Wikipedia:Teahouse

Welcome to the Teahouse...                        

A friendly place to learn about editing Wikipedia.

Click here to
ask a question

Stormy clouds, 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:-) Nayaki75 (talk)

Thank you all for your open words. In this case of a new proposed entry, I think we should act like a newspaper’s team: First decide if that subject is worth bringing, “let’s feature this subject or not”, using mainly common sense (or Google frequency, or …), then have someone (the initiator typically) write a base entry, even if it’s not perfect, and then positively and productively edit it to perfection. This way we’d all stay motivated. For the time being I added “An electropneumatic gadget for autostimulation” to the Womanizer disambiguation page, without any further link. Let’s see, how long that stays there (and in the German Wikipedia. The Bavarian womanizer has no disambiguation, but mentions John F. Kennedy as example and illustrates perusal in the barn [Schtoi]) — Fritz Jörn (talk) 12:54, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Can too many unsuccessful speedy delete request result in an indefinite block?

Hyperius1255 (talk) 00:14, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

@Hyperius1255: If the behavior is disruptive, yes. RudolfRed (talk) 00:46, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Hyperius1255 - I agree with the above that any sort of disruptive editing can result in a block, even an indefinite one. That is a strange question, especially since it does not appear that you have made any speedy deletion requests. I would think, and I would like the view of an administrator, that how too many unsuccessful speedy deletion requests were dealt with would depend on whether it appeared that they were misguided interpretations of the criteria for speedy deletion, or whether they were either random or vindictive. I would think that too many good-faith but misguided speedy deletion requests would result in explanations of why they were denied with explanations of the policies. If they persisted, the tagger might be given a more severe warning or taken to WP:ANI and possibly topic-banned from such requests. Speedy deletion nominations that were clearly just random would probably be treated as vandalism, and would soon be viewed as evidence of being not here to contribute to the encyclopedia. Malicious requests would be treated as malicious requests. That is a strange question. Don't put beans in your ears. The beans might swell, and you might not hear your father telling you what to do, and that wouldn't excuse your ignoring him. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:34, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

At a guess this and this speedy requests as well as this User talk:Drmies#Could you please check this speedy deletion request I made? are what prompted this thread. I would suggest that the OP read the link to criteria for speedy deletion that Robert McClenon noted in his reply. MarnetteD|Talk 21:14, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

remove copyright content copied from

I am working very closely with Ole Troan on the draft Vector Packet Processing A section was removed with the following error: remove copyright content copied from Intel Network Stack. I thought this link would be ok since it was properly referenced.

Would you be able to tell me why it is not appropriate and the proper way to reference a link like that?

We do have other links that are similar. I would like to make sure they are appropriate.

Also, if I want to reply to your comment do I just edit this section after your comment?

It seems like that would be hard for you to watch and I may not get a reply.

Thanks for all the help. It is our first try at submitting a page, so the help is greatly appreciated.

Jdenisco (talk) 15:18, 1 February 2019 (UTC)jdenisco

You received detailed feedback, from one of Wikipedia's copyright experts, at User talk:Jdenisco#Wikipedia and copyright, with many useful wikilinks. Was there something specific in that advice which you failed to understand? --David Biddulph (talk) 15:45, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jdenisco. Based on what you've said above, I'm not sure, but I think, maybe, you're under the misapprehension that it is okay to copy copyrighted material so long as you cite the source you are copying from. If so, please understand that this is not correct.

We cite source to verify where information is corroborated, but aside from quotations (more on this later) you must not copy the words of a source. Instead, you must put the information you've read in proper paraphrase: digest the facts of the source; put it in your own words; cite the source to verify the information. As we often phrase it: "You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words."

It is also not okay to modify a source's word's only at a surface level, changing a word here and there, while leaving the majority of content and structure of the original intact. This does not avoid copyright infringement or plagiarism (see close paraphrasing).

By contrast with what I've said above, it is permitted to use short quotations of text. This is allowed under the fair use exception to copyright; the reason quotes must be limited is to comply with the "Minimal extent of use" aspect of the doctrine. When quoting, you must show you are quoting, by placing quote marks around the material (or by other, rarer methods, such as setoff), and you must immediately cite the source you are quoting from, using an inline citation, that transparently identifies where the quote comes from (i.e., citing a book, without a page number, would be insufficient). This is not what you did in the draft—and even if you had placed quote marks around the material you copied, it would have been far too long to meet fair use.

Pretty much nothing I've said here is not already included, in sum and substance, in the template posted at your talk page (which I've had a hand in drafting--I'd be interested to know whether you can you tell me what part you found confusing? Or was it just that it has too much to digest?), but I hope this has helped to focus in on the specific issue you may not have understood. If you have any questions, please do follow-up. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:00, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Inserting Google Maps into an article

I was editing a page about my town and wanted to include a Google map. I found a number of old (6 yrs) YouTube tutorials that used a "widget" that I can't seem to find. Two questions (1) is it possible and (2) would that violate a copy-right policy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxglycine (talk • contribs) 17:44, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello Maxglycine. The Google maps terms of service is inconsistent with Wikipedia's license. What is usually done here is to use {{coord}} to provide a link to a page that provides links to several map services for a location, including Google maps. —teb728 t c 18:16, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

For example Maxglycine, the infobox for Los Angeles contains 34°03′N 118°15′W. —teb728 t c 18:30, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

@Teb728 and Maxglycine: To be precise, the infobox for Los Angeles contains {{coord|34|03|N|118|15|W|region:US-CA|display=inline,title}} which displays as 34°03′N 118°15′W. --CiaPan (talk) 18:04, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

How do I explain how the 2010 Flash Crash?

There are many pages about what caused the 2010 Flash Crash on Wikipedia. I've read the explanations from various people.

Extended content

I was on this site a little while ago and got some good feedback and everyone was really nice. I'd like to seriously follow thru with the material my husband and I have concerning this event. Since 2005 we have known about a code/computer program embedded in the Dow Index that insiders use to trade. This was found accidentally while looking at the Dow 1 minute boxes found on a trading platform. There seemed to be timing with how the Dow went up and down. Someone had to write this. No one can trade the Dow so most people don't look at the boxes. After clicking on a particular 1 minute box you could see the high, how many points to the high and that's when we started to document this computer program. There are many numbers and after you see the repetition and the familiar areas the programmer uses to call out the future it is impossible to make the numbers work if they don't work. This documentation has been vetted by several qualified numbers people. How do I get this on Wikileaks the correct way. I have charts, the rules of the code, etc. and can prove 100% that this is how insiders are trading. The market does not go up and down each day in the time frame of 5 days or less because of news events. The same companies involved with this hidden communication system also control the media. This is a huge white collar crime. Our material was sent to the SEC December 2010. Additional material was sent in Nov. 2018 so the material is current to Aug.2018. The code is still being used as of today. Former people from the SEC, attorneys, professors are aware of what we have but don't want to get involved. How do I start to introduce this? The explanations for the flash crashes and big moves like the Brexit play all blame traders,etc. Why no on has bothered to look at the trading platforms and the feeds to them to answer the question is surreal. How to I get started on the right foot introducing this material. All the previous explanations are not even close to what I have? Besides the Flash Crashes and big moves in the market since 2005 we also have proof that the S&P 500 Futures follows this code. That was a big issue when the Vix event happened Feb 2018. Many of the law firms that filed lawsuits concerning that are aware of what we have and know it's right on. No one wants to expose it and I don't blame them.

