Wikipedia:Teahouse

Welcome to the Teahouse...                        

A friendly place to learn about editing Wikipedia.

Click here to
ask a question

GreenMeansGo, 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

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 Wikipedia summarizes what published, reliable sources say about a topic, and therefore unpublished handwritten notes are not acceptable as a source in a Wikipedia article, even if the notes have been uploaded to Wikimedia Commons.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)

@BARRY BARON: Please note that handwritten notes like File:Handwritten notes german museum hans posse.pdf, no matter how they are referenced or formatted within Wikipedia, are considered primary sources, and must be used with extreme care, if at all, as explained in the policies on Primary, secondary and tertiary sources. Previously unpublished notes should not be discussed for the first time on Wikipedia, as Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought or novel research. And just in case you are writing about a topic or person with which you have close professional or personal connections, please see Wikipedia's guidelines on conflicts of interest. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:07, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

BARRY BARON, an encyclopedia article consists of information paraphrased from reliable secondary sources. Please name the reliable secondary sources that support your userspace draft. If these sources do not exist, I would suggest that your continued posting here about your draft is becoming tendentious. You've been told multiple times by multiple editors in multiple ways that you need secondary sources. You've been pointed repeatedly to reference help in case you don't know what "secondary" means. I'd strongly suggest that you stop wasting others time. Please do not revisit this subject here unless or until you have secondary sources. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 20:31, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I think I may understand your problem with understanding what we are telling you, BARRY BARON. Yes in limited circumstances, you may use primary sources to verify facts. However, the qualification to have an article on Wikipedia is not verifiability, it is notability. You cannot use primary sources to show notability. So again, unless you have multiple (generally at least three) reliable, independent secondary sources that discuss in detail the concept you are writing about, you do not have an article. Further, you cannot take what one source says and what another source says and draw a conclusion from that. That is WP:OR, in particular WP:SYNTH. In my humble opinion, what you need to do is formally organize your research, get it published by a museum or university, and then, when and if that paper is reviewed in a trusted academic journal, then, and only then, you can use the review (only) to show notability. A white paper does not show notability either. We summarize here what others have written about. Period. John from Idegon (talk) 00:38, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Teahouse header

Cup of tea and bourbon biscuit for Hildeoc!

Hi, how can the excess spacing above the header of this page be reduced to default? I tried to fix that, but it didn't work.--Hildeoc (talk) 16:46, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

@Hildeoc: The problem seems to be the newlines after the #ifeq's at the top, which effectively create blank lines. I commented them out thus. —teb728 t c 21:28, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I'd love to see the Teahouse page appear without any wasted space, especially if it means the yellow "Skip to the bottom" link appears on the first page, which it doesn't always do. That said, I think this is really a discussion to be more usefully had at Wikipedia talk:Teahouse - that's the place for hosts to discuss how we manage and maintain the Teahouse without interfering with supporting new editors. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:18, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

@Teb728: Thanks a lot! But, as those lines seem to only cause trouble, wouldn't it be better then to actually remove them? @Nick Moyes: What exactly do you mean by "hosts" here?--Hildeoc (talk) 14:33, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

'Host' is the name given to the volunteers here at the Teahouse who give their time to help new and inexperienced editors. It's not a formal permission, or anything like that. We'll even bring you a cup of tea, like this one, if you ask nicely! Nick Moyes (talk) 15:11, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, thanks then!--Hildeoc (talk) 16:46, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

@Hildeoc: What the lines do is add a small lock icon to the upper left corner of the page when and only when the page is protected against vandalism. My change did not remove the lines but only the newlines following them. —teb728 t c 20:46, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

do interviews count as articles?

Hi, I am a member of incorporated as a non-profit organization. Our core goal is to advance the role of women in the agricultural industry. As part of this, we are implementing a project called "Champions" which highlights the women, men and organizations who are working actively to advance women. The project consists of interviews which are posted on our webpage https://mbwomeninagnfood.wixsite.com/mwaf/champions and our social media. The question is whether this page or the individual interviews can be published in Wikipedia and, if so, how are the editors going to verify the content of the interviews? Thank you for your help. I don't require the answer specific to a mobile device. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AgLadiesinWpg (talk • contribs) 22:30, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

@AgLadiesinWpg: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I don't mean to disappoint you, but Wikipedia is not for publishing original research or source material like interviews. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that summarizes what independent reliable sources state about article subjects that are notable as defined by Wikipedia. Your own website and social media are the proper places for interviews.

