wikipedia. It should not be a personal profile. Dbfirs 23:42, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello Polycarp Iwodi, welcome back to the Teahouse. I don't understand why you say are unable to edit another user's page. I presume you mean their talk page? If so, having found the editor's own userpage, look for the 'Talk' tab towards the top of the page in desktop view, or the blue, 'talk' link in mobile view. Feel free to click the 'talk' link after my signature and try to leave me a message, remembering that new discussion go at the bottom of a page, not at the top. To make it easy, in desktop view there's an 'Add topic' tab towards the top of the page for you to click to start a new discussion.

That said, I don't understand your follow-up comment about editing those user's pages whose careers you have played a part in. Most editors have anonymous usernames, so how would you know who they really are? If you are thinking of editing actual articles about a notable person (presumably a musician?) who you believe you have influenced personally, you'd need to be extremely careful that you're only adding factually-based comments, supported by independent reliable references. You can't leave comments in the hope that you'll be promoting yourself via their pages - this would be a conflict or interest and would be quickly removed as promotion/spam. To that end, I was concerned, like Dbfirs about the content you have already placed on your Wikipedia userpage here. That's why I left you a little warning message about it on your own talk page. I'm afraid it is written in a way that resembles a mainspace encyclopaedia article, and in the third person. This is not appropriate content to leave there (see WP:FAKEARTICLE). Just saying a couple of lines to say who you are (using the first person tense) is OK, but not like this. Please delete the content and write something less 'promotional' about who you are and your interests in editing Wikipedia. If someone else spots it they're quite likely to propose it for deletion - so the best way is for you to quickly change it yourself. If I've misunderstood what it is you actually want to achieve here, do reply with further explanation, and someone will get back to you. Regards from the UK, and maybe I'll get a test message from you on my talkpage soon! Nick Moyes (talk) 23:54, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

User page has been sent to MfD. CoolSkittle (talk) 00:28, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, CoolSkittle Here at the Teahouse we do try to give users a bit more leeway - hence my gentle invitation to Polycarp Iwodi to remove the promotional content themselves. But what's done is done. @Polycarp Iwodi: You are welcome to re-create your userpage, but not with the same kind of content you had there before. Hope you'll still want to continue editing the encyclopaedia, though. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:35, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Something about math

Hello I am a newcomer to Wikipedia! Sorry for my bad grammar.. My textbook of Mathematical analysis told me to prove $\left\{n\sin {\frac {180^{\circ }}{n}}\right\}$ converge. Of course, it converges to π, then the proof says "Let $t={\frac {180^{\circ }}{n(n+1)}}$", then it started to use the monotone bounded sequence convergence theorem to prove it is convergent. But how did it get t?

Welcome to the Teahouse, Abel Sage Feynman. The Teahouse is for asking and answering questions about editing Wikipedia. Please ask your question at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Mathematics instead. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:01, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Need help about how to prove that the subject of article is relevant enough to make it's own Wikipedia page

Hi, I would like to ask for your help to review this article I have made. First of all, I'm sorry if my wording or grammar is a bit off. There is (2) things that I need more guidance, in which it's about my draft article titled Lee Dae-hwi.

1) How do I prove that the subject of the article is relevant enough in the songwriting area? Lee Dae-hwi has made his name in the Korean Medias that he has been active in making, composing, producing songs. He already made 8 songs (1 unreleased in music sites, but has been played on broadcast). As he already active as songwriter, it is noted that he still has not released his songs with himself as the singer. I have added the online news links for the references, but it seems that the last review I got is that it's still did not show significant coverage and not enough to prove his relevancy in such area.

2) How do I prove that Lee Dae-hwi's released songs has been released legally / How do i credit them properly? As I got the review that my article has not meet the Notability of musician, I need your guidance in which part(s) that I should fix. I need to know if I need to put more details for the songs' copyrights.

Lastly, Thank you so much for your patience in reading my questions. I would very much appreciate it if you could help me. --Otterlyhwi (talk) 02:05, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Otterlyhwi. As was noted in the reviews of Draft:Lee Dae-hwi, it was determined in a deletion discussion that he is not notable as a singer separately from Wanna One. For the guideline for notability as a songwriter see WP:COMPOSER. The most likely criterion for him would be #1: “Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition.” For the guideline for the notability of a song see WP:NSONG—a pretty high standard. Does one of his songs meet one of these criteria? (Do not worry about copyrights and legal release of his songs.) —teb728 t c 01:47, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Capitol Studios article

I just read the article on Capitol Studios (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Studios), which partially seems more like an advertisement than a Wikipedia article. I am not sure if this is the right forum to bring this up, but since (at least among recording nerds) these studios are considered to be far from unimportant, I didn't just want to bury my comment in the talk section. Thanks. Garrrick (talk) 02:20, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Garrrick: Welcome to the Teahouse! In addition to the option of helping improve it directly (the best option!), we also have an advert template (Template:Advert) that you can place at the top of the article using {{Advert|date=January 2019}}; this will warn readers and editors that the article is written like an ad. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 02:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

It seems in this edit, the whole article was rewritten to consist of a large amount of unsourced advertisement-like material. I don't have much time to deal with this right now but I will if I get the chance. Thanks for letting us know! Cheers, --SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 02:44, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! Garrrick (talk) 10:40, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

City populations

I was recently looking up the population of Minneapolis/St.Paul compared to San Diego CA. The page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_statistical_area, does not even list San Diego, CA. How can this be right? San Diego is roughly the 8th largest city in the U.S. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lsmatthys (talk • contribs) 07:13, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Simply that San Diego is not a "combined statistical area", the meaning of which is explained in the lede of the article and which are listed in ref 2 of the article. CSAs are for combined authorities such as Minneapolis/St.Paul and Dallas/Fort Worth, not for individual cities. The "See also" section of the article includes a link to List of United States cities by population which of course does include San Diego. - David Biddulph (talk) 07:26, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Lsmatthys. San Diego is not a part of a combined statistical area. Instead, it is part of the San Diego-Carlsbad Metropolitan Statistical Area. Please read this link. Combined statistical areas consist of very large urban concentrations of many cities. The San Diego and Carlsbad statistical area is hemmed in by the Pacific Ocean to the west, Mexico to the south, the El Centro statistical area to the east, and the massive statistical areas of Los Angeles, Orange County and San Bernardino to the north. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:40, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Copyrighted contend

Hello!

My entry was deleted because there was copyrighted contend in it. I think the relevant content is a table. The owner of the original article asked me to put in there. So my question is if there is a way to upload the table with his permission even though it's copyrighted? If yes how could he give this permission?

Thank you! Gianna — Preceding unsigned comment added by GiannaHenkel (talk • contribs) 07:23, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

The process for him to release the copyright, if he wishes to do so, is at WP:Donating copyrighted material. Otherwise, you will have to reword things in your own words. --David Biddulph (talk) 07:29, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Thans for the quick reply! Is there also a way to find out if there are other copyrighted phrases in the text? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GiannaHenkel (talk • contribs) 07:38, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Anything that has previously been published elsewhere is copyrighted (whether or not specifically labelled as such), unless specifically defined as free from copyright or released under an appropriate licence. There is further explanation at WP:FAQ/Copyright. The simple answer is to write the article in your own words. --David Biddulph (talk) 07:46, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

On your User page, you will need to declare whether your connection to the owner/author of the table is paid. If not paid, you will still need to indicate a conflict of interest. David notMD (talk) 10:57, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

User:GiannaHenkel - I have several comments. First, the draft reads as if it was copied from a book, so it likely is copyrighted. You are responsible for ensuring that anything that you submit to Wikipedia is free of copyright. Second, the owner of the copyright needs to be aware of what is meant by donating copyrighted material for use in Wikipedia. It does not just mean approving the publication of the copyrighted material in Wikipedia with a copyright notice. (That is a reasonable misconception.) The owner of the copyright has to release the copyright for use subject to the Creative Commons copyleft by anyone in the world. Most copyright holders do not want to do that. Third, it isn't necessary to create three copies of the submission, as you have done. It wastes the time of the reviewers and annoys the reviewers. Please request that two of the copies be deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:10, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Hey Robert! Thank you for your answer! First of all: how do i delete submissions? I can't even find one anymore... (sorry that's my first time drafting something on Wikipedia). <-- i think i found the solution and deleted two of them! Secondly: the actually text I submitted is written by me and the author of the original articles about personal initiative. It is kind of difficult to find broader sources because until now he and a few other researchers at his department (most co-authors) are the only researchers in this field. That's why the submission is quiet close to the original articles. How could we solve this problem?