Thank you for reading this. Patty GoldmanThink about good things (talk) 18:08, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Hey Think about good things. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original research. If you have discovered something novel or new, then you should seek to publish it in traditional sources, and if it is widely covered by such sources, then it may one day be suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia. Until it has, then it is not appropriate here. GMG^talk 18:11, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

@Think about good things: Are you connected with User:Think_about_normal, who asked two very similar questions on this topic recently? RudolfRed (talk) 18:25, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

@Think about good things: Apart from informing you that the only connection between Wikileaks and Wikipedia is the first four letters, we cannot assist you. As advised previously, you need to find another route to publicise your ideas, not here. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:28, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Steve Jobs

Does anybody know facts about Steve Jobs childhood? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fireweasle2 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Check out the childhood section on our article about him. Eman235/talk 20:10, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Adding an image to an article I created

I created a page and would like to add one or more images to it. How can I do this? stloth — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stloth (talk • contribs) 19:50, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

@Stloth: Hello, Stloth! For information on adding images to Wikipedia articles, reference Help:Pictures. Here's a simpler syntax for thumbnailed images to the side of the main text.

[[File:image.ext|thumb|200px|Caption]]

If you need any help, be sure to let us know. Also, don't forget to sign your posts with ~~~~. –eggofreason^talk 20:40, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

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

In an effort to finalize this project - I suddenly have been given notice by Muninnbot (automated editor Bot) about a claim without reference or citation about HANDWRITTEN CITATION SIDENOTES (posted in red on the article under Museum Archive Description). There is a photo and video reference of these notes to be posted but have not yet been referenced. The photo is in wiki commons media to library The video is preexisting and used in the article as a citation as well. How do I clear this? and add to the citations?

Also under References at very the bottom of the page, I can neither edit in source mode or Visual mode (it says I can edit in source mode, not true) I need to add and adjust the information but there is a warning notice that it is created in a template. Confusing. BARRY BARON (talk) 20:37, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, BARRY BARON. Wikipedia summarizes what published, reliable sources say about a topic, and therefore unpublished handwritten notes are not acceptable as a source in a Wikipedia article, even if the notes have been uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. Your draft article looks to me like Original research, and as a matter of policy, Wikipedia does not publish original research. Perhaps you might want to submit your work to a journal of art history instead. It is difficult for me to imagine that information about the color scheme of a destroyed painting requires a separate article. Instead, once this "major discovery" is published elsewhere, it can be described briefly in Saint Matthew and the Angel. As for the problem you are having with reference formatting, please read and study Referencing for beginners. We use inline references in the body of the article, and refererences are edited there in the body of the article or draft. The wiki software automatically pulls those references out of the body of the article if they are properly formatted, and displays them for the reader at the right place at the bottom of the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:57, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

References

What Muninnbot did was move your Teahouse query from the present list to the Archive. It's still there (you linked back to it) but now less likely to be seen by any editor visiting Teahouse. From looking at your Contributions you have been working on (and asking at Teahouse about) a draft in your Sandbox. There are still key questions about whether this rests on unpublished references, even if those include materials in a museum collection. In my own opinion, a better path would be to create an article for an art magazine. Only after that was published would it be a reference for Wikipedia. And, sadly, the information you have would then be more appropriate as a new section in the existing Wikipedia article about the painting in question. All this is the same as Cullen has already written. David notMD (talk) 00:19, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

• @David notMD: Your first sentence is not entirely true: Munninbot did not archive the thread (Lowercase sigmabot III did) but merely provided an automatic notification of such archival. Also, the thread name is the default one that pops when you click "create a new thread" in the Munninbot notification, so the fact that BARRY BARON linked to it does not necessarily mean they read it or understood the process fully. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 13:18, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

REFERENCES: You do not type the reference under References. Refs get inserted in the text. The program automatically numbers with a superscript in the text and adds the reference to the list. References coming later in the article get automatically renumbered. David notMD (talk) 03:18, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

User:BARRY BARON - It appears that you have been working off and on for about two months on an effort to use Wikipedia as your journal of first publication for your findings (and your sister's findings) about the color scheme of a painting that was destroyed in World War Two. You apparently have an incorrect concept of what Wikipedia is and is meant to be and what sorts of knowledge Wikipedia is used to publish. If your research has already been published in an art journal, then it can be summarized in Wikipedia. However, it doesn't appear that your research has been previously published. If it hasn't been previously published, Wikipedia is not the medium for you to use to communicate your findings. It appears that this will disappoint you, but that it is what Wikipedia is and is not, and we are not the medium that you are looking for. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:14, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Formating

I'm new here and trying to create a page for the Late Howard Dill Of NS Canada a notable person of our history and Giant Pumpkin grower. My page has been rejected from being published... Is there a template or something to help set up pages about a person? The note I got was that it's not in encyclopedia style? or form. I'm shocked they don't have it formattes so you can add info as you edit the page and some form arrange it the way they want it?

Help!

Michael212427 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael212427 (talk • contribs) 21:51, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Michael212427. It is not easy to write an acceptable new article for Wikipedia, and I suggest that you spend some time reading and studying Your first article, which has lots of useful advice. Your draft has not been rejected, but rather has not yet been accepted at this time. It just needs more work. You are welcome to revise and resubmit it. One obvious problem is that you need to write in complete sentences and paragraphs. Do not mention his enthusiasm for hockey unless reliable sources describe his involvement with hockey. It seems to me that he is notable for breeding pumpkins and selling pumpkin seeds, not as a sports fan. Do not include any information that is not discussed by reliable sources, and include more information that is in the sources you cite. Also, be aware that you are writing for a wordwide audience. When most people like me read about a place called Windsor in Canada, they will immediately think of the Ontario industrial city of 220,000 people, not a small town in Nova Scotia with less than 4,000 people, and will not know that NS stands for Nova Scotia. I never heard of that town until just now. Spell it out and wikilink it as Windsor, Nova Scotia. That enables readers to easily learn more about his home town. So, please spend a day or two expanding your draft based on all the information in the essay, Your first article. I would be happy to look over your draft again at that time. Good luck. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:36, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Suggestion for the page "Editing Wikipedia:Teahouse (new section)"