I would note that you should probably change your username; I will shortly post instructions on your user talk page about how. 331dot (talk) 22:52, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

@AgLadiesinWpg: I am going to very slightly disagree with what 331dot has said, and point out that if you wish to upload what you deem to be 'significant' interviews with potentially notable people, or about potentially notable topics, you may upload those media at Wikimedia Commons. We accept videos, just as we do static images. But you would need to select and edit those interviews with care, releasing those videos under a CC-BY-SA licence for commercial re-use, ensuring they are in an acceptable format such as .webm or .ogg format, and possibly ensuring that the participants have clearly granted permission for their interview to be released (see this example). But, that said, interviews by people can't be used to establish notability about those people, but they may be appropriate to use to support some topics. I would advise great care in trying to use videos, but we are not averse to them, per se. (I've got three videos I either feature in, or have created and uploaded, on my own user page, but none of these make me a notable person!) If the person being interviewed can be shown to meet our notability criteria, then there is no reason not to have a video of them speaking about their work in that article. In fact, I would encourage it. But article content should not be based upon what a person actually says about themselves. There may also be circumstances where adding a link to a video interview might be appropriate within "External links", but it really will depend upon circumstances. I'm not sure if this clarifies things, or muddies the water! Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:58, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough- though my assumption was that the OP wanted to post the interviews directly here as a web host or something("interviews as articles"). Thanks for your insight. 331dot (talk) 00:55, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you both so much for your help. It has given me a lot to consider. Question: the interviews are not on video, they are text. Does it make a difference somehow? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AgLadiesinWpg (talk • contribs) 15:55, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

@AgLadiesinWpg: My apologies if I misunderstood your question. I should have said that we don't base our selection of notable people based upon what they say about themselves - whether on video interviews (my assumption) or in writing. These would be regarded as Primary Sources and might tend to present only what a person wants to say (or even pretend) about themselves. Somebody else writing about that person in a respected newspaper, book or organisational website (but not blogs and the like) would be deemed a secondary source, and that would be far more acceptable to us. That's not to say that some detail in interviews can't be used at all, but they wouldn't contribute towards notability. Being an encyclopaedia, Wikipedia only wants to present information on topics that others have deemed 'notable' by other writing in-depth about them. Local newspapers and insider business magazines are unlikely to be sufficient. There are millions of really worthy people out there who have done great things (and I'm sure I must be one of them!), but they'll will never reach Wikipedia's criteria for notability. That doesn't detract in any way from their efforts. Understanding our WP:N criteria is key to not wasting effort in writing about topics that simply won't get accepted. But don't let me put you off in any way from genuinely redressing the gender imbalance here on Wikipedia. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 11:24, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Edit

I'm Editing My Pages And Are Being Speedy Deleted I Don't Know Why... — Preceding unsigned comment added by BONGINKOSI (talk • contribs) 16:02, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Try reading the explanations on your user talk page. The words in blue are wikilinks to further information. And please remember that in English we don't start every word with a capital letter; that makes sentences difficult to read. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:06, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

You created the article Bonginkosi Moloi today (presumably about yourself) and it was tagged a few minutes later with a Speedy deletion. The reason given was that none of the information you wrote suggested that Bonginkosi Moloi meets Wikipedia's definition of notability. Part of this was no references. An editor has provided more explanation on your Talk page. David notMD (talk) 16:08, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

@David notMD:. It was not me that created the article Bonginkosi Moloi, and the article was not about me. I twice changed the indentation to show that you were replying to the OP, not to me, but twice you have changed the indentation back. Is there any reason why you don't want to stick to the accepted practice on indentation? --David Biddulph (talk) 01:09, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm guessing that DavidnotMD's was referring to the OP when he wrote "you". As for the indentation, I think some people automatically assume that a new post means they must add another level of indentation even though it's not really that automatic. Perhaps some feel that indenting each new post makes the thread easier to follow since it's easier to distinguish between posts; however, that does seem to increase the chance of there being a misunderstanding like seems to have happened here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:50, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines does say that indentation should be in accordance with Help:Using talk pages#Indentation, and that after editors have been alerted to specific aspects of these guidelines (such as indentation, sectioning, and signatures), they are expected to make a reasonable effort to follow those conventions. --David Biddulph (talk) 02:12, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I am more informed now. David notMD (talk) 06:04, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Programming

I have been learning how to code in PHP but it seems like i loose interest at some point. Now, my Question is, What is Really the best way to learn Programming? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clefticman (talk • contribs) 17:38, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Clefticman. I'm afraid we can't help you here. The Teahouse is only a forum for assisting editors struggling to work with Wikipedia. Maybe try Googling for what you want? Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 17:54, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Sockpuppet Question

I had a question whilst editing wikipedia.

What do you do if you wanted to investigate a sockpuppet, but you dont know what is the sockmaster?

This is related to my actions im doing on this site.

--TheWinRat (talk) 17:46, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

The account registered first is considered the master.

If this is about Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Harshch881 there's no case for either user to answer.

• There are about 600 million speakers of Hindi. Two people writing in Hindi is likely just a coincidence.
• Even if the two users in question are the same person, or are working together, they have not done anything "to deceive or mislead other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus, avoid sanctions, evade blocks, or otherwise violate community standards and policies." (WP:SOCK)

Hope that helps, Cabayi (talk) 19:00, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