Thank you un advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by GiannaHenkel (talk • contribs) 01:07, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Lack of credible pages for citing

Hello everyone! I'm excited to begin creating articles on Wikipedia. I'm having a bit of trouble getting approval on my first article. Do we need to cite any works by an author? While I was able to cite 2 of the book titles, I'm having trouble with the 3rd. If there's no credible site to reference, is it best to just leave the book title off entirely in order to meet the Wikipedia requirements?

Also, if we include information in the "career" section, does it need to have a reference cite-source as well? There's certain information that I only see available on the writer's personal page, but I was informed that we can't use someone's personal page. (Side note: I also see that the writer has multiple other interviews and mentions through various pages, but I don't believe any would qualify as being allowed since they aren't as notable as something such as The New York Times, etc.) With that being said, I do see other 'live' pages using a notable person's personal page as a reference. Is there an exception for some but not others? And, how should I go around that?

I'm really looking forward to getting the hang of article creation and would be grateful for any input. Thank you for your time reading this! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Animegearlab (talk • contribs) 08:05, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

What is needed to demonstrate notability is coverage in multiple published reliable sources independent of the subject, so neither books by the subject nor interviews with her are suitable for this purpose. Primary sources can be used for some purposes, but not to demonstrate notability. You may find existing articles without sufficient secondary sources if the article hasn't been carefully scrutinised, but "other stuff exists" is not a valid argument for including further inadequately-sourced articles. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:14, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, @Animegearlab:. As a non-native English speaker I am not quite sure I fully understand your problem, but as far as I do you hesitate to reference some off-line sources, not published in Internet. Is that right?

If so, please refer to WP:SOURCEACCESS in the Verifiability policy, which explicitly says sources do not need be easily accessible. You can find more explanation at Wikipedia:Offline sources. Best regards, and good luck in editing! :) CiaPan (talk) 08:42, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Vis-a-vis Draft:Aya Knight I am confirming what DB wrote. Listing books by the person who is the subject of the proposed article does not contribute to establishing notability. Ditto citing published interviews. What you need is independent writing ABOUT the person. Can be website or print. David notMD (talk) 11:05, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone! The feedback was really helpful. I'm hoping to create a series of articles revolving around notable novel writers and anime series that aren't yet included in the encyclopedia. It's taking me a bit longer than I expected to adjust to the requirements, formatting, and general navigation as a content creator - but, I'm confident that I'll get the hang of it soon. I appreciate everyone's time in providing feedback! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Animegearlab (talk • contribs) 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Article review on Talk Page

I have been requested to update an article on an Agribusiness company which is quite extensive. I would like to publish my update in comparative form to the existing article on its Talk Page. I have the updated article in my sandbox [1]. What is the best way to publish it on the Talk page? Gibmul (talk) 12:27, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Creating a new version of an article is rarely a good idea, you are welcome to make suggestions on the talk page, but beware the article is already plagued with conflict of interest paid edits, so I am not going to encourage you. Theroadislong (talk) 14:08, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

What I am trying to achieve is this type of comparitive example for the Talk Page so that editors can decide which edits they would accept https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=742003912 Gibmul (talk) 16:15, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I see that you have properly declared PAID on your User page and the Talk page of the article. My suggestion is to start a new section on the Talk page of the article and for a section of the article, paste in the existing text and your proposed revision. Maybe start with History. Then, up to other editors to implement or not. Repeat. This will be a slow process, as there is not a lot of traffic to the article in question. David notMD (talk) 16:25, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance.Gibmul (talk) 15:43, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

How to create an article?

I want to create an article about the video game Wrestling Revolution 3D. Can you please tell me how to do it?Cedric Grazer (talk) 13:24, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Cedric Grazer, Greetings. Pls read WP:Your First Article and referencing for beginners to familiar yourself on how to create an article and info on inline citation. You could create article via WP:AFC wizard [HERE. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:37, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

@Cedric Grazer: (ec) Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I would caution you that successfully creating a new article is probably the hardest thing to do on Wikipedia. It takes much time and practice. New users who dive right in to creating articles often end up disappointed and with hurt feelings as their work is mercilessly edited and even deleted. I don't want that to happen to you. New users are much more successful when they take the time to first learn about Wikipedia and what is expected of new articles and contributions in general. They also take time to first make small edits to existing articles, to get a feel for the process. I would strongly advise you to use the new user tutorial(click that link) and take some time to first edit existing articles that interest you.

When you feel ready, or if you still want to dive right in to creating articles, you should read Your First Article to learn what is expected. This includes gathering at least three independent reliable sources that discuss the subject you want to write about in depth. This excludes things like press releases or anything associated with the subject directly. You can then visit Articles for Creation to create and submit a draft for review by another editor, who will give you feedback before the draft is formally placed in the encyclopedia, instead of afterwards when it will be treated more critically. 331dot (talk) 13:40, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Editing my page

I am trying to remove my birthdate from my page. I have done necessary edits, but it does not remove it. Please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviatorgypsy (talk • contribs) 13:59, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

@Aviatorgypsy: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I would note that the page is an article about you and not "your page". Your edits are being reverted because you appear to other editors be just a random person removing information from the article. You will need to confirm your identity with Wikipedia by emailing the address at the end of the paragraph clicking this link brings you to. You can then make an edit request on the article's talk page, as autobiographical edits are discouraged. While it can be removed, it will be difficult to keep out of the article if your birthdate is published in reliable sources. If it is not widely available in reliable sources, it will be easier to keep out(and should be, as all information in articles needs to be sourced) 331dot (talk) 14:05, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

My First article got rejected

Hi,

I was creating my first article and it got rejected. Please suggest what should i do to make that article public? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kidscampusnoida (talk • contribs) 14:10, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

@Kidscampusnoida: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I am sorry, but I had to delete your draft, as it was not appropriate for an encyclopedia article. Encyclopedia articles cannot be promotional and their content must be supported with independent reliable sources that offer significant coverage of the subject. You also are associated with the school and as such you have a conflict of interest and must declare as a paid editor; please click those links to review those policies. You must also immediately request a change in username using one of the two methods at WP:CHU as usernames cannot be that of an organization. As you have a conflict of interest, you should not directly edit in its area. 331dot (talk) 14:15, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I have posted some information on your user talk page about how you can request a new username. 331dot (talk) 14:16, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

How To Become A Volunteer / Admin

Does anyone know how to become a volunteer for the wikipedia, besically work for them :)

Jeriqui123 (talk) 14:11, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jeriqui123 and welcome to the Teahouse! We are all volunteers here, so if you want to help out, just start improving or expanding articles you are interested in. Admins are just a group with some special tools to make it easier for us do necessary cleanup but they are only granted to editors who have been active for more than a year with several thousand edits, so I suggest you try editing first. And if you need any help, check the guide at Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia or feel free to ask here. Regards SoWhy 14:17, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

@Jeriqui123: (ec) Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. All you need to do to become a volunteer here is visit and be willing to participate, which you seem to have done. I would suggest that you take the new user tutorial to learn about how Wikipedia works and how you can participate. Becoming an administrator almost always takes years, as you build up an edit history and reputation that shows the community that you understand Wikipedia policies and processes. You don't need to be an administrator to do 95% of what needs to be done on Wikipedia, so I wouldn't worry about it. 331dot (talk) 14:19, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hello, Jeriqui123. This looks like a pile-on welcome for you! It's great to have you here at the Teahouse. Welcome. As has been said, anyone who edits anything on Wikipedia is a volunteer, as none of us get paid for what we contribute. Wikipedia is a freely available, open-to-anyone-to-edit sort of amazing encyclopaedia of notable stuff. So each of us contributes to the things that interest us. And you can do the same, too. The best way is to take our tour, called The Wikipedia Adventure which lets you gain up to 15 badges on your userpage as you learn the basics of how everything works. Being an 'Administrator' is a responsible position which any editor can become, subject to the rest of the community here approving them. It usually takes a few years and a lot of editing experience to gain sufficient broad knowledge to take on that role. But, once again, they're unpaid volunteers too! And all that volunteer effort has created what you see today - over 5 million articles on the English Wikipedia alone, and a resource that everyone from junior children to research scientists utilise. I have left you a welcome message on your talk page, full of a load of links and stuff to help you become a great editor. As you appear to be a young user, take care not to reveal any personal information about yourself that you might later wish you hadn't. We care very much for the safety of new, young editors, so feel free to take a look at Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors. Remember that we judge people (if that's the right word to use) not by their age, their gender or other stuff - but simply by the quality of what they contribute, and how they go about dealing with other editors. Good luck at the start of your very own Wikipedia adventure! Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:34, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Ideas