Would it help to add a line to the welcome box / Page notice on Editing Wikipedia:Teahouse (new section) that could read: "At the end of your post, type four tildes (~~~~), which will automatically add your user name and the date" ?
Garlic Frog (talk) 01:36, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

• Hello, Garlic Frog. That sounds like a very good idea, and a nice catch on your part. Can't hurt, can it? Hamster Sandwich (talk) 01:39, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

@Garlic Frog, Hamster Sandwich: We used to have this, when the ask a question button at the top of the page worked in a different way (I actually didn't know it had been changed, since, well, I never use the button – so it may have been ages ago). At that time, the button wouldn'vt let you post your question without the tildes in place. Wonder what happened to the old button. Anyway, see this discussion, which included a suggestion for some specific language to be used in such a signing reminder message, that maybe could be adopted in part.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:20, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

@Fuhghettaboutit: The old button was removed about a year ago after I reported that it wasnt working on iOS devices. It was found that the old script it was using wasn't functioning correctly, so was removed (see here). Nick Moyes (talk) 11:14, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. It had some useful features but it broke a lot of times--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:10, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

How to increase likelihood of being published

Hi, just had the first of two submissions rejected. If I understand the notability rule it's for the subject, and not the content. I interpret that to mean: no amount of improvement will make a difference. I'd like to an opinion re: the second article before it gets rejected too. I'd considering merging the first one into the second one. I translated both from German Wiki, made edits and added references. Apparently the topic is notable in that context. I considered appealing to the reviewer, showing relevance in English Wiki. Several articles refer to these machines. I hate to see my effort wasted, and the details lost. Rejected article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Hand_Embroidery_Machine Not yet rejected: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Schiffli_Embroidery_Machine. Riedener (talk) 05:46, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello Riedener and welcome to the Teahouse.

Notability at Articles for Creation is sometimes a difficult issue. While a substandard article might not be deleted at Articles for Deletion if the subject is clearly notable, many reviewers expect drafts to at least establish the notability of their subject before they will accept the draft as a new article. To some extent this is a practical consideration: the contributor is often the best person to find the notability references and is presumably motivated to improve the article to the point where it will be accepted.

For your two drafts, one thing that struck me was the amount of text without footnotes. Clearly this information is coming from somewhere – it's quite detailed – so we expect to see a source.

For a reviewer, validating references that are offline, in books in a non-English language, makes for a difficult challenge. These are also serious challenges for the ordinary reader. Anything you can do to make the bibliographic information more complete (and following the citation standards for English Wikipedia) is going to be helpful. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:27, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

In English Wikipedia, articles with this amount of detail would be expected to have dozens of references. Weaving has 57 references. Your drafts have specifics on factory equipment, employment practices, etc., without citations. David notMD (talk) 10:53, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I had a look at your draft for Schiffli embroidery machine. In my opinion, it does appear to be a notable subject. So with that one, I believe you are on the right track. However, I agree with the other replies that you need more cited sources. As it stands, only a few of the claims you stated have a cited source. (I helped you out by adding two more I found to back up two of your claims, but don't have the time to research more today). I suspect perhaps the three books you reference are General references for much of your material. So they could perhaps be listed as such, instead of inline citations on just one or two of the claims. Of course, I understand that is less than ideal as well. My recommendation? Continue to research and compile more citations. Since the article is still waiting for review, you may have built it up enough by the time it is reviewed. That's just my opinion though. As a new editor myself, I may be completely wrong in all I just stated. So take my statements with a grain of salt. Desertborn (talk) 16:05, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, it looks like your article got accepted. Congrats! Of course we should still work on adding citations. It's an interesting subject so I may do some more research myself and help, if I have time and don't get distracted by other ideas. Desertborn (talk) 16:30, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

The article on New International Version

In the New International Version, and in other translations, the word "lord," when used to mean Yahweh is spelled with a capital L and small capitals O, R, D. In the Wikipedia article, quoting from the Bible, it is spelled with all capitals. I suggest using the small caps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JimoregonJimoregon (talk • contribs) 07:19, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Jimoregon. Thank you for asking your question at the Teahouse. I don't actually know a lot about the Bible, but I think you can just go and improve the page if you are sure about it. Or you can discuss it on the talk page of the article. As someone once told me, be wp:bold! James Booker fan (talk) 07:35, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Hello Jimoregon and welcome to the Teahouse.

Thanks for your interest in improving the consistency of Wikipedia articles' style. The proper place to raise this issue is on the talk page of the New International Version article. I don't have a copy of the NIV at hand, so I can't verify your assertion, but I was able to find this copy of the 1983 NIV preface which discusses the various conventions for rendering "Lord" as simply capitalized or styled with small capitals. These appear to be fairly common conventions.

Wikipedia has its own manual of style and is not required, when quoting a text, to follow every last detail of text styling used in the original. The MOS (at WP:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#All_caps_and_small_caps) does have this guidance: In religion, renderings of the Tetragrammaton (YHWH) – but not of Adonai – can be formatted with the templates {{LORD}} and {{GOD}}, when the distinction is important. These employ a mixture of all caps and small caps common in many Bible editions: LORD.

The NIV article does not use these templates in the quote you were looking at. You should feel free to fix it. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:01, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Assistance in validating my draft.

Hi Team,

I am looking for your assistance in my first draft.

I want a neutral view on how can I make my first WP Draft permissible as per the policy.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Poohrwah (talk • contribs) 07:49, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello Poohrwah and welcome to the Teahouse.

I've replaced your draft content with a link to the draft. The text you posted here did not include references and can't really be evaluated here.

Your article uses a lot of honorifics that Wikipedia encyclopedia style does not use. You have also used laudatory, or at least, biased, descriptions at many points in your draft. These are the sorts of things that will have to be toned down for the article to avoid being considered promotional, which was the reason it was declined.

I expect that it will be possible to show that the newspaper is notable, in the Wikipedia sense, but you'll need to do more than have a short description of its founding and a list of people associated with it. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:15, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Advice

What are the main things someone need to learn to be part of wikipedia,when is for first time here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stridhi2112 (talk • contribs) 08:39, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia @Stridhi2112, I've just posted a welcome me very sage on your talk page with about 60 links to all kinds of handy stuff, policies, and tutorials. If you have any further questions I'd be happy to answer them. Kind regards, TruthToBeSpoken (talk) 09:36, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much TruthToBeSpoken!

You're welcome! Be sure to sign your messages with four tidles though ~~~~ Kind regards TruthToBeSpoken (talk) 09:59, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Zee Keralam page absent in wikipedia

A page related to Zee Keralam, Indian Malayalam language popular entertainment channel from Zee Network, is not created here on Wikipedia. Can anybody create a page for Zee Keralam channel? — Preceding unsigned comment added by A2Zabcd (talk • contribs) 09:11, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, anyone can create such a page! Since you, A2Zabcd, both know about the channel and wish to see such a page, then you are the person best qualified to create it. See Wikipedia:your first article for guidance. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.217.251.247 (talk) 23:48, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Newbie needs feedback on biographies submitted.