@Thewinrat: Welcome to the Teahouse. Further to what Cabayi says above, I am really confused by your actions; they don't seem very reasonable to me. Perhaps I'm missing something blindingly obvious, so can you explain, please? Two minutes after posting here, you reported two different new users at WP:SPI (see here). Each editor had only one ever made one or two edits each, and each created new drafts (Draft:Himachal Abhi Abhi and Draft:Mahalaxmi municipile) They were created half an hour apart and both in Hindi. As I believe there are more than two Hindi-speakers in the world, is it not unreasonable for two such editors to coincide and make the mistake of posting a non-English article at roughly the same time? I fail to see why, at this time, you would conclude they were related as sockpuppets? The article contents seem totally unrelated, so I can't see how you'd conclude sockpuppetry just from seeing two consecutive entries on the Page Curation report. To me, your question here, and then immediately afterwards at SPI, just wastes volunteer time and suggests a serious lack of understanding by you of how parts of Wikipedia work. Before reporting and accusing editors, you should acquire far more evidence yourself - especially that which shows similar activity patterns before accusing brand new editors of sockpuppetry. You'll have seen that we have an editor interaction tool to compare the activities of two or more editors, and perhaps you should look at older SPI reports to see how others have gathered their suspicions together before reporting them. How do you think an immediate SPI notice on their userpages is going to make people feel welcome as new editors here? Because I have looked at your talkpage and have seen others editors expressing concerns about your lack of understanding in certain areas of Wikipedia, I am going to paste a copy of this reply directly on your talk page, and advise you to step back before reporting more editors in this way. Please read: WP:CIR. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 19:02, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

What to do when someone keeps adding original research?

Hello, a user keeps adding original research to the Dyson (company) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyson_(company) page. Under History, HQ moving to singapore. I've had to undo it multiple times over a couple of weeks. Is there some way to stop them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:C827:CA00:399E:2212:364:167E (talk) 18:29, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

You can request page protection, which prevents IP editors from editing the article, but then you wouldn't be able to edit it either. More info here. Wikipedia:Requests for page protection TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:00, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

our hamlet has changed our website address - need help changing it on Wilkipedia

it is presently under "Gray, Saskatchewan" our new website address is https://www.hamletofgray.com/

Would someone kindly change it, I have no idea how to do it

regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamlet of gray (talk • contribs) 20:14, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Hamlet of gray. Welcome to the Teahouse. Actually, the weblink was fine. I have however moved it to a new 'External links' section. Please don't ever try to use this account - or give access to anyone else - to edit the Gray, Saskatchewan page. This is simply because we don't usernames that suggest shared userage or that promote any group or organisation. Something like "Sue at Gray Hamlet" would be fine. You'd simply just abandon this account completely, and create a new one. It would be nice if someone could add a bit more encyclopaedic content and some independent references, too. Hope this helps, Regards from the UK. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:32, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Submitting draft for review

Hi All

I have just completed my first article and clicked on the "Submit your draft for review" button. Is there a way I can check if it has been submitted and see the progress of the review?

Excited to be part of the community?

Thanks in advance,

Ewan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ewan Menzies (talk • contribs) 21:44, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello Ewan Menzies and welcome to the Teahouse.

Your draft has formatted its references in a completely unmaintainable way. Please see referencing for beginners for an introduction to proper citations.

At first glance, this D4 stuff seems to be a hoax. Too many broad, vague claims. Until the references are cleaned up, I don't intend to give it another look. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:15, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello Ewan Menzies, if this is about User:Ewan Menzies/sandbox, it has not yet been submitted for review. What happened when you clicked the button? —teb728 t c 22:28, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

What - if any - is your connection to D4 or CTAG? David notMD (talk) 00:28, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

jmcgnh thanks for your feedback this is very helpful. I will look at the help guide and make corrections. I can see why you might say it is a hoax, many over the last 20 years who have heard about it have said this is too good to be true. Never-the-less Alan Fowler the creator has over 30 successful case studies from organisations like Martin Currie Investments, Northern Ireland Water, Central Government, Buckinghamshire Hospital Trust, and BTHealth Care Group. D4 was referenced in the Business Scotland Magazine (page 61) last month. More importantly, we are in the early stages of backing from a well-known professor at Edinburgh University. How would you suggest I amend the wording to let readers see this is genuine? (I understand if you do not want to read it at this time:)

David notMD thanks for your feedback. When I hit submit it just came back to the same submit screen? I am a Director of CTA Global Ltd, the company that bought the D4 IP. Is this ok? Thanks again, Ewan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ewan Menzies (talk • contribs) 09:11, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

• "Submit your draft for review" should be in a dark blue background near the top of your draft. That submits. Confusingly, when you edit the draft, you click on "Publish" at the bottom, which only saves your edits to the document.
• You position with CTA Global means you have what Wikipedia considers a paid relationship. See WP:PAID. Other editors here will explain that better than I.
• As written, the article will be rejected for many reasons. One, but not the most important, is that you used a non-valid means of creating a reference list. See Help:Referencing for beginners
• At the end of each comment, type four of ~. This adds your User name signature.