How to get ideas of editing? If I want to make small edits like spelling mistakes, how can I find those? Drunkguyash (talk) 15:06, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Welcome, User:Drunkguyash! Check out the Typo Team pages to find lists of misspellings you can help us correct. Schazjmd (talk) 15:09, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

@Drunkguyash: Can I ask, what are your hobbies and interests? One easy way to find things to improve here is simply to read articles about your favourite subjects. You might then follow links from that page to other ones (call it Wiki-surfing, if you will), or click the categories at the very bottom to find related articles. Along the way you're bound to stumble across spelling, punctuation and other things that cry out for some editor love and attention. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 18:07, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Trying to add article for deletion

And I'm failing miserably. Using manual method. See today's list. Thanks. Aurornisxui (talk) 17:00, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Your afd3 template submission failed because you had nowiki tags and other formatting. I've fixed it, as you'll see in this edit. The easiest way of doing the 3 steps is to use Twinkle. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:09, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much!! I will try Twinkle next time. Aurornisxui (talk) 17:13, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Simple question but hard to answer it

How can I change a name of an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. James Dimsey (talk • contribs) 19:20, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

You move it to a new title. See Help:How to move a page. --Jayron32 19:26, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Bradley Steyn

Hello Teahouse, My rugby mate, Bradley Steyn has had an incredibly unique life experience that he is making a good faith effort to leverage into social change concerning violence in South Africa. His story has been covered by multiple news outlets and he is releasing a memoir, published by Jacarta, along with a corresponding documentary, potentially funded by Kevin Kostner. Please review the stub article that I have created for "Bradley Steyn" and help me understand how to present this information in a way that upholds the wiki's standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esreekay (talk • contribs) 20:34, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

@Esreekay: The article looks dangerously vulnerable to being deleted as an A7. You may wish to add an introductory section. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 22:23, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

@Esreekay: I do tend to agree with A lad insane. I saw it half an hour or so ago at New Page Patrol, but decided to leave it a while as it had already been tagged regarding notability. There are lots of amazing people in the world (you and me included!), but for someone to merit a Wikipedia page, we need to see a number of articles that have written about them in quite some depth. (See WP:NBIO for details). I do think you will need more than what you've currently found about a witness to a massacre that, itself, doesn't yet have a Wikipedia page about it. The Pressreader article from Pretoria News seems moderately strong. Can you find any more like that to include? Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:59, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

@Esreekay: In addition to what the others have posted above, you're also going to have to verify the copyright ownership of the image you're using in the main infobox. Generally, it is the person taking a photo, not the person being photographed, who is considered the copyright owner of said photo; so, I don't think you can claim that photo (technically those photos) as being authored by Steyn himself unless he can show that copyright was officially transfered to him. Moreover, you uploaded the image as a single file, but it actually looks like a montage of three different images. The montage itself might be considered a derivative work eligible for its own copyright, but the copyrights of the individual photos themselves also need to be considered. Commons will not be able to keep the file unless you can estalish that the person or persons who took each of these photos have given their explicit consent for his/her/their work to be uploaded to Commons under the license you chose when uploading the file. If obtaining this position seems too much of a hassle or unlikely to be granted even if you do ask, then my suggestion to you would be to tag the Commons file for deletion using c:Template:SD and request deletion per c:COM:CSD#G7. You can then (if you want) take your own photo of Steyn and upload that to Commons under a free license of your choosing.

Finally, you should also not really be creating any new articles or adding content to existing articles about Steyn if he's one of your friends because you would be considered to have a conflict of interest with respect to him for Wikipedia purposes. Please see WP:COISELF for more details. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:45, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Koreans in Uzbekistan. What should I do ? How to deal with the statistics of dictatorial regimes that can be distorted?

I have a problem. There are official statistics of the Republic of Uzbekistan. However, it is clearly distorted. It does not reflect the mass exodus of Koreans from this republic between the years 2001-2016.

So from Uzbekistan 52 thousand Koreans returned to South Korea. However, in the state statistics of Uzbekistan this outcome is not recorded. The same statistics do not reflect the religious discrimination of Koreans in Uzbekistan - they are Christians of different denominations, and Uzbekistan is an Islamic country with a dictatorial regime.

The estimated real value of Koreans in Uzbekistan is 78 thousand. But official statistics show almost 100 thousand more.

What should I do ? How to deal with the statistics of dictatorial regimes that can be distorted?Hatchiko (talk) 23:39, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Hatchiko. Do you have published reliable sources for the correct statistics? If so use that —teb728 t c 02:17, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

I see you have raised this issue at Talk:Koryo-saram#Figures_for_Uzbekistan, where you will probably get answers from more knowledgeable editors. Maybe wait until you get a reply there? Also, you should maybe make clearer that the issue is with the infobox number, not with any content of the article text. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 13:38, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

I should say, that there should almost never be information in an infobox which is not already discussed and explained in the article itself. The infobox is a summary of the article text, and anything listed there should be in the main body of the article where it can be given context and expanded upon sufficiently. Infoboxes are not good places to do that, and especially where information is disputable or needs clarification. It may be in the infobox, but it should always be in the text before one puts it there. --Jayron32 19:03, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello?

Hello this is ToodyFoot what is his — Preceding unsigned comment added by ToodyDoot (talk • contribs) 01:44, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Teahouse is a place to ask questions about how to be a Wikipedia editor. David notMD (talk) 02:15, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Possible future admin nomination

How long does it usually take for someone to get admin nominated? I previously was nominated (but failed) on Wikivoyage. I know I have a checkered past on both sites, so if you tell me how long I should wait to apply, make it about double the normal time. Libertarianmoderate (talk) 01:47, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

This Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Libertarianmoderate/Archive suggests you had/have sockpuppets, at least at Wikivoyage. You were also blocked, then unblocked in December (description you deleted from your Talk page). Highly unlikely you will ever make Admin. David notMD (talk) 02:42, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

I suggest that you spend the next three years (at least) making only constructive edits, and no silly comments. Also avoid creating or using any sockpuppet accounts, and show that you have a thorough understanding of Wikipedia policies, then you might consider applying, and some editors might vote for you. I've been editing for more than ten years, and do not yet feel that I have a thorough enough understanding of some policies to apply for adminship. Dbfirs 09:06, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Edits like this [2] would suggest that you are not serious about editing here let alone gaining admin rights. Theroadislong (talk) 10:18, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Theroadislong - I think that editors like the one in question are always serious about wanting admin privileges, even if they are not serious about collaborative editing. That is why we need to be careful about them. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:07, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

How to make a meetup page

Hello! I co-organised an editathon last year and someone helpfully setup a meetup page for the event. I cannot find how to make a new meetup page for the new event, could anyone help me locate that info? I made a draft and tried to move it, which I thought would work, but there is no "meetup" space to move it to that I can see. Help! /Louise000 (talk)/ —Preceding undated comment added 03:41, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Louise000. I believe the namespace used for "Meet up" pages in the "Wikipedia" namespace. As for how to create the page, maybe you can find that information in Wikipedia:Meetup. You could also try looking at some of the pages in Category:Wikipedia meetups and see if there's one whose formatting you like; you can then probably just format the one you want to create the same way. My only other advice to you is to not add any non-free images to the page since doing so is not allowed per Wikipedia non-free content use criterion #9; so, if you want to use images, you should probably stick to using those already uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:20, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi User:Marchjuly. Thank you, with your help I was able to figure it out. The info I needed was that yes it is indeed the "Wikipedia" namespace as you suggested and that it can be located into the meetup subfolder by just adding "Meetup/" before the page title, which is straight forward but not completely obvious. Glad it worked!!

/Louise000 (talk)/ —Preceding undated comment added 05:03, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Searching for a template

This template says something along the line of "This article only deals with TOPIC as it is in the United States. Expand it with international uses of TOPIC." I know it exists because I've seen it in the past year, but no idea where. I spent quite a while trying to find it in templates by category, such as Category:Hatnote templates, and learned many very interesting things about templates, but didn't find it. And I can't devise a search for it. The article I want to put it on is Game show. Thanks. deisenbe (talk) 05:50, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Sounds like {{Globalize/US}}, one of a family derived from {{Globalize}}. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:18, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Including an Image to an Article

Hi folks! I hope everyone is having an excellent day. Being new to Wikipedia, I'm still having a bit of trouble dissecting instruction on how to handle certain formatting. On an article, does Wikipedia automatically generate the 'right side info box' images? Or, is this something I should manually include when creating an article? If this is something I should be doing, can anyone please instruct me as to how to format the infobox?