I have only been able to publish one out of four biographies I submitted for review. Would someone be able to take a look at the others and provide some feedback? Are shorter bios better? Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjhasacar (talk • contribs) 09:22, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

When asking questions, helps to indicate the articles or drafts, for instance your Draft:Anstella Robinson. And sign your User name by typing four of ~ at the end of your queries or comments. To your question, for a person to be notable, there has to be significant amounts of published material ABOUT that person - not citing what they have written, not brief name-mentions in articles, not interviews. David notMD (talk) 10:57, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jjhasacar. You must not violate copyright again. I have removed infringements from two of the drafts and scrubbed their histories, and deleted the other two drafts as unsalvageably tainted.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:25, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Typographic error in moving

I made a typographic error in moving Taifa of Dénia and moved it to Taifa of Dnia. I have moved it back but there are redirects left. I don't know where to post a request to have this corrected by an administrator.

My intent was to move it to Taifa of Denia, because all sources, reliable and unreliable, without exception use that form. But I know how to request that.

Many thanks deisenbe (talk) 10:59, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

P.S. I now realize Dénia is the spelling in Catalan. That I have to investigate more. deisenbe (talk) 11:06, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Hey deisenbe. Done. For future reference: just tag the redirects with {{db-r3}} (or by its intuitive redirect {{db-typo}}). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:46, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Recent Changes

There is a certain setting that I like to have when monitoring RC. The annoying thing about that is that I have to change it to the settings I want every time I go into RC. Is there a way to have RC preloaded with the settings I want? Mstrojny (talk) 11:38, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

What is the setting?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:58, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Mstrojny Set the filters on Recent Changes. On the filter bar, to the far right, select the Save current filter settings button. In the dialog that opens, there's an option you can select to set the saved filter settings as default. Check that, and whenever you go to Recent Changes, it will use the filter settings you saved. Schazjmd (talk) 14:29, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Review my new article

I have created new article for one of the company called "Agaram InfoTech Private Limited". So kindly check and revert if am missed anything... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karthik Dev81 (talk • contribs) 12:45, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Karthik Dev81 For the article to be reviewed you need to submit it, jut insert {{subst:submit}} to the top of the draft. I must warn you though that the topic does not appear to be notable. Theroadislong (talk) 13:02, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the Info. I have removed the citation due to insufficient notable points. Please guide me if anything inappropriate.

PRODNOM long list of content of a site?

Hi.

New User here. I discovered this lengthy list, while copy-editing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_Squared

and was wondering whether this belonged on WP or would perhaps be better be served with a link to their directory, if at all necessary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intelligence_Squared_US_Debates

Didn't want to open a PRODNOM, plus am a bit confused about how these things work. But if you think it should be done, I would like to try and PRODNOM it myself (just to learn).

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by RainyVision (talk • contribs) 13:11, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello RainyVision and welcome to the Teahouse.

You should definitely propose that list for deletion. Reproducing the list here on Wikipedia is unnecessary. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:28, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you jmcgnh for the quick response, now let's see whether I'll be able to follow those PRODNOM instructions. :) — RainyVision

You've done it fine RainyVision. Two suggestions. First, when nominating an article for deletion by any deletion method, be it PROD, speedy deletion, or through Articles for deletion (AfD), we expect users to provide a notice to those heavily involved with the article that its been nominated (this would be typically, but not always, just the article's creator). It's made pretty easy: if you look at the prod tag you added to the article, the bottom section has instructions about such notification, and provides a filled-out template to do so, by copy and paste to the involved user's user talk page. (It's quite possible you already knew this, and just hadn't done it yet). You would find the person(s) to notify by looking at the article's page history. Second, while the link you provided in the prod tag to this discussion does work, it would be better if you used a wikilink. Here, this would be done with this markup: [[Wikipedia:Teahouse#PRODNOM long list of content of a site?]]. I think you would get a great benefit out of taking a tour through the Wikipedia:Tutorial, which will teach this and other types of bread and butter editing matters. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:33, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

I read about the mentioning on their talk page Fuhghettaboutit, but as I am new, I prefer to not have to argue with them, which is why I asked here. I can of course write a brief not on their talk page, though they did not seem to be particularly active. The templates and different link styles are really quite hard to wrap one's head around as a new user. I'll have a look at the tour again, the problem is not the not reading it, the problem is the it not sticking in my head. :) I would have to practice all these different examples. I will write on their talk pages, I hope I will be friendly enough. The template btw didn't work at first when I used the visual editor. Thanks for taking the time and explaining all this! (Sorry 94rain for pasting Fuhghettaboutit into an earlier message) RainyVision (talk) 01:30, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Will my first article be approved?

Hello! Prepared his first article for Wikipedia. Draft:Vitaly Tepikin. Everything is designed according to the rules? When will the decision be made about the fate of the article about the scientist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5Traveler (talk • contribs) 13:20, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

You haven't submitted your draft for AFC review, but there is no point in doing so yet, as there is only one reference and that seems to be written by the subject. Less importantly, the draft is also rather malformatted as it looks as if you were trying to include an {{infobox}}. You need to read the advice at WP:Your first article, & Wikipedia's definition of notability, & particularly WP:notability (people). --David Biddulph (talk) 13:31, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

expert article editor on economics

Hi I'm a Wikipedian who have created over 50 articles in Wikipedia. Since I'm an economics university student, I'd like to know someone who is expert on editing articles on economic topics. Thank you for helping me! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike hangzhou (talk • contribs) 13:46, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

You could try Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Economics, if you haven't. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:00, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Who made Wikipedia?

Who made Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexCruz289 (talk • contribs) 13:53, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

See History of Wikipedia. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:58, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

United States Army Corps of Topographical Engineers

the 1818 calendar has this organization as having been founded on 1 August 1818 whereas the Wikipedia page on this organization has it founded on 4 July 1838. Which is correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjrobbins (talk • contribs) 14:33, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello @Cjrobbins:, and welcome to the Teahouse. Such content-related questions are usually better asked at the article's talkpage, a WikiProject for this topic area or at a reference desk. But I'll give it a try: both are probably correct. 1818 in the United States does not refer to United States Army Corps of Topographical Engineers, but a predecessor office (kind of) called the Topographical Bureau. These institutions are not identical but closely related, so the latter title redirects to the former main article (unfortunately specific info about this bureau is missing in the main article, so the redirect is a bit confusing). You'll find some more details about the development of this corps and its predecessor in this external PDF (page 6, pages 19-23), which looks like a reliable source. GermanJoe (talk) 16:58, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

make a page

Hello Can we make a wiki page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Civil air patrol cadet (talk • contribs) 16:31, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, anyone can make a Wikipedia page. However an article must be based on reliable sources and it needs to be relevant. If you have any more questions I'd be happy to answer them. TruthToBeSpoken (talk) 16:45, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Not "We." Editors are individuals. If you are a person in a group, the group can decide for a person to be an editor, or individuals can each be editors. There is guidance on creating an article, but new editors are advised to learn how to edit existing articles before creating one. David notMD (talk) 18:36, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Change username