Hope this helps a bit, but my frank assessment is that what you wrote is not what Wikipedia is. Again, others will explain better. David notMD (talk) 15:12, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Properly creating a new page

I’m creating a Wikipedia for a person and IMDb is not a reliable source I see. How do I go about adding the appropriate sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DawnPiercy916 (talk • contribs) 03:58, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

You can do so by reading this page and this page. --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 04:01, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

new user

I recently joined Wikipedia. I wish to know how to create a page to introduce myself and my capabilities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parpars (talk • contribs) 07:20, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

See WP:UP for a complete answer. Regards and Welcome!, Ariconte (talk) 07:34, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Shorter version: click the redlinked "Parpars" in your signature and write something about you and what you do/intend to do on WP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:31, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

As GGS wrote, your User page is a place to explain a bit about your background and you intentions as a Wikipedia editor. It is not a social media place, nor for any mention of business you do. Lastly, at the end of each comment, type four of ~. This 'signs' your comment with your User name. Welcome to Wikipedia. David notMD (talk) 15:19, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

New contributor, not sure what happens next

Hi, I've drafted my first article and submitted it for review and hopefully approval but a few days have passed and I'm not sure what to expect next. How long would it usually take to receive feedback? Apologies if the guidance is on here and I've missed it, I'm still finding my way around. Many Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MMyll (talk • contribs) 10:41, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

No, you haven't submitted it for review. The way to do so is with the button labelled "Submit your draft for review!". I see that you were also trying to declare a conflict of interest, so you need to read WP:COI, and (if appropriate) WP:PAID. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:51, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying David - I'll try again. I do need to declare an (unpaid) interest and have read the guidance on that however, I hope I've written the content from an unbiased perspective using references and sources in the public domain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MMyll (talk • contribs) 12:13, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I followed the pathway again to create a new article from the link here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Contents - "Create a new article" and I can't actually see any button labelled "Submit your draft for review" I only have a "Publish" option. Apologies if it's somewhere obvious and I'm just missing it but I'd be grateful for further guidance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MMyll (talk • contribs) 12:37, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Please sign your posts with ~~~~, or alternatively click the Signature button on the screen located above the edit window(it looks like a scribble) so we know who wrote what. In the context you speak of, "publish" is equivalent to "save" and does not mean you draft is "published to Wikipedia". I think what you are speaking of is different than your draft located at User:MMyll/sandbox/The Zangwills, which has the "submit your draft for review" button in blue near the top. 331dot (talk) 12:41, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Ted Kennedy Page vandalised please edit

referrred to as a bastard murderer in the first sentence, above his picture are the words murderer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firegenetics (talk • contribs) 10:43, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done Thanks, Firegenetics. Edits reverted and IP vandal now temporarily blocked by an adminstrator. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:05, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Sajal Chakraborty aka Bhagoban.

how can i create a blp in wiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by BHAGOBAN (talk • contribs) 11:58, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

BHAGOBAN Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. From your username, I gather that you want to write about yourself; this is strongly discouraged. Please read the autobiography policy written at WP:AUTO. Wikipedia is not social media for people to tell the world about themselves. Wikipedia articles must be written in a neutral point of view; this is usually difficult for people when writing about themselves, as we all naturally write favorably about ourselves. If you meet the notability guidelines for biographies written at WP:BIO, or more specific ones for certain fields like musicians, someone will eventually taken note of you and write about you. Also understand that it is not necessarily desirable to have a Wikipedia article about yourself; see this link. 331dot (talk) 12:04, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Article Submission

Hi All,

Being a new user, I created biography page under my own user sandbox namespace. How can I create/transfer that user biography page to new one. Also, how to make that article public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anvika Mishra (talk • contribs) 12:24, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Anvika Mishra Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I will shortly add the appropriate information to allow you to submit the draft for review; however, it would be good if you worked to remove the promotional/puffery language from the draft(including but not limited to "Quite the multi tasker as is evident from the aforementioned", "Abhishek is enjoying his life and fulfilling his dreams with his passion", etc.) I would not submit it before doing that. You should also make sure that this person meets the notability guidelines for those in his field written at WP:NTRIATHLON.

I notice your username is similar to the name of the person you wrote about. What is your connection to them? 331dot (talk) 12:30, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Article? Issues involved--notability and conflict of interest. No one should be contributing to WP when that subject is you or your work. Is the subject (you) notable with secondary references to be included in an encyclopedic work? WP is not the place for an article that would be a resume.104.35.236.49 (talk) 12:45, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

331dot's point is that people are strongly advised against trying to create an article about themselves. see WP:AUTO. Your draft has been reviewed and rejected, with advice given by the reviewer. From a quick look, much of the content - while probably true - is without references. David notMD (talk) 15:25, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

plagerism

Am I allowed to copy and paste to facebook with wiki article at top of post. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smith1951 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I think so, provided you follow the requirements about attribution and licensing. See reusing Wikipedia content, Smith1951. --ColinFine (talk) 15:27, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

List Company Profile

Hello,

Thank you for taking the time to read my email, my name's Assam and I'm the founder of a startup called Intvo, I'm sending this email to see if you can help me to list my company profile on WIKI. I would really appreciate the time. Kind Regards, Assam — Preceding unsigned comment added by Intvo (talk • contribs) 18:51, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Intvo, Hey, First I got to say a thing about your username, as we normally don't allow usernames representing a group of people (I.E. a company.) Anyway, I can find no news articles about the company, so I would work on growing your startup before you make an article about it. WelpThatWorked (talk) 19:02, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Intvo. Like many people you have a misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia does not contain "profiles" - not one, not even of Jimmy Wales. It has absolutely nothing to do with publicising or promoting any company or anything else. It is an encyclopaedia, which contain neutrally written articles, which summarise what independent commentators have already published about a subject. If we ever have an article about your company, it will not be your article, you will have no control whatever over the contents of the article, and little of the content should come from you or your company. Sorry. --ColinFine (talk) 10:46, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

When editing articles - shall I use simple language or descriptive and fancy?