I do see the 'media' button at the top, but I wasn't sure if that simply embeds the .jpg into the article itself, versus the right infobox.

Thank you for your time!

-Mason, Animegearlab — Preceding unsigned comment added by Animegearlab (talk • contribs) 07:03, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Please read Template:Infobox book which should show you how to implement infoboxes. The image location like [[File:Example]] goes in the image = line

You may also find WP:YFA a helpful guide as writing articles can be hard. RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 07:25, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much. This is exactly what I was looking for. You've helped me a lot and I appreciate your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Animegearlab (talk • contribs) 08:05, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Preventing vandalism.

Hi. In the ideal world, Wikipedia would be vandalism-free from when it started until the end of time. However, I'm pretty sure there's lots of vandalism in reality despite the best efforts of users and bots, all of which was probably committed by at least 100s if not 1000s of users. Why not create more bots to fight it (duplicating existing ones or ones made from scratch) or even being able to create an account that is meant just for this purpose?211.27.115.246 (talk) 07:35, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

It is sometimes difficult for humans to distinguish vandalism from genuine edits, so bots certainly cannot operate with 100% accuracy, despite advances in artificial intelligence. The existing anti-vandalism bots (such as User:ClueBot NG) are often quick in reverting edits that are obviously vandalism, but Wikipedia relies on ordinary editors such as yourself to research the dubious edits and revert the ones that the bots miss. Why not WP:Create an account? Dbfirs 08:57, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Beyond the bots that revert what appears to be vandalism, there is also mw:ORES which highlights potentially problematical edits for review by those editors who choose to use the "Revision scoring on Watchlist" option at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-watchlist. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:11, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

• From Why not create more bots to fight it (duplicating existing ones or ones made from scratch), I infer that you assume every bot can do a limited amount of work. If so, you are mistaken: bots are automated processes that can precisely do lots of work quickly, unlike humans; they do not tire and do not have edit limitations. (And, as described above, unlike humans, bots can only do the really basic stuff.) Sorry if that was obvious to you, but I have seen people get confused with much simpler computer stuff. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:57, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

• Bots can run 24 hours a day 7 days a week, so once one is designed there is no reason to have another of the same design. The limitation is on the design. If someone can come up with a new test for vandalism that both detects a lot of vandalism and also doesn't lose us good edits then I'm sure we can get a bot writer to write a bot for it. For example we know that any edit that changes a school from being public to pubic is vandalism, and that edit including everything else done by that edit, the unusual name for the principal, the new school motto and the pink and sparkly colours for the football team can be reverted. The challenge is in finding such tests which can be coded into a computer rather than relying on humans to decide if an edit is vandalism or not. ϢereSpielChequers 16:32, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

No cite button

Hi, I edit using visual editing on my iPad, and recently the cite button keeps disappearing, so there is no way to cite a source except for using source editing. The text & link features still appear at the top, but not the source button. Is this something I’ve done, or have Wiki removed the feature? Or a bug?

Thanks. – Joesimnett (talk) 10:50, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Joesimnett, welcome to the Teahouse. I'm not experiencing any issue seeing the 'Cite' button using Visual Editor on my old iPhone5S, still using iOs10. Despite always receving a wiki-alert that my browser (Safari) is not officially supported, the cite button is certainly there. To test it I went to both the Ketchup and Visual perception articles in desktop view and clicked the top 'Edit' tab. Sure enough, there was the Cite button and its two big quote marks in both pages. It functioned OK. Had I wished to I could certainly have cited sauces sources, or even cited sight sources. Maybe others can suggest a reason you're not seeing it. I should probably crawl away now... regards Nick Moyes (talk) 12:14, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Why the refusing editor doesn't wait a moment to see if some growing is happening.

Why the refusing editor doesn't wait a moment to see if the following ist happening. " A Wikipedia entry is a good idea. Would you maybe like to start it and let others improve it? No Wikipedia page needs to start off polished. Once it's there it's easier for people to add drive-by improvements." I was very disapointed because the invention of Melinda ist really a break through. I'm sure thet the refusing editor doesn't understand the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.3.92.161 (talk) 11:20, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi anonymous editor, and welcome to the Teahouse. The above is the only edit from your IP address, so we don't know what article you are talking about. In general, it's a good idea to start an article in your sandbox, at least until you have found WP:Reliable sources to establish WP:Notability. Once notability is established, the article should be safe from deletion unless there are copyright or libel issues, and it is then available for other editors to improve. Dbfirs 11:52, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm Confused...

DAWNSEEKER2000 left me the following message:

"Hello, I have noticed that you have been using Wikipedia as a source, but the encyclopedia is not considered reliable. Please discontinue. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to ask." Thanks, Dawnseeker2000 17:15, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Dawnseeker2000 18:04, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Help me to understand because I'm under the impression I am under evaluation for the possibility of having my account terminated. Am I wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smittypots (talk • contribs) 12:56, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Smittypots, All that is being asked of you at this point is to not use Wikipedia articles as references in other Wikipedia articles. This looks like it has been going on for a while. You need to find sources that are not associated with Wikipedia to support the information in Wikipedia articles. You should go to WP:ANI#User Smittypots and explain you understand that Wikipedia articles can not be used as references and that you will not do that any more. ~ GB fan 13:05, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Smittypots: To elaborate on the above: you should never cite Wikipedia articles as references because Wikipedia is not a reliable source. If you found claim X in article A and want to reuse it in article B, either article A cites an acceptable reference which you can then re-cite in article B, or it does not, and then you should look for an external reference to use (if there is none, you should remove the claim from article A). You may use wikilinks instead though.

I doubt you are at any serious risk of blocking ("account termination") (based on your current actions at least). I think Dawnseeker2000 (ping) overreacted big time in taking you to ANI (which should be reserved for serious and/or long-lasting conduct problems), and made a fairly poor job of communicating what the problem was to you. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 13:13, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Why not give a chance?

Hello everyone, I find a friendly atmosphere here at Teahouse so I am encouraged to join.I created an article "Draft:Alliance School Kermanshah" a few days ago and I put "in use" at the beginning. It was put in draft just as i clicked the first publish button.The person did not give me a second to continue. I wish to know what the problem is and what I can do. thank You Alex-h (talk) 14:45, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Alex-h. As the message on your user talk page said, the article was moved to draft space to give you an opportunity to prepare it for article space. When you believe it is ready for article space, you can click the "Submit your draft for review" button, and if the reviewer accepts it, they will move it to article space. —teb728 t c 15:51, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Let me add Alex-h, that the purpose of the {{in use}} tag is not as an excuse for entering an unreferenced page in article space (if that is what you are thinking) but rather to alert other editors to avoid edit conflicts by not editing the page concurrently. —teb728 t c 16:18, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Alex-h. I'm really sorry to hear your frustrations. You did almost everything right (apart from where you started from), and teb728 makes a good point about the template. Perhaps I can invite you to look at if from the other perspective? As soon as you put content into the mainspace part of Wikipedia, we all expect a minimum standard of quality, content and references. So despite the 'in use' template, there really wasn't enough there to start with, and so the best place to construct an article from scratch would have been in Draft or your personal sandbox. I must say, you did do the right think by very politely questioning Cabayi on their talk page. I'm sorry you didn't get the courtesy of a quick reply there, but hopefully our response here will satisfy you. So, as teb728 says, you are still absolutely free to continue working up the article as you were hoping to do. I believe criteria for school notability have got a bit stricter in recent times, so do read WP:NSCHOOLS and check that you are able to supply references that demonstrate notability is being met before you expend too much time and effort on a page which would stand no chance of making it.

But speaking personally, I would never risk creating a brand new article from scratch in the main part of Wikipedia. It's inevitable that they start out dire. I always work on pages in my sandbox to ensure they're at a reasonable standard before moving them into 'mainspace' (i.e. the proper encyclopedia part of Wikipedia). Sometimes I can take over a year to get one ready; other times I do it in an evening! Best wishes, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:29, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Can we as a company create a wikipedia page?