Hi, I would like to change my username but don't know how to. Can someone just let me know ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mystery Bros (talk • contribs)

Hello and welcome, Mystery Bros. Please see WP:RENAME. Chetsford (talk) 18:37, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

@Mystery Bros: Because you have made so few edits from this account, simply abandon it and start again by registering a new username. That makes less work for our admins to deal with. You should probably leave a note to declare the link between the two accounts, but the most important thing now is never ever to use the old account name again. Using two accounts is a serious breach of our policies, but changing to using a new account name is absolutely fine. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:06, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Shubam Sharma

Hello, would a page on a cricketer named Shubam Sharma not get rejected?

Also I am not talking about the cricketer by the name of Shubham Sharma. They are two different people? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mystery Bros (talk • contribs) 18:09, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

No. Just make sure it doesn't violate our guidelines and policies. No original research and promotions or advertising. Also add reliable sources.
Sincerely,
Masum Reza^talk 18:23, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Mystery Bros has created Shubam Sharma (Cricketer) which should quickly be converted to a draft, as it is in no way the beginnings of an article. I did not tag it for Speedy Deletion because MB had previously created an article that was tagged SD, and then MB was chastised for removing the SD tag. And advised that two other articles MB created were redirected to existing articles. Hoping that this latest attempt at creating an article can follow a different path. User talk:David notMD|talk]]) 18:40, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I've moved it to Draft:Shubam Sharma (cricketer) so that he can work on it there. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:54, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Question about use of primary material as a source

Hello. my username is TrudiJ and I am a fairly new editor, but I am a Wikipedia course instructor this semester, which is quite exciting. I'd like to double-check my understanding of appropriate sources, before challenging my students on this point. I am starting to draft an article about a ready-to-wear fashion designer who is not already in Wikipedia. A specialized library not far from me has an archival collection of materials related to her career, and as a scholar, I would have access to it. However, because these materials are mainly primary sources, is it true that using these materials would not be appropriate? Some original research might be needed, which I realize is not allowed, although basic facts could be derived from the materials--would this be acceptable? And would there be a problem with using this material even if it were collected or put together by the designer herself? Thank you for your assistance. TrudiJ (talk) 04:16, 3 February 2019 (UTC)TrudiJ

Welcome to the Teahouse TrudiJ, only published material may be used as a source. Published material written by the subject can be used sparingly and only for uncontroversial facts. Wikipedia does not publish original research including conclusions deduced newly from sources. Such research and conclusions must come from published reliable secondary sources. —teb728 t c 05:35, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi TrudiJ. It generally OK to add a few statements from primary sources that aren't liable to be challenged, but all key factual statements must be based upon published sources that anyone can check for themselves (even if it requires ordering a book at great expense). As a retired museum curator, I personally find it extremely frustrating that valuable data or documents I hold (or held) within my museum's archives that I had sometimes spent years gathering together can't be used to base articles upon. But that is the reality of how we work here; this is an encyclopaedia that anyone can edit, so every editor must be held responsible for basing content upon accessible, published sources. My collections and department archives simply wouldn't have been deemed as accessible in that way, and my work would have been seen as OR, which is not only fine, but actively encouraged within academia, but definitely not here. The key message to take away is to encourage, cajole or bully library and museum staff to publish!, publish!, publish!, whether it's online or in leaflet/book/journal form. Once made publicly available there's a reasonable assumption that the institution has had editorial input into that material, so is quite likely to be deemed reliable. You mission, should you choose to accept it, is to get that information mobilised. Remember, too, that a picture is worth a thousand words, and it really sounds like you have an opportunity to work with them to take and upload relevant photographs to Wikimedia Commons which can be used to support article content. We have have a project called Wikipedia:GLAM, which I suspect you're already aware of, which aims to collaborate with libraries, archives and museums in mobilising that content. Good luck with your course, and do tell you're students that our Teahouse volunteers are always here to help or guide them, should they ever need additional practical support with editing. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 11:51, 3 February 2019 (UTC) 

On edits

I'm bran new, forgive me, and thank you for this service opportunity.

I wonder how long an edit would take to show up?

If an edit is accepted that's neat, however if it is not, how would one find out the particulars?

I'm old school, but enthusiastic to contribute.

Thank again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karuna Devi Dasi (talk • contribs) 04:39, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello Karuna Devi Dasi, in most cases edits show up right away. For example, this edit, which you describe on your user talk page, showed up right away, but it was reverted two minutes later. You can see that (as I did) by looking at the article's history (which you can see by clicking "View history" at the top of the article). Is that what you wanted to know? —teb728 t c 05:12, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Padma tsho history

1. * Pema tsho was a great Heroine from Khyungpo, Tibet. The people believe she is great Dakini (Kha' 'gro)
2. when she was you lady, she pretended fell her basket (square basket for raise for separate barley grain and straw) wind window from 3rd floor to ground, when she saw a young master of Buddhism Lama. The reason she wanted to show her skill of superpower, So — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ogyan Rgzin (talk • contribs) 05:42, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi and welcome, Ogyan Rgzin! The information you've provided on Pema tsho is a fascinating tale, to be sure. Thank you for sharing it! Best - Chetsford (talk) 08:30, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Ogyan Rgzin, and welcome to the Teahouse. I wondered why you had placed that information here, but I see that you have already tried to create a draft about Padma Tsho, and somebody has deleted it. I'm afraid that placing an argument here doesn't really help - I had to go looking to discover even why you had posted it here.