When editing, may I use words such as: Shall, Shan't, keen, peculiar, etcetera... or should I keep the language simple?

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by CharlieZPP (talk • contribs) 19:05, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I can't imagine where a word like "shall" or "keen" would be used in an article; the first expresses an opinion and the second is a slang colloquialism. Peculiar is a fine word, in certain contexts, and generally we don't spell out "et cetera" if we need to use it, "etc." is usually sufficient. Otherwise, WP:TONE provides some good guidance as to the appropriate register articles are expended to be written in. Standard English (pick one national standard, however no one standard is better than any other, see WP:ENGVAR) and a neutral point of view are usually key as well. I hope that helps. --Jayron32 19:11, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

There are various ways to use the auxiliary verb 'shall'. In military use it is not an opinion because it is a command. A US Department of Defense specification is said to consist of "shall statements", such as "The payroll system shall generate direct deposits weekly for personnel who have requested direct deposits". Robert McClenon (talk) 04:03, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi

You might not get this a lot so I hope you have a good day :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PLZLEAVEMEALONE21 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, PLZLEAVEMEALONE21, welcome to the Teahouse. Yes, we got your post, though people only really post here if they get stuck and need help editing Wikipedia. If that happens, do come back and seek assistance.

So that we know who has said what, and when, we ask everyone to remember to sign every post to talk pages and help desks. You do that by simply typing four keyboard 'tilde' characters (like this: ~~~~) right at the end of your last sentence. Seeing as you're probably just up the road from me, I'll pop by and leave you a welcome message on your talk page, full of loads of helpful links to explain how this encyclopaedia works. Do try out The Wikipedia Adventure - there are 15 different badges to collect as you participate in this interactive tour round. Regards from Derbyshire. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:36, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Confused new user

Hello

I'm been in contact with several of the Wikipedia editors and they have helped me understand what can and what cannot be posted/added to existing pages.

To the existing page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_flight_bag I would like to propose adding the following at the end of the History section:

Early high levels of breakages to EFB equipment have been addressed through the deployment of rugged protective tablet cases like the PIVOT case that is deployed at Southwest Airlines (http://swaefb.com/pivot-pro-case/; https://airwaysmag.com/airlines/southwest-efb/; https://ipadpilotnews.com/2015/03/perfect-ipad-case-mount-pilots/).

I work for a company that is referenced in these articles. If the above request is acceptable, can you explain or give me a step-by-step as to what I need to do for next steps.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KJ010110 (talk • contribs) 21:10, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

@KJ010110: I will consider this by assessing your source, and may possibly make a smaller edit to the EFB page on you behalf, but it will not - and never must - mention the product name. That would be far too promotional, and I'm not fully convinced that other editors will even accept what I might add. You have a detailed and very clear "NO!" from me to your question below (which I answered prior to to answering his one) about creating a whole article about this product. And in future, remember to sign every talk page post you publish by typing four keyboard tilde characters (like this: ~~~~) at the very end of your last sentence. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:33, 7 February 2019 (UTC)  

 Done Nick Moyes (talk) 00:19, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Creating a page

Hello

I have looked at numerous Wikipedia pages and have found numerous ones that are company specific https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speck_Products https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skullcandy

As such, we want to create a similar page for PIVOT.

Do I do this in Sandbox and them select PUBLISH PAGE for a review?

Please advise. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KJ010110 (talk • contribs) 21:52, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

You can try, KJ010110 - and whilst that would be the best way - from what I've seen at User:KJ010110/PIVOT, you will almost certainly be wasting your own time, as well as that of our volunteers in then assessing and probably immediately deleting it. I and others have already given you advice (see here) on the inadvisability of adding even a few sentences about PIVOT into the EFB page, yet now you want to create a whole encyclopaedia article all about it! In what way does your company's product meet our Notabilty criteria? Indeed, does even the parent company meet the criteria clearly laid out in Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)? If you cannot find three or more detailed, in-depth independent sources that show the world in general - not the airline business - has taken note of the company or its product, then the answer is no, forget it. Wikipedia is not here to help you promote your employers business or products. Don't compare your company to other articles here - each is judged/retained/deleted on its own merits. Do follow advice previously given to you about declaring your conflict of interest, and don't try to write from an insider perspective. Leave it to non-involved editors by offering those links at WP:REQUESTED ARTICLES.

To be absolutely blunt, from what I can ascertain you've basically got a company making a load of fancy suction cups, quick release gizmos and nice sturdy cases to put airline electronic equipment in to keep them safe. That's reassuring to know next time I take a flight. But somehow that just isn't going to cut it here on this encyclopaedia, and I'm not quite sure why you think it would, or why you think you might receive different advice than that already given you?

And who, by the way is "we"? If this account has been created by the PR or Marketing Department of FlyBoys Inc. so that its staff can all have a go at promoting its PIVOT product range, then you are in serious breach of our policies on account use, and may be blocked from editing. Wikipedia only permits one individual to use one account name. Again, I invite you to read and act upon our two policies at WP:COI and WP:PAID, and give up trying to use Wikipedia as an advertising platform for non-notable products. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:17, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Can one edit a rejected draft or only resubmit?