Hello,

We would like to edit page for our company. We have seen there are several conditions which have to be fulfilled. Who will control these points? We respond to one of them which is enough.

Thank you for your answer.

BR

Pat — Preceding unsigned comment added by Precipart2019 (talk • contribs)

Hi Pat. Welcome to Wikipedia. Goodness, where to start? I'm assuming you represent www.precipart.com? If so, have a read of this notability guideline on what criteria allows us to include an article on a company. Do you think you meet it? Can you supply three or more references to independent sources (books, magazines, journals, newspapers) which talk about Precipart in detail. If you think you can, go back from your mental list and remove all insider trade journals, blogs, syndicated press releases, company websites and so forth, and consider the question again.Then, because we strongly discourage users from writing about themselves, post only those links to Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies. Then, if a non-connected editor is motivated to write about your company, they may do so. But do not expect this to be a quick process. If it is deemed to be a genuinely notable company, someone will undoubtedly want to create a page about it. Should you then be motivated to edit that article, resist the temptation. Instead, read and follow our two policies on Paid editing and Declaring a conflict of interest. Follow those guidelines and if you then want to make changes, place an {{edit request}} on the talk page of that article.

A less urgent thing to tell you at this time, which is very easy for you to follow as you have only ever made one edit here, is to cease using the account and create and use another one which only one person (you) can ever use. We don't accept usernames that appear to have more than one editor accessing it, or promoting a company. So "PricipartPat" would be fine - just not the company name on its own, please. I'm sure I've missed something - maybe another host will add further advice. We all work as volunteers to maintain this encyclopaedia. It's important to appreciate we only include 'notable things' in it. It's not for WP:PROMOTION, so you will have to proceed with care. Does this help? Nick Moyes (talk) 15:20, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Fredrikson Stallard

Hello, I have passed my 100th edit on this article and think it is now ready for publishing. Would someone please help?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paradise lost 90 (talk • contribs) 15:00, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

As the template says, just be patient and it will receive a review soon. RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 15:12, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Goodness, Paradise lost 90. I'm sure you've made more than that! This was your first edit to Draft:Fredrikson Stallard, and only the fifth edit this account name had ever made. It added 22,350 bytes to the new page; not bad for a beginner. Are you sure you haven't edited here before? Nick Moyes (talk) 15:39, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Update: Conversation has somehow moved to my talk page at User_talk:Nick_Moyes#Question_from_Teahouse Nick Moyes (talk) 17:02, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Need mentor for a new user KenGohan

I am just here to ask for a mentor for this user. Apparently he is editing on this article. All I know about him, that he has lack of experience in adding citations or referencing sources. I have left two messages in his talk page regarding this issue. Other editors also informed him but it seems like he doesn't want to or can't understand. This request might have some grammatical issues since English is not my first language. Thanks
Sincerely,
Masum Reza(talk) 15:43, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Edit not saved

Hello. Trying desperately to add an item to the requested articles page: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Arts_and_entertainment/Literature#L I started getting an error, edit not saved when I tried to include links to amazon.com. Then I tried reference tags but messed the closing tag, and now I can’t even fix that because even if my item has no links, I still get the not saved error, possibly because of the other links in other items of the same section. Halp! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Authorlahey (talk • contribs) 16:10, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

I have corrected your referencing error. As the error message said, the closing tag should be </ref>; you had <\ref>, which isn't the same. I don't understand what you mean by the "not saved error"; at what stage are you seeing that? --David Biddulph (talk) 16:18, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Confused new user

I am working on creating my first Wikipedia page. I have created an account. When I first started to create a page, there was no SAVE button - only Publish. So, the content I have written exists - but I'm confused on a few items.

First - on business pages, there is a right column on the page where company info appears. How do I create that on a blank page?

Second - how do you insert photos into the text so that the text wraps around the photo?

Third - when the page is done, how do you submit it for review and comments and (hopefully) posting?

Thanks Ken Crowhurst — Preceding unsigned comment added by KJ010110 (talk • contribs) 16:15, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse KJ010110. The infobox on the right is created with a template like {{infobox company}} (click on that link for the parameters). See Help:Files for how to upload and use photos. When your draft is ready for review, you can add {{subst:submit}} to the top. —teb728 t c 16:38, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Looking at your userspace draft, KJ010110, I need to comment that Wikipedia is not for promotion: articles must be written from a neutral point of view. —teb728 t c 16:46, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, Ken. Many people confuse Wikipedia with a business directory, or advertising medium. I suggest you will find it helpful to replace "create a business page" in your mind with "write an encyclopaedia article about a business". Wikipedia has little interest in what you say or want to say about your business - all it is interested in is what people who have no connection with your business have already chosen to publish about it. --ColinFine (talk) 17:05, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

I've uploaded a Poster Image to Wiki Commons and it keeps getting kicked back saying that it is a possible copyright violation.

Hi Guys,

I've uploaded a Poster Image to Wiki Commons and it keeps getting kicked back saying that it is a possible copyright violation. Firstly, it is my work, secondly, it has been in the public domain for 20 years, please help! here is the link to the image https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Beyond_the_Pale_Release_Poster.jpg

And here is the link to the page where the Image currently resides https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beyond_the_Pale_(film)

Many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abbotstown (talk • contribs) 16:19, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Abbotstown, Thanks for your question. Your image might be protected by copyright laws. Please don't upload in Commons instead upload in Wikipedia using File Upload Wizard or other tools. Please follow the guidelines and instructions there. Thanks
Sincerely,
Masum Reza(talk) 16:28, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

 looking into it... RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 16:35, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

I can actually see it was uploaded to English Wikipedia as non-free media and was deleted as it wasn't being used on any pages which is required for this. You can see the relevant deletion criteria here. I'm going to ping the deleting admin as I'm unsure if there was any other issues and will leave a message regarding image policy on your talk page. (pinging @Explicit:) RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 16:35, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Abbotstown. The issue in Commons, you need to take up in Commons, not here; but I notice that there, you assert that is it PD, but give no evidence of that; and the IMDB source specifically claims copyright. Unfortunately, whether it is your own work or not is not relevant, unless you own the copyright.

If you successfully contest the deletion in Commons (presumably by adducing evidence of its PD status) then there will be no problem using it in Wikipedia. If you cannot do so, then in order to use it in Wikipedia, it must meet all the criteria in WP:NFCC.

(edit conflict) Distributing your own photograph of a copyright poster is illegal, so it would be wisest to delete the image from the article and from Commons, then reload a low-resolution version to Wikipedia and use it in the article under a WP:Fair use rationale. Dbfirs 17:23, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

(ec) Hello Abbotstown. On Commons you said the poster was in the public domain because "The image was released to all media as part of publicity for the film." The fact that it was released to the media does not mean that Maiden Voyage Pictures does not hold a copyright on it: it just means that the media are permitted to use it for publicity. Wikipedia and Commons require greater permission than that. See Masum Reza's advice above for how to use it as non-free content. —teb728 t c 17:44, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

New page creation

I am new to Wikipedia and whilst I've attempted to ensure that content is true and neutral, the page have been instantly deleted. I believe that the content is of interest especially given the move towards lightweighting within the automotive sector. The title regards the introduction of this new technology - not the promotion of a specific company or product. It would be helpful if those issuing speedy deletions could provide more assistance rather than placing threats on my admin ability or future edits.

Please help Graham M Jelfs (talk) 17:11, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Graham M Jelfs. Not being an admin, I can't see the deleted article. But your wording above sounds as if your purpose is to tell the world about something. That is precisely what we mean in Wikipedia by "promotion" - not all promotion is commercial. It might sound paradoxical, but Wikipedia is emphatically not for telling the world about things: it is only for summarising what the world has already been told about things: this is why we insist on subjects of articles being notable. --ColinFine (talk) 17:27, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Graham M Jelfs. I hear you when you say you attempted to be neutral, and yet the article was about as close to pure advertising in tone and content as I've ever seen. It was filled with what I would term corporate ad-speak – praising HFQ in glowing terms to convince the reader of its wonderful virtues ("The multiple benefits enabled by HFQ® Technology ... HFQ® Technology enables investment reduction... adopted across a vast range of applications and markets... involving major players across the global ecosystem to offer a compelling full-service proposition..." and so on. The fact that it sounded like a commercial follows from the fact that you copied and pasted much of the content from external sites authored by HFQ, where it's promoting itself. I've noted the copyright violations in the deleted page's log history. I will leave a message at your talk page about that issue.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:52, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

References

Guidance for publishing frequency.