Wikipedia requires everything in it to come from a reliable published source, not just from things people know. Do you have scholarly books or articles about Tsho? (They don't have to be online, or in English, though it's easier for editors to review if they are). If you have, then you could start again, after reading your first article, which explains the (really quite difficult) process of creating a new article. Another thing you could do would be to go to WikiProject Tibet, and see if you can find people there who would work with you on this. One more point: I notice that you have some difficulty in writing English: have you tried the Tibetan Wikipedia? --ColinFine (talk) 19:48, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

football kits / current events

This is in suggestion that :

a) Football kits in the "infobox football biography" thingies show the logo and sponsor (in correct proportion to the kit . For example , a F.C Barcelona kit shall show the kit maker , in this case Nike , the sponsor Rakuten and the barca logo in c.p with the kit .)

b) Players , clubs , managers , referees , etc. when currently involved in a match shall show a 'involved in a current event' template at the top of the page (for example if Manchester City F.C. are in a match with United , then it will show on the pages of these clubs , players on the field and on the bench , managers , etc. 'this subject is involved in a current event '

c) Scores , lineups , etc. be updated on the season's pages , for example Liverpool 19-20 season , every 15 minutes . 005X (talk) 08:22, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi and welcome 005X! While you have interesting suggestions, they would have to be made here. Chetsford (talk) 08:33, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

@Chetsford and 005X: That's not the right place for these comments. Only the middle one is relevant to that template you linked to, and even then it's probably something that should be discussed at WT:FOOTY, as it would garner more of a response. That said, I don't imagine any of these suggestions will gain any traction whatsoever. – PeeJay 12:21, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Help on draft article Red Circle Authors and future ones

I have made some minor edits since joining and got nice comments and feedback; somewhat encouraging & motivating stuff! But I have now had my first draft article rejected (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Red_Circle_Authors). I am confused by the comments, which read as standard ones. I have reviewed them carefully but am not sure what to do. 1) I tried to source everything very carefully with links to content in Wikipedia and also to multiple external references, which includes several leading newspapers (these include more than passing mentions). Journalists on these publications have written about Red Circle Authors as it is notable for their readerships. I have also used other information in the public domain. 2) I have tried to write in a neutral style using sourced text, and multiple not single sources. 3) The page is for a publisher, Wikipedia has many such pages already, and all the authors cited in my draft have their own Wikipedia entries, and are notable important authors in their own right; as is the publisher hence its media coverage. 4) I did not include ISBNs and book blurbs or hyperbolic adjectives to promote the books and publisher so that the entry would not read like an advert as I wanted the entry to be factual information only. These points are all issues that the feedback raised saying they were lacking and the reasons for not being acceptable. I will work on the article more, but does anyone have any suggestions of what I need to change or delete to meet Wikipedia's review criteria or should do next? I would be very grateful for feedback as this will guide me for future submissions. It is rather off-putting and makes me think it might just be better to focus on minor edits and suggestions in the future. Many thanks in advance for any assistance you can provide.---WikiGeoffrey (talk) 12:26, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, WikiGeoffrey Welcome to the Teahouse, and thank yoo for your question. I think many of us here had experience of having pages they've created either rejected or proposed for deletion. The Articles for Creation process is designed to assist new editors by giving them feedback on what's wrong, and  Theroadislong did just that in their rejection notice. Remember that this is an encyclopaedia about notable subjects. We're interested to see why Red Circle is notable, using independent reliable sources to demonstrate that. We don't care what the publishers have written in their own blogs and webpages. Try cutting out all content that does not go into great depth about the subject. Sentences like "Japan’s long history of blending brevity and beauty, as well as the nation’s history of elegant and brilliantly creative short form literary formats, are the reasons why Red Circle Authors decided to launch its publishing programme with a series of mini books." and "It conducts bespoke projects; and commissions and publishes books on behalf of a select and curated group of highly regarded Japanese contemporary authors in English." are not neutral, encyclopaedic phrases, but are promotional in tone. Not only that - you copied that straight from their website, which is a violation of our policies. My advice is to read Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) which requires three or more detailed independent sources to demonstrate that others have taken note of this, amongst innumerable other publishing companies in the world. Finally, should you have a direct or indirect connection with this publisher, you must declare that connection according to our policy on Conflict of Interest. I hope this gives you the feedback you sought. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:50, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

(e/c) Hi WikiGeoffrey. The draft reads as in fairly glowing praise of the company. It was rejected as an advertisement, and reads like one. <snip>Partial removal of content, as redundant with Nick Moyes's post I e/c'ed with.</snip> Of the sources I could check (a number of the links are dead), they appear to be:

• a) by Red Circle Authors itself (not independent);
• b) user-generated content;
• c) websites of unknown provenance (not clearly reliable sources); and
• d) where independent sources are used, they are not about Red Circle Authors, but about books by authors who have published through it.

Can you find some entirely independent, reliable, secondary sources that substantively write directly about Red Circle Authors? If so, first comply with WP:PAID before you do anything else, and then rewrite the article in your own words to include only information verified by those sources. See if you can do so without using any adjectives. (Only then might you fill in some purely basic factual details from primary sources.) If those secondary sources don't exist, don't use up any more of your valuable time on this.​ Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:03, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Very helpful feedback. I have removed the sentences suggested which tip it into advert like article and tried to make the references better and more clear. The Japan Times article and the Nikkei Asia Review article cite the publisher directly. I am not being paid to write this but do know some of the people involved. How do I declare this? --WikiGeoffrey (talk) 14:32, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

@WikiGeoffrey: See Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#How_to_disclose_a_COI for guidance. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:10, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for this. Have added the COI notice on my user page. --WikiGeoffrey (talk) 15:33, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Is the article correct and submitted correctly?

Hello! Please tell me what to do in the following situation. The draft of my article was sent for revision, I made the necessary additions. Are they sufficient? Do I need more links? Is the revised version of Draft: Vitaly Tepikin presented correctly? I express my deep gratitude to the editors who work with me.5Traveler (talk) 13:57, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

For me, It still lacks sources. Most of the article should be sourced. RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 14:03, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Changes have been removed

Dear all,

14 days ago I edited a Wikipedia website (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_population_concern_organizations) I added the organization I am working for and which also deals with population concerns. However, a few days later, the organization has been removed again besides I mad a quote about it at the end of the page. What has happened? How can I prevent another remove of the organization I am working for when I edit the page again?

Thanks so much for your help.

Best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by RFPD-editor (talk • contribs) 14:38, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

@RFPD-editor: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I will review this in a moment, but you must first immediately go to your user talk page User talk:RFPD-editor and read the information I will shortly put there about changing your username. 331dot (talk) 14:41, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I have reviewed your edit; the page you edited is not for listing every such organization in existence. It is only for listing those that merit (and in most cases have) Wikipedia articles. This is why your edit was removed as linkspam. I have posted information to your user talk page about how to declare and contribute with a conflict of interest as you seem to have, please review this carefully once your username is changed. 331dot (talk) 14:44, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

David Sawin

I am trying to figure out if the article is still under review — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eugenia Sawin (talk • contribs) 16:03, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi - yes, it looks like Draft:David_Sawin is still awaiting review. There is a bit of a backlog at AfC, so it might take a while for someone to get around to reviewing it. CheersGirthSummit _(blether) 16:14, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Draft:David Sawin is in AfC queue for review. As you know, the first submission was declined. You can continue to work on the draft. Two important points: given you share last name with David, you should create a mention on your User page explaining the relationship. This falls under declaring conflict of interest. People with COI often find it difficult to achieve a neutral point of view about the topic, so declaring COI is for transparency. Second, at the end of every comment, type four of ~. This 'signs' the comment with your User name. David notMD (talk) 16:24, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Eugenia Sawin - You also asked about your submission at the Articles for Creation Help Desk at about the same time. Some of the same editors are regularly at both the Teahouse and the AFC Help Desk (or at any two forums in Wikipedia). It isn't helpful to ask the same question at two places at the same time. You are likely to get the same answer, but it is also likely to annoy the reviewers. It is also likely to annoy the reviewers if you create multiple copies of your draft, which you have done. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:48, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello

Can someone help me create an article about Kinloss Primary School please. But they never asked? (talk) 18:41, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

@But they never asked?: Please read our notability guideline on corporations: WP:NCORP. Schools fall under corporations, and additional information can be found at WP:NSCHOOLS (further context about schools in general) and WP:NHS (notability quidelines about high schools). Remember: All articles require require significant coverage in reliable source that are independent of the topic.