When a draft page has been rejected, is it better to resubmit with a (hopefully corrected) full revision or suggest small edits/additions as one might if it was a live page? Can you edit piecemeal to a draft or only something in the public space? Thanks for your time. GGSloth (talk) 22:49, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

@GGSloth: you can absolutely make edits to a draft, and you certainly should, as this is the only way you can make the corrections to whatever it was that caused the article to be rejected in the first place. Editing a draft uses the same system as editing articles in the mainspace. You're encouraged to split up edits by task so that it's easier for other people to review your work (and because it's a good habit to build as an editor), but there's no actual limit on edit size, and since it's in the draftspace, you're likely to be the only person actively editing it so edit conflicts are less of a concern. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:14, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) GGSloth Welcome to Teahouse, I believe the above refer to Draft:Redfish API. Since you are a WP:PAID editor which you have disclosure in your user page and article talk page, you would edit the declined draft but do bare in mind the content need to strictly adhere to (1) neutral point of view (2) no puffery or WP:PROMO in the content and (2) content claimed needs to support from sources provided without tweaking it to better the article and (4) no violation of copy right infringement -write the article in your own words. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 23:17, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you both. That's very clear and very helpful. I apologize for not posting this at the top.

GGSloth (talk) 23:39, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, GGSloth. As a paid editor, you have an obligation to be rigorously neutral and encyclopedic in your writing style. All editors do, but paid editors are not given the slack that is extended to new volunteers when they make minor mistakes. Consider this paragraph you wrote:

"Both human readable and machine capable, Redfish leverages common Internet and web services standards to expose information directly to the modern tool chain. Redfish specifies a RESTful interface and utilizes JSON and OData to help customers integrate solutions within their existing tool chains."

That entire paragraph is promotional marketing jargon that conveys no useful information to the reader. "Leverages" sounds impressive but means nothing. RESTful, JSON and Odata is a just bunch of jargon unless it is explained and/or wikilinked. "Integrate solutions within their existing tool chains" is typical high-tech industry marketing language that is worthless to the average reader. Worst of all, that entire paragraph is unreferenced, so it violates the policy Verifiability, which is one of our three core content policies.

The following paragraph includes a reference that says: "Redfish: A New API for Managing Servers" and nothing more. You are expected to provide complete bibliographic information. The publication is InfoQ, the author is Abel Abram, and the publication date is August 6, 2015. Add complete bibliographic information to all your references.

Wikipedia allows paid editing, but only under strict standards which includes subjecting paid editing to heightened scrutiny. You are expected to produce work that is in complete compliance with our policies and guidelines, especially the neutral point of view, which is the most difficult policy for paid editors to comply with. But you must comply with it. You are getting paid to edit, so it is not right for you to turn to volunteer editors to help you do your job. Just do your job correctly from the very beginning. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:34, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Empty market-speak garbage like that is nine times out of ten (I mean that literally, that often) a copyvio; it is here, taken from this page. I'll go warn, RevDelete, etc.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:48, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

 • Scratching my bead a bit. I ended up deleting Draft:Redfish API under G12, where the content you excerpted above had been added, but I'm not sure how GGSloth is connected to it--he/she made no edits to it under at least that username.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 06:09, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, @Cullen:. You are under a misapprehension. I did not write the draft. I have, as @Fuhghettaboutit: noted, not made any edits or suggested any on the talk page. I agree that the rejected draft is unacceptable, and bad in a number of ways. Notability is certainly not its only problem.

I added the COI disclosures because I will be suggesting edits, with the goal of aligning Wikipedia's and DMTF's goals, to the extent possible, for the mutual benefit of both. When it's not possible, I try to educate them about why. When it is possible but needs work, that's our job.

Thank you for your detailed comments on the page, some of which had not occurred to me. I'll add them to the list. I am trying to deal with problems one at a time, so that I can readily see where I am making mistakes.

I am aware of and have studied the policies and guidelines for verifiability, neutral PoV, and "no advertising" (I forget the proper name for that). It is my intention to comply with all of them.

Again, thank you for your time and effort. GGSloth (talk) 23:40, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, @Fuhghettaboutit:. Thank you for pointing out the copyright violation. I suspected that much of the draft was taken from DMTF stuff and would have checked. I failed to do so because I felt that trying to correct everything that was wrong with the draft at one time was not the best approach for me. I prefer not to multi-task. I intend to try to deal with it one problem at a time. Earlier respondents to this topic seemed to endorse that approach as reasonable.

If I'm understanding you correctly, you have deleted the draft. I'm not sure how I can possibly improve it to a point where it could be accepted without a draft to work on. I am not asking for anyone to do my work for me, especially if they're not getting paid. I simply want a way to, for example, try to correct an external URL link, and see if I can get that right.

Actually, I'm not going to do that first. I'm searching for notability sources first, since that is the sine qua non of articles. Without that, it never goes up in the first place, if I understand this correctly.