Greetings,

I had a question regarding the frequency of publishes an editor should be performing on behalf of an article. For example, in my past five edits I made two changes within 1 subheading. One edit was regarding the current title of a board member. For a second edit, I listed a factual and relevant statement regarding board member going on leave of absence.

As a best practice, and aid to future editors, should the above actions be a single or double publish?

Thank you for your time. Vcpecon (talk) 17:48, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Entirely up to you, Vcpecon. It's a good idea not to do too many changes in one go, but if it's just a couple, you can do them in a single edit, or in two. --ColinFine (talk) 18:13, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Business page creation

Hi.

In response to a question I posted earlier today, I just received the following response:

"Looking at your userspace draft, KJ010110, I need to comment that Wikipedia is not for promotion: articles must be written from a neutral point of view. —teb728 t c 16:46, 29 January 2019 (UTC) Indeed, Ken. Many people confuse Wikipedia with a business directory, or advertising medium. I suggest you will find it helpful to replace "create a business page" in your mind with "write an encyclopaedia article about a business". Wikipedia has little interest in what you say or want to say about your business - all it is interested in is what people who have no connection with your business have already chosen to publish about it. --ColinFine (talk) 17:05, 29 January 2019 (UTC)"

I now fully understand the criteria that needs to be met for a page to be accepted.

However, I have a question for you. A competitor of ours is called OtterBox. They have a Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OtterBox

Is their page allowed due to the numerous references (i.e., listing in Forbes, article in Reuters, etc.)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KJ010110 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

@KJ010110: Welcome to the Teahouse. You have hit upon one of the fundamental rules of Wikipedia, that articles need significant coverage in reliable sources in order for there to be an article written about them. We even have a guideline for the notability of articles about businesses. Media sources like Forbes and Inc with a reputation for solid journalism are a great way to establish notability. I would also note about the OtterBox article that it is written from a neutral point of view that states facts rather than tries to tell a story or make value judgements, which can be difficult to do if you have a conflict of interest in regards to the company (and if you do, you must disclose this fact, see WP:PAID). There are several problems with your draft, as ColinFine pointed out in his decline notice, and it needs to be rewritten from scratch to comply with our guidelines. Right now it reads like an advertisement. Hope this helps, shoy (reactions) 18:43, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Lost sandbox file

Hello, I’m still a newbie. I tried to update an existing page and all of my updates were rejected for mostly good reasons. So, OK, I decided to create a new page that I could tweak and test before trying to replace the old wiki entry. I created a new file called User:Gretchencotter/sandbox. I have now entered data twice but every time I come back in order to add more data, the file no longer exists. My slow, tedious typing efforts have vanished. I don’t think my file is being actively deleted, I just don’t think it is being saved when I use the Publish button.

Any help would be appreciated. I am trying to recreate the biography of Liv8ng people for Shimon Gibson (at his request), but so far with zero success.

Thank you Gretchen Cotter User:Gretchencotter Gretchencotter (talk) 18:53, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Gretchencotter/sandbox appears never to have been created. If you typed something there, then you don't seem to have clicked on "Publish" to save it. You should not recreate an article with the intention of replacing an existing article, but instead make valid changes to the existing article. You have a WP:Conflict of interest, and possibly WP:Paid status, so you should suggest edits on the talk page of the article Talk:Shimon Gibson instead of trying to edit the article directly. I see that you have already used that page to ask about the photograph. Wikipedia has no interest in whether the subject of an article likes the page, and no permission of the subject is required, but if there are inaccuracies, then you need to find WP:Reliable sources that report the correct information, and post those on the talk page. If there are existing statements that are untrue and unreferenced, then please let us know so that we can remove them. Dbfirs 19:12, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

@Dbfirs: I thought the issue was that they pressed the button but it didn't save it. @Gretchencotter: what message were you shown after you clicked the button? -A lad insane (Channel 2) 19:26, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

If they did, then it didn't work. I occasionally click on the publish button and nothing happens, but I blame my ancient computer and slow internet for that. Dbfirs 20:02, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

@Gretchencotter: On the bottom left there's a blue button that says publish changes. You have to click it when you are done. Per above, if you have a conflict of interest, you can always ping me by leaving a comment on my talk page and I can review your changes and see if they are properly sourced and neutral. I also left you info on Dr. Gibson's talk page about uploading a new photo for the article. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:34, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia Biography Page

Hi I am Kelsey Murrell and I am new to wikipedia and I would like to get help with creating a biography page. How do I get started? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelzmurrell (talk • contribs) 20:57, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

@Kelzmurrell: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If you mean that you want to write about yourself, I think that you have misunderstood the purpose of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a place for people to tell the world about themselves. Autobiographical edits are strongly discouraged per the Autobiography policy written at WP:AUTO. Not every person merits an article here. If you meet Wikipedia notability guidelines and merit an article, you should allow others who take note of you in independent reliable sources to write it.

If you mean that you want to introduce yourself to the Wikipedia community in the context of your Wikipedia editing or use, you do have a userpage where you can do that, but it is not meant for you to give your entire biography; please see WP:USERPAGE for what is acceptable user page content.

If you mean something else, please clarify. 331dot (talk) 21:05, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

If your intentions are not to write about yourself, may I suggest that you spend a couple months editing existing biographies prior to creating a new one? Our criteria for new articles is called notability, and it is a rather difficult concept for new editors to master. There are literally dozens of ways to show notability and most are dependent on who you are writing about. Notability is not a factor in adding information to existing articles. John from Idegon (talk) 06:26, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I think the page Changtu, Liaoning should merge into Changtu County

There's only one place called Changtu, which is a county in Liaoning. Changtu County is the original entry; while Changtu, Liaoning is partly another entry that describes the same topic. I think Changtu, Liaoning should merge into Changtu County, but I don't know what to do.Honoka55 (talk) 23:59, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Here's info about how to start a merge Wikipedia:Merging#Proposing a merger. FWIW, I think you're right. Tieling is the prefecture-level city in the Liaoning province that includes Changtu County. I don't think there is a city named Changtu in Changtu County. The hard part will be sourcing this. I'd start a discussion on both talk pages per the merge instructions. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:23, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

@Honoka55: forgot to ping user. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:24, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Getting full Wikipedia on a mobile device

Is it possible to avoid the ".m." version, and get full Wikipedia on my mobile phone? The constraints of this "mobile version" are driving me crazy. The latest example is that I wanted to look at a page's edit history. That is so easy on the desktop that I figured "how hard can it be?" I can't find it anywhere on the mobile site. Worse still, when I select the option to use the desktop site it doesn't! The layout is slightly improved, but it still uses the ".m." site, with no history. Even when I manually edit the URL to remove the ".m." it automatically puts it back in to prevent me from being able to use the system. I have gone through the mobile editing instructions and I just can't find a way to force it to do the right thing - any pointers? Gronk Oz (talk) 02:33, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Here may be a solution.Tamanoeconomico (talk) 03:49, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

@Tamanoeconomico: thanks for that. Wow, that is so complicated for something that seems like it should be so simple. At least it makes me feel better about not finding a solution myself. Not knowing anything about Java, it makes me a bit nervous - is that process safe? Have you tried it out?--Gronk Oz (talk) 05:38, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

@Gronk Oz: For what it's worth, for me there's a link at the bottom of Wikipedia pages that says "request desktop version" or something very similar, and that works. I'd be more definite in the details but my cellphone's out of charge. (Iphone, using Chrome.)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:38, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

@Fuhghettaboutit: thanks, I tried that. It displays a somewhat improved layout, but it still forces constant changes over to the ".m." version of the site, with no option to see the article's history.--Gronk Oz (talk) 05:41, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

hmm, here's another technical article that makes no sense to me;-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)

For myself, I'm very glad we have plenty of folks that understand that stuff, so I don't have to. Here's what I do, Gronk Oz, and I edit almost exclusively on an android device.