I also saw this edit you made. You reverted it quickly enough, but as a warning, please do not post rash insults in the Teahouse.

If you have any questions, then be sure to reply. –eggofreason^talk 18:47, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

AND.... blocked as a sockpuppet David notMD (talk) 20:44, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

De Grote Molen, Broeksterwâld

The page De Grote Molen, Broeksterwoude should be moved to De Grote Molen, Broeksterwâld to match the current spelling of the village name. The retarded automatic filter stops me from performing this move. PDZ124169 (talk) 20:27, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Maproom (talk) 22:02, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Looking for feedback on first article

I'm looking for comments and suggestions on my first article User:Ilgamoot/Bay Meadows I plan to change the title to "Bay Meadows II (Neighborhood)" Please comment on the talk page for the article. The talk page also has a To Do list of things I know I want to add. Thanks for your help! Ilgamoot (talk) 20:28, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi and welcome, Ilgamoot! A few thoughts from my first glance:

• This shouldn't be at your Userpage but at your sandbox. You may want to move it over to there to continue working on it.
• Per WP:EXT, there should not be external links in the body of the article.
• The image in the infobox can omit the brackets and should also not include the thumb sizing and caption. The infobox will size it correctly and the caption should go in the "image_caption" field.
• Bay Meadows II should be in bold in the first use in the lead.
• In general, sections like "controversy" are discouraged; content from such sections are better integrated into other sections of the article, such as "History".

I haven't looked at the sources so I can't comment on notability but, overall, I think this is excellent work for a first article! Chetsford (talk) 01:12, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Chetsford. I wasn't clear on using the sandbox vs creating a new page. It seemed to me that it would be easier to just make a page because I planned to move it into main space at some point. Doing that with the sandbox seemed odd. Thanks for the note about external links. I'll fix those. Will fix the image and bold the first use of Bay Meadows II, as well. Need to think some more about controversy. On a related note: I'm a resident of this neighborhood, but not in any way related to the city or the developer. I've tried to adhere to the NPOV requirements. Should I disclose my residency in some way on the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilgamoot (talk • contribs) 02:31, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Revive the question "How or who can edit the Pope Pius IX page, because there is an error on it?"

Dear Sirs,

Thank you for the answer on the Tea House page. I did get account access also. Thank you. I decided not to change the Pope Pius IX page after further study. I studied and emailed a Marian Priest, Fr. Donald Calloway, MIC, from whom I received no response. I came to this conclusion:

Upon further study, Wikipedia's Pope Pius IX article is well written. Ubi Primum (02/02/1849) does begin the process of confirming St. Mary's Immaculate Conception. Wikipedia notes that in 1854 was declared the Immaculate Conception which is Ineffabilis Deus (12/08/1854). I found that in Papal Encyclicals online in English language. I also do not comprehend the difference or relationship between the Papal Encyclical Ineffibilis Deus dated 1854 and the Ex Cathedra declaration of the Immaculate Conception. So I am well to leave the Wikipedia article on Pope Pius IX alone.

Father Calloway has a book "Champions of the Rosary." Pope Pius IX was indeed a Marian Pope. In future I think it would be cool to put a link to Fr. Calloway's Champions of the Rosary on each of the subjects Wikipedia pages, for example St. Padre Pio, Popes Pius XII and Pope Pius IX, etc. There are maybe twenty people or so. I emailed Fr. Calloway about that. Waiting.

Regards, Mr. Michael Griffin February 3, 2019 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:FD00:51C0:5560:EBC7:D014:946D (talk) 22:15, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Mr Griffin. Thank you for your appreciation (on behalf of the body of Wikipedia editors - I wasn't involved in that discussion, but it's nice when somebody does feel they've been listened to and engaged with). The best place to make this sort of suggestion is on the talk pages of the relevant articles. What I will note, however, is that Wikipedia is very cautious about accepting external links in articles, unless they are reliable sources being cited as a reference. If your idea is to add some information to each of those articles, then provided the source is regarded by Wikipedia as reliable, that is probably fine - though it is always possible for an editor to argue that even though a particular claim is well-supported it is not significant or relevant enough to be worth including in an encyclopaedia. But adding the same external link to several articles is often regarded as LINKSPAM, and you would need to justify their inclusion. --ColinFine (talk) 23:19, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

EU GDPR non compliant website in References

Hi I just seen the references in National Council on Severe Autism and can't access one of the reference sites, due to one website being GDPR non compliant. Could any EU and non EU Wikipedians advice me what to do, thanks--Chricon79 (talk) 01:22, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi and welcome Chricon79! "Could any EU and non EU Wikipedians advice me what to do" Wait 54 days and try again? Just kidding. Insofar as I'm aware, and someone may have a better suggestion than this, your only option would be to try to access it through a VPN. If there's something specific you'd like to check at it, though, I'd be happy to do so and let you know what it says. If that would be useful, feel free to ping me on my Talk page. Chetsford (talk) 01:55, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Chetsford and thank you for your answer, off-wiki non EU contacts in the USA have informed me that they can access the reference. It is the issue of an geo blocked reference being a valid source I have my doubts about.--Chricon79 (talk) 02:08, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I see, that makes sense. We don't really have a policy establishing that sources which are unavailable to some editors are inherently non-RS and there are some areas which selectively or geographically block content, such as the EU, PRC, etc. For instance, we frequently cite articles to newspapers archived in newspapers.com, which is a subscription based service to which not everyone has access. That said, of course, persons inside EU member states, and some other countries that block content, may be at a disadvantage in that they are unable to conduct due diligence to determine the veracity of a source that does not meet GDPR standards and which they are, therefore, unable to access. I think, in this situation, one would have to ask an editor who has unfiltered online access to check on it and report back, which is a procedure similar to what occurs in A- and FA- review when certain sources are not accessible (either because they're offline only, or gated). Chetsford (talk) 02:14, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Cheers, I'll ask US biased friendly editor to look into that for me or wait for Brexit--Chricon79 (talk) 02:28, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Why the ip address in Wikipedia is always tracked for any user who edited anonymously

I am wondering why does Wikipedia track ip address, then all without any accounts would be afraid to add information. What about the spirit of Wikipedia of open universal knowledge when their is a privacy concern. Rocky 734 (talk) 02:38, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Rocky 734. I understand this is because the license which Wikipedia uses requires attribution. Without a username, the content authored by the IP is attributed to the IP address. If someone has privacy concerns, they can create an account and login. —teb728 t c 05:09, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Copyright of local municipality images in California?