Thank you for your time and patience. And please let me know if I got this indention for replies thing wrong. GGSloth (talk) 23:40, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

This article needs to be updated

hello all,

        I have updated the article about the organisation IAWRT but this updating message stays above a section that has been updated several times over more that a year, does anyone now why?
there 

Current status Ambox current red.svg This article needs to be updated. Please update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information. (November 2010)

Nonee Iawrtwebjournalist  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iawrtwebjournalist (talk • contribs) 04:48, 8 February 2019 (UTC) 

Welcome to the Teahouse Iawrtwebjournalist. If you believe the Current status section does not need further updating, feel free to remove the {{update}} tag from the section. BTW, do not type blanks at the start of a line unless you want strange formatting like above. —teb728 t c 06:29, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

article denied is dissapointing

rejecting publishing of genuine articles with more than enough references on wiki is highly dissapointing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.229.230.27 (talk) 07:52, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello IP editor and welcome to the Teahouse.

Yes, indeed, it can be very disappointing to have your efforts rejected. Your fellow editors will go to great lengths to explain how to create articles that are not rejected, but this requires some participation and flexibility on your side. Wikipedia articles are not merely about some subject that exists as specified by any old web references. Creating a new article from scratch is quite difficult and we often advise new editors to spend considerable time improving other articles (and their editing skills and knowledge of how Wikipedia actually works) before starting on a new article. This can be extremely frustrating, especially for people who thought it would be easy (anyone can edit) and quick. We lose many prospective new editors because of this, a matter of some concern. So, if you have not given up entirely, please engage with us. There are people willing to work with you. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:44, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Declined article.

Dear Teahouse friends,

I am currently writing an article about the Norwegian artist Ross Kolby but it has been declined as it does "not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject".

I do not understand that as I have inserted links to numerous articles about the artist in Norwegian media as well as an article in British media. The articles are not "passing mentions" but full stories about the artworks and the artist. Could you help me understand?

I was inspired by a Wikipedia article about another Norwegian artist Sverre Malling that has been accepted. Could you help me understand in what way my article is diffiret from this one?

Best regards,

Constituto.

Constituto (talk) 10:00, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Constituto: and welcome to the Teahouse! I have looked at Draft:Ross Kolby and compared it to no:Ross Kolby, the bokmål version - it looks like your English-language article is a translation of the Norwegian one. That is not a problem (though there should be a note about that in an edit summary - see this information), but it's worth keeping in mind that different language versions of Wikipedia are different projects with different rules and guidelines. One problem with the English-language draft is that there is quite a bit of information that has no source. You should only include information that you can provide a reliable independent source for. The sources should also be added as references with footnotes rather than as links in the text. I would agree with you that Kolby is most likely notable - the notability criteria for painters are found at WP:ARTIST and he seems to meet criteria 3 and 4, from what I can make out. But the article doesn't clarly show that in its current form, partly because there is so much unsourced information that the bits that are sources, and that show notability, are lost. --bonadea contributions talk 10:22, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Follow-up to Control editing

Guys, a simple question for those experienced with the editing process. we have up dated photo's to replace some ancient ones already in place. How do i approach this please Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chriscrew (talk • contribs) 13:53, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Back in September you were editing Palling Volunteer Rescue Service, for which you properly declared a COI in the Talk for that page. Same article? First, avoid "we" in comments. Wikipedia editors need to be individuals. What I hope a different editor can provide is guidance on how to add photos to Wikipedia Commons, and then copy those into the article. A crucial question is who owns the photos. At a simple level, the photographer is the owner and the person who donates use of the photos. David notMD (talk) 14:55, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, Chriscrew. If you personally own the copyright to the pictures, and are willing to release them under a licence such as CC-BY-SA, (which will allow anybody to reuse them in any way, for any purpose, commercial or not), then you can simply upload them to Commons (see Help:Upload. If any of those conditions don't hold, then it is more complicated. See donating copyright materials. --ColinFine (talk) 16:42, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Railfan23

Please could I make contact with Railfan23? He/she has left me a message and I do not know how to reply. Pedr Jarvis — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedrjarvis (talk • contribs) 15:07, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Pedrjarvis, I would try his talk page. Add a section by hitting the + at the top toolbar of the page. Good luck! WelpThatWorked (talk) 15:10, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

why my editing was declined

I did my editing and it was declined. you said ask it on teahouse ,now i am doing it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sajwa123 (talk • contribs) 15:08, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Sajwa123, Probably because it isn't even an article WelpThatWorked (talk) 15:12, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I thought since it's their sandbox they can edit whatever they want so why was it declined? 185.69.145.217 (talk) 15:13, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

The edit itself went through, but the user asked for the article to go to mainspace... and that was denied of course. WelpThatWorked (talk) 15:16, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Sajwa123: You have some content on your User page which appears to be about you. You also created a Sandbox with the same content, submitted it to be an article and that was declined. The Sandbox User:Sajwa123/sandbox still exists, but for many, many reasons is not ready to be an article. Wikipedia is not a social media. For a living person to be the subject of an article, there has to be published content ABOUT that person, written by others. Nothing that a person writes about themselves - even if all true - can be used. David notMD (talk) 16:11, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

A Question or Comment About AFC Submissions

The OP was asking why their edit, in their sandbox, was declined. The IP then says that since anyone should be able to edit whatever they want in a sandbox, why was that edit declined? This may illustrate a misunderstanding of the AFC Submit function on a sandbox. Experienced editors and AFC reviewers know that Submit, whether on a draft, or on a user subpage, or on a sandbox, means Request Review for Acceptance as an Article. However, I think that many new editors edit in their sandbox and then Submit, without really knowing what it is that they are Submitting, without really thinking that they have written an article draft. So sometimes when a sandbox edit is Submitted and Declined, the editor may not have understood what they were requesting when they Submitted.