Use your browser to navigate to Wikipedia (I use Chrome), whatever page you usually start at and sign in (I use my watchlist). Scroll to the bottom of the page and select desktop version. This is the important part....once you are on whatever page you like to start with, signed in (with the stay signed in box checked) and on the desktop version, use the three dots thingie on your browser and set a desktop shortcut. From then on, at least until you sign out or are signed out, the desktop version of that page will open from the shortcut, and any link you open from that will be desktop version. Works just fine for me. John from Idegon (talk) 06:18, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Works for me, too. I do most of my daytime editing on a small iphone in desktop view. Apart from the lack of the keyboard there is no difference. But then I do have the advantage of being able to dictate what I write, as I've done here. Regards Nick Moyes (talk) 08:14, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I do the vast majority of my editing on an Android smartphone, and I always use the fully functional desktop site on my phone. I ignore the mediocre mobile site and the apps, except for occasional testing. I have been recommending for years that the misleading term "desktop site" be abandoned, because it implies that you need a big expensive heavy computer to use it, and that is false. It works perfectly well on modern mobile devices and should have a better name. It should be the default for all users, in my opinion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:43, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Wow, I thought I was the only one - thanks for the moral support. I am trying to follow John from Idegon's directions on my Android (Samsung S9+) using Chrome, but I am experiencing technical difficulties - the mobile site is fighting against me all the way. First, there does not seem to be any way to get to my Watchlist (never mind, that would be nice but not vital). Then trying to log in, I enter my userid and password. There is no checkbox to "stay logged in". I press the Login button. But it pops up a window insisting that I choose whether to perform this action using the Wikipedia mobile app, or Samsung's internet browser (there is no option to continue using Chrome). I chose the latter. This takes me to a "Central user log in" screen, which displays the following error message in red: "No active login attempt is in progress for your session." I have no idea how to proceed from there... P.S. I was typing this message on my desktop while trying to get the mobile working, and the mobile crash described above also logged this desktop session off. I will have to copy what I wrote, log in, and paste it back here...--Gronk Oz (talk) 09:54, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I think it might be solved! The missing step was to force Android to use Chrome as its default browser, instead of Samsung Internet (Android Settings > Apps > 3 dots > Default Apps > Browser App > select Chrome). Then after rebooting the phone to clean everything out, I was able to follow John from Idegon's directions! Now, time will tell whether it keeps working - but since so many of you are able to do it then I'm sure it will be okay. Thanks, again, everybody! --Gronk Oz (talk) 10:20, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Glad you're sorted and you're certainly not alone. I agree with Cullen328 about the poor choice of wording for 'desktop view' - maybe 'full view' and 'mobile view' would be more helpful. Isn't it time we made noises to WMF to get it changed? (As a complete aside - but relevant to browser choice - anyone trying to edit pages using Puffin browser will get a rude shock when they suddenly discover they've been blocked. It panicked me at first, but relates to the browser using a proxy server to access Wikipedia, and that's not allowed as it enables untraceable vandalism.) Nick Moyes (talk) 10:50, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Art pop genre of music

Why isn't artists of this genre get enough airplay here on mainstream radio in SA but the other side of the world knows about them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ana jerie (talk • contribs) 04:39, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ana jerie. The Teahouse is generally a place for asking questions about Wikipedia, but it doesn't seem as if your question has anything to do with editing Wikipedia at all. You could try asking this at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment; however, if you really want to why radio stations in SA (maybe you mean San Antonio?) don't play the music of certain artists or certain types of music, you probably should try directly contacting the radio stations themselves and asking them. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:58, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry what I meant was why doesn't Wikipedia have audio samples of what an ARTPOP song sounds like just a 30sec sample sorry for the misunderstAnding A.jerie 10:28, 30 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ana jerie (talk • contribs)

Ana jerie I've transferred your post here from the Teahouse talk page(which is for discussing the operation of the Teahouse, this page). Please keep follow up questions here. Thanks 331dot (talk) 10:55, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Ana jerie. The article Art pop has three fair-use samples. Two of them are clearly precursors (The Beach Boys and the Beatles), but the caption to the sample of Kate Bush says "According to The Concordian, "Running Up That Hill" was part of the most distinctive and revolutionary works of 1980s art pop, containing "darting drum rhythms" and Bush's "dogged vocals". So it looks to me as if the answer is that it does have a sample. If you think it should have more, or more recent, the answer is "because nobody has put them there": anybody can do so. I suggest you identify a significant track, and post a request on Talk:Art pop. Remember that the criteria for fair-use on Wikipedia include "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding"; and also that "multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information", so it is possible that a new sample ought to replace one of those already there. (Actually, I'm wondering whether it is justified to have both the Beach Boys and the Beatles clips there. But I know nothing about the field). --ColinFine (talk) 14:05, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Help with a site thats up for deletion

Hi

The will gray wiki page as been flagged up for deletion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_Gray

I've been talking to one of your hosts and he wrote/suggested the below and to get in touch with yourself if there were any questions or help needed.

"Except, that is, for the rather select membership of the Inner Magic Circle. It's just possible that that might be deemed suitable under WP:ANYBIO. That could potentially be a clincher, so can you supply any evidence of this membership other than the Will Gray website? Newspaper articles etc?"

I have two PDF's one which is the letter from the president himself congratulating Will on being promoted to MIMC which is an outstanding accolade and one of the Magic Circle minutes where it is mentioned in the secretary's report.

Would they be best to be put on as citation links or just links. Should I link these myself while its under discussion or can these be linked by another host or author.

I did put a citation link to Will winning 3rd at The Magic Circle Close up Comp which is no easy task either.

I'm really hoping it doesn't come down to deletion but do understand why these things happen any further help would be great.--Vanishingrabbit (talk) 11:58, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid neither of those sources will do, Vanisgingrabbit. All information in Wikipedia articles must be available in a published source. It doesn't sound as if either of those is published (and uploading them would not change that, as well as probably being a copyright infringement). Sorry. --ColinFine (talk) 14:09, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Colin I'm not sure what to do then, I'm sure you're aware how private the magic circle is and doesn't allow anyone thats a non member to see their membership list or private section of their website. When you say published do you mean somewhere on the internet or in an article i.e. magazine or a photo of the actual certificate. --Vanishingrabbit (talk) 15:54, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

A source needs to be possible to verify. It need not be free, cheap, or easy to do so, but it needs to be possible. A private letter or private meeting minutes probably would not fall under that category unless it is published somewhere publicly available. 331dot (talk) 16:06, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Four of your sources make no mention of Gray, all sources MUST support the actual content they are placed after. Theroadislong (talk) 16:17, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you I see now thanks for the help, I've corrected three of them which now go to an independent news page which mentions Will winning the awards there next too. I have copyright to a photo of Will actually being presented his MIMC would this help verifying that if on the page.--Vanishingrabbit (talk) 17:58, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Missing links

Hello I was trying so many times to click on this previous page but couldn't get through was idoing something wrong — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ana jerie (talk • contribs) 12:12, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi. What page were you trying to go back to? This sounds like a browser problem though. Maybe you openend a page in a new tab or you didn't open anything before this page. TruthToBeSpoken (talk) 13:45, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Mercury

That's how life would feel like if there was no earth because there are so many planets but only earth can have life has one ever thought about how life would be like living in mercury just try and think about it if there's proof that mars can be our earth surely you can Believe that mercury is more than capable than being our third world everyday something changes but we as humans on earth don't realise it but as you think about it maybe the realisation that mercury can be a world where we can live without a shadow of possibility everything and anything isreally inevitable so think about it mercury as our third world maybe it is possible but not unthinkableA.jerie 12:42, 30 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ana jerie (talk • contribs)

Others planets were life is possible and may exists.. Maybe there's some planets that are way more advanced than we are. We don't know, and we can't be sure at this moment. Maybe life is just a computer simulation??? It's not possible to check if we do or don't live in one. Can we? TruthToBeSpoken (talk) 13:38, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

@Ana jerie: Please don't spam. It's NOT a forum. --CiaPan (talk) 13:40, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

@Ana jerie: What CiaPan means is that you are welcome to ask questions at the Teahouse about editing Wikipedia, but you may not post random thoughts, musings or personal observations either here or on any article talk page (which you have been doing rather a lot of!) This must stop right now as you are, unfortunately, now dangerously close to being blocked from editing for repeatedly leaving such trivial comments. Just try and appreciate that we are all here for the serious task of building an amazing encyclopaedia about notable subjects. None of us are interested in what any individual person happens to think. So you really must not leave comments like these ever again. Best wishes and good luck with your Wikipedia journey. If you have any questions about how to edit, feel free to ask them here. Did you manage to access the Wikipedia Adventure in the end? Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:06, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Editing page contact and adding references

Hello all,

I have never worked in Wikipedia before, I am trying to make content changes to some existing pages and I need to add references for the content. I have been typing the new content in sandbox, do I post the content first and then add the references? Thank you in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sullivanlab (talk • contribs) 14:28, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, welcome to Wikipedia. It's probably best to cite your sources while writing the text, instead of doing it after you published the text. If you publish a article without citations to the main article space (not your sandbox) it's very likely to be deleted within a couple of hours, see WP:NRSNVNA. If you want to know how to cite a source see this tutorial: Wikipedia:Tutorial/Citing sources. If you have any further questions feel free to ask. Kind regards, TruthToBeSpoken (talk) 15:03, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

PS. Please sign your posts with four ~~~~ next time.