I think that data produced by cities in California is free to copy and redistribute. First, is this true. Second, can someone provide a reference that I can use when uploading images (not my own but from a California city) to WikiMedia that will get me through the process? Ilgamoot (talk) 02:47, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello Ilgamoot! When uploading content produced by a city or the state of California you should use the {{PD-CAGov}} license template. That template says that public records of California ...state, county, and municipal government agencies... are in the public domain, subject to some exceptions. To show that the content you are uploading is in the public domain, you should indicate the source (preferably using a link) along with the license tag. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 03:00, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

This page is about Tasty tibet.

I am new to wikipedia and had published a wiki article but it was deleted on terms that it had promotional content. I have created new content and would like it if someone could give me review on how to go about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mot1992 (talk • contribs) 06:27, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Mot1992, welcome to the Teahouse. I've looked at the history of your contributions and can't see any new content, so I'm assuming you haven't yet tried to add it. That's good. I'm not an adminstrator, so cannot see the previously-deleted content you wrote. But before you do anything else, please go back and read all the comments left for you about you last attempt to create a page about 'Tasty tibet', especially your obligation to declare any Conflict of Interest you may have. In other words, do you work for the company,or are working in its behalf, or friends with its owners? If you are, then you should not be writing about this business, and must declare that conflict. The second thing you need to do is to read our criteria for accepting articles about companies. It's at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). So, because we are not here to promote yours or any one else's business, you will simply be wasting your time - and ours - if you are unable to provide three to five in-depth, independent articles which talk about that business in detail. (Ignore blogs, own website and press releases, etc., and see WP:NOTADVERTISING). If you still believe you have enough material to merit an encyclopaedia article here, then you should prepare that draft using the Articles for Creation process. Hope that helps. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 08:53, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

First Article

Hi guys

Can someone please help me on approving this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Denny_(singer-songwriter)

It looks fine to me with references so I don't understand how it is declined?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.117.73.126 (talk) 09:24, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

• The editor who rejected the submission left a comment explaining why. You need to read it - particularly the bit that says "This draft does not appear to indicate which of the musical notability criteria is satisfied.", and improve the article to address those concerns. Articles are only accepted if the subject passes the notability criteria, and if you can't find any sources to show that Denny meets the criteria, it may be too soon for an article on him. Neiltonks (talk) 13:34, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Problem creating a new article/ page.

Hi Teahouse, It's Kanika this side. I am willing to write an article on a topic which is not available on wikipedia. And the problem that I am facing right now is that which is the best way of creating a new page/ article in wikipedia? I would be grateful if you could please explain to me the procedure. I've been struggling with this for quite some time now and yet I have not been able to figure out the right way of creating a new page/ article. Please help me with this as a little help from your end would mean the world to me.

Thank you, Kanika — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waliakanika (talk • contribs) 10:20, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Waliakanika, welcome to the Teahouse! I think Wikipedia:Your first article may give you a useful set of most important clues about writing articles on Wikipedia. --CiaPan (talk) 10:28, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

@Waliakanika: I've left a welcome message on your talk page - it's stuffed full of useful links you might find helpful to get you started. Might I suggest you try our interactive tour called The Wikipedia Adventure which shows you the basics of how things work here. there are 15 different badges to gather on your userpage as you follow the learning exercises. (it doesn't always display too well on a mobile, though - just to warn you) Good luck! Nick Moyes (talk) 11:25, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Restricted topics

Hi guys, I have heard from multiple editor that Cryptocurrency and Blockchain are restricted topics on wikipedia and we aren't supposed to write any articles about these topics. Is it true? Omo95 (talk) 10:42, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Omo95. Your sources seem to have misunderstood. We have articles on both blockchain and cryptocurrency, and as with any Wikipedia articles, anybody is welcome to improve them. However, both articles are subject to active community-authorised general sanctions, because of repeated attempts to use the articles for promotional or non-neutral editing. These sactions tightly regulate editing behaviour in those and related articles. If you wish to contribute to them, please follow those links and read them carefully before you do anything else. --ColinFine (talk) 11:12, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (I've written this so might as well post it, even if Colin has said it all above): Hi, Omo95. Thanks for your Teahouse question. 'Restricted' is not perhaps quite the right word, but, yes, these are topics which are subject to General sanctions being applied. Please follow that link to find out more but, in essence, they are one of a number of topics which are prone to promotional and non-encyclopaedic editing that special sanctions can be immediately applied to any editors who breaks our rules on editing. So, even those editors who make acceptable edits to pages subject to these sanctions may receive a notification message. (Don't panic about that) But, having been warned of the need for extra care in editing and referencing, editors who do transgress may find themselves immediately blocked from editing as a result of those sanctions being in force. This isn't done willy-nilly - it's designed to ensure productive cooperative editing, where either strong opinions or strong desire to promote one topic or company often occur. You will also find a little more information at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Blockchain and cryptocurrencies. Hope this answers your question. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:19, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Question about updating Category:Wikipedia articles with ORCID identifiers

Hi Teahouse,

I have a question about Category:Wikipedia articles with ORCID identifiers. It hasn't had an update for some time and I am not sure if it reflects pages which more recently added ORCIDs? Would this be the usual lag time for category pages, or is it eligible for a null edit to bring it up to date? (sorry for these strange questions, I am still learning). Thank you for your time! :) SunnyBoi (talk) 13:08, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Can you give an example of an article which you think ought to be in there but isn't? Have you tried purging your cache? --David Biddulph (talk) 13:17, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Follow-up to Confused new user

Hi Editors Have a question. A page currently exists for "Electronic Flight Bag". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_flight_bag

As an addendum to what has been written in the History section, would the following be allowed:

When one of the leading EFB advocates, Southwest Airlines, migrated their EFB program to iPad tablets in 2015 one of their main concerns was how to protect a costly program asset – the tablet itself. Their original EFB roadmap anticipated a tablet breakage rate of 4% annually. Their use of a PIVOT case, manufactured by FlyBoys Inc. lowered the overall breakage rate for all 9,500 managed iPad EFB devices for the last 4 years to 0.04% - one of the lowest rates in the industry. The unexpected drop in repair costs (and associated human administrative costs) has allowed Southwest to cancel their insurance program on their 9,500 iPad tables and deploy the savings to other areas of their EFB program.

I am a current employee of FlyBoys Inc. If the above is acceptable, how do I properly make the contribution?

Thank you.