@Sullivanlab: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Your edit history indicates that edits have been made from your account since December 19, but you say that you haven't worked here before. Please clarify. I would also note that if "Sullivan lab" is an organization, you will need to change your username(instructions on how to do that are at WP:CHU). 331dot (talk) 15:05, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your replies. As requested, to clarify I am new to wikipedia entries and every attempted edit has been rejected since December. Regarding adding the references, thank you for your advice-after I have edited the existing text how do I add the references? Do I simply number them and type them under the edited text? I am working on a small section of an existing page where other authors have contributed their content and their own references exist on that page. I do not want to mess up their references. Thank you wikiaccountssa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiaccountsa (talk • contribs) 15:32, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Please read this tutorial on how to add references (see the part about the refbar it's the easiest way). Wikipedia:Tutorial/Citing sources. Kind regards, TruthToBeSpoken (talk) 15:38, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm confused! Is Sullivanlab the same person as Wikiaccountsa? Neither username sounds like that of an individual, though it might be? Dbfirs 16:24, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

It appears that you started in December adding content to articles (under one name) - all reverted because you did not provide references. Then, you deleted large sections of two articles without providing reason - also reverted. Now, you are attempting to create a new article as a draft (Causes of ADHD) when that topic is well-covered in the ADHD article. The name change is OK as long as you stick with the new name and never use the old name. David notMD (talk) 16:34, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

If you want to work on a section of an article, one way is to copy to your sandbox, work there, then replace what is in the article with your revised content. That is different from creating a draft. Whether you are editing in place or sandbox and back, if you are using the proper procedure for references, yours are inserted into the list of references, and all references following are automatically renumbered. David notMD (talk) 16:37, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Could you update the number of Oscar nominated movies for Film of th e Year, since you have teh new ones at teh bottom of the page

The new number of Oscar nominated movies is eight more than the total (546) you have on your site. The number is now 554 movies have been nominated for movie of the year, and the new winner (the 91st) will be announced on Feb 24. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:3003:36DD:8000:0:0:0:44E9 (talk) 15:50, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Edit Revert

Hello,

My name's Ajani and I recently made some updates to Photographer Chris Buck's Wikipedia page as some of the information on it is outdated or grammatically incorrect. The changes I made were reverted twice. I'd love to know why this may be as thy were minor changes. Perhaps it interrupted with the Wikipdia guidelines? If so, I'd like to know exactly how and work towards updating those changes. 

If I can hear back as soon as possible, that would be fantastic.

Cheers, Ajani

Hi Ajani Take a look at the edit history for that topic. The editors who reverted your changes explained the reversions in their edit summaries. Both of them suggested you use the Talk page to discuss the major deletions that you want to make. Get consensus on the Talk page for your changes, and then you can make the edits without being reverted. (Edited to add:) Also, a "minor" change is fixing a typo or punctuation; your changes were not minor.Schazjmd (talk) 16:55, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As User:Darren-M has told you, you are removing sourced edits and editing against the WP:MOS. I'm trying to get in touch with him to see if he can explain better. RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 16:56, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Adding photographic content

I've used Wikipedia for years, but have only recently created a login so that I can contribute. My primary interest is adding photographic content where it is needed. How do I discover articles that would benefit from photos? Thanks, -Ilgamoot — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilgamoot (talk • contribs) 17:33, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

@Ilgamoot: Category:Wikipedia requested images should be helpful. RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 17:42, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Great. Thanks for the pointer. That's quite a list. I noticed that there are "wikiprojects" that might help me filter or constrain the list a bit by my location. Unfortunately, when I searched for "San Francisco Photography" etc within the projects, I didn't find anything relevant. Can you suggest a better way to find a group working on photos in the SF Bay Area, US? --Ilgamoot (talk) 18:36, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Ilgamoot, there is Wikipedia:WikiProject_California/San_Francisco_Bay_Area_task_force but it is a bit dormant. You could try the parent California wiki project, or go to commons:Category:San_Francisco_Bay_Area and see what is missing. WelpThatWorked (talk) 18:43, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Ilgamoot, just found this, Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in the San Francisco Bay Area to see requested photos for the bay area WelpThatWorked (talk) 18:45, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Update Biography Photo

I would like to replace the biography photo of my wife Deborah Chase Hopkins with a more current photo. How do I do that? THANKS! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hopflys (talk • contribs) 17:58, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Hopflys, You should read the WP:COI policy first then use {{request edit}} on the article talk page. RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 18:13, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Also, Hopflys, you need to be aware of copright issues. Wikipedia requires that most pictures be licensed in a way that anybody can reuse them for any purpose. If you, or your wife, or somebody associated with you has (i.e. holds the copyright of) a suitable picture, and is willing to release it, it would be most welcome. They should go to the Upload wizard, and upload the picture to Wikimedia commons; then it can be used in an article. See donating copyright materials. --ColinFine (talk) 18:19, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello Hopflys, if you take a photo of yourself, you could release it under an appropriate license. Usually professional photographers do not release their photos under a license acceptable to Wikipedia. —teb728 t c 19:37, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Who has access to make needed updates to a page?

The Eldorado, Texas page needs to be edited. Who can do that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.97.83.34 (talk) 17:59, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for wanting to make it better. Link: Eldorado,_Texas. Anyone may edit that article, including you. You can Be Bold or discuss the issue on the article's talk page. Any changes you make must be supported by citations to reliable sources. You might want to start with WP:TUTORIAL. RudolfRed (talk) 18:03, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

William Sherrill

Can an admin please tell me what was here? I don't like to overwrite things. I assume it may be about a non-notable person with this name in the contemporary film industry or possibly the Minister from North Carolina? Thanks. I am about to redirect to William L. Sherrill FloridaArmy (talk) 21:24, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

It was a biography about someone nonnotable from the 18th century. Based on the text I think you are safe to create the redirect. 331dot (talk) 21:32, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Port of Key West Essay to Encyclopedic style

Hello. I am wondering what needs to be changed about Port of Key West. I know thee is something wrong with Port of Key West but I do not know what it is. Whether I am told or a more experience editor fixes the problem, the problem is fixed. Please fix this. And notify me (or perhaps not the latter!) Also, a rating on the Importance Scale may be helpful. (Mr. Holup (talk) 22:28, 30 January 2019 (UTC))

Edit summaries, and minor edits

How important are summaries? Should I always write one as a rule?

Also, what exactly constitutes a minor edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nelson21101805 (talk • contribs) 23:50, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Nelson21101805 Welcome to Teahouse. It is a good practice to leave a edit summary to briefly inform (a way of communication) other editor of the nature of your edit as Wikipedia is a collaborating work among many editors. An minor edit is defined the edit is superficial differences exist between the current and previous versions such as bold a word. However, it is always encouraged to provide edit summary even if it is a minor edit. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 00:35, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

stopping inappropriate content

Could someone tell what to do when incited content and bad links get reverted over and over again?Stevenvieczorek (talk) 00:59, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Stevenvieczorek Welcome to Teahouse. I believe you were referring to Bluestone by an IP editor. You would give warnings to the editor (disruptive) using Wikipedia:Twinkle. The IP editor has received their last warning - see Here and if they continue to edit the same fashion as before you could report them to WP:AIV. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 01:22, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

What's the best way to work with users who repeatedly remove verifiable content?

Last year, I edited the 88rising page. Since then, various users have removed a verifiable fact (Jaeson Ma is a founder) in a repeated (multiple times) and focused (often, the only edit was to remove Jaeson's name from the wiki) manner.

Several times, the edits not only removed mentions of Jaeson from the page but also removed the verifiable sources. In addition, editors were anonymous, and their edit history is only removing Jaeson's name from the 88rising page.

I've reached out to users as appropriate citing the sources and have resolved misunderstandings with some of them, but I'm at a loss for how to work with anonymous users who remove this verifiable information in a manner that blatantly disregards Wikipedia's principles.

I am escalating this to the Volunteer Response Team (OTRS) but was curious if anyone has any experience with this. If so, what would you suggest doing?

Thank you!