I am not sure whether there is anything that can be done to reduce this confusion. AFC reviewers should know that the submitter might or might understand what they are doing, and so should be patient and courteous with a confused submitter.

Was the OP requesting that their edit become an article in mainspace, or were they Submitting it because they didn't understand that is what Submit means?

Robert McClenon (talk) 22:27, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Racial Classification for Biracial or Mixed-Race People

As a Biracial Hispanic American, I have always had concerns about how biracials are racially classified.

I feel that for change and progress to take place, it has to start with media and information sources such as Wikipedia, that most people turn to for information and/or clarification. I've noticed for so many years, since Wikipedia's existence (however, I realize it has been a constant for many years prior in American social culture), that this country has held onto the "one drop rule" notion, in spite of its invalidity today. However, there are still ignorant mindsets that continue to adhere to that notion and as a biracial American, I feel as though I can speak for most of us 'mixies' that we want our racial classification to be correct and accurate. I also realize that the subject of race is socially constructed, however, this is the very reason why the racial terminology should be printed and read correctly for those of mixed race, like myself.

Most of the time, when I research a famous person of black & white racial mixture, and who also self-identifies as 'biracial', I will see at the bottom of your pages, where your references are listed, that these individuals will have a reference of "African American", whereas if they have other racial mixture and classification, it will read other races or ethnicities such as, for example, "American of Italian ancestry," or "American of Swedish ancestry," etc., instead of "American of African ancestry" or "American of African American ancestry." I was pleased to see that Meghan, Duchess of Sussex was classified as "British People of African Ancestry," (It should also read in the same way since she is also an American: "American of African Ancestry" or "American of African American Ancestry") because you didn't give her the label of "African American."

It always made me wonder why other biracials aren't listed in this way? Why are they not listed as "American of African Ancestry" or "American of African American Ancestry"? Personally, I, as a biracial Hispanic, do not self-identify as "African American" because even though I have African ancestry, I am not exclusively an African American and I feel that if the racial classification is noted for other biracials you should stick to how you racially classified Meghan, Duchess of Sussex instead of saddling them with the "African American" label. Just because someone has African or African American ancestry, it should not automatically be said that they are African or African American--ESPECIALLY if they are of mixed race and they also self-identify that way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exotiq88 (talk • contribs) 16:04, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Exotiq88, Read Wikipedia:Race_and_ethnicity WelpThatWorked (talk) 16:06, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

what is the meaning of life

TELL ME PLEASE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rl233530 (talk • contribs) 16:27, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I believe that it is 42. Schazjmd (talk) 16:39, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Try to be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations. --Jayron32 16:45, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Or maybe you prefer To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women. --Jayron32 16:52, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Meaning of life (disambiguation). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:44, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

But don't forget hot water, good dentishtry and shoft lavatory paper. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:47, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Why is this question asked and answered in the Teahouse? Eschoryii (talk) 19:40, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

See the Wikipedia article titled boredom and come back if you have any questions we can clarify for you. --Jayron32 19:51, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

How about the Meaning of life article. I too must be bored. No question today Eschoryii (talk) 01:06, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Article Origin

I was looking at the Dean Spanos article (having recently read an entertaining book about the NFL) and was struck by its vaguely PR agency-written tone. Inspecting the history, it appears to have emerged almost whole cloth from an Orlando-based IP user who has contributed similarly whitewashed articles about many other NFL executives. Is it appropriate to raise the provenance of an article in any way? Or is the right approach to simply edit where one sees a lack of objectivity? The difficulty I see with simply editing is that the structure of these hagiographic articles -- with sections like Philanthropy and Awards & Recognition -- make them resistant to adverse information without wholesale revisions. Thank you! bzzne (talk) 20:37, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

@Bzzne: If you have concerns, you can raise the issue at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard where editors interested in investigating claims of conflicts-of-interest can help out. --Jayron32 20:40, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I worry I'm not on solid enough ground to allege a conflict, but I'll look into this IP's articles more and reconsider. bzzne (talk) 21:01, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Looks like sockpuppetry to me. Article created 2012. As far back as 12/2015 and as recent as 1/2019 there have been scores of edits to this article from IPs starting with 2600, 2601, 2602, 2606. Often their talk cautioned about inappropriate additions to the article. I did not check their contributions to see if there were other NFL-related edits. David notMD (talk) 21:18, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Actually, a lot of 2606 is vandalism. Could still be socking, just not positive. David notMD (talk) 22:40, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Counting Uses of a Source?

I have seen people mention "X source has been used 20 times on the site" but cannot figure out how to find such statistics myself (and googling for instructions failed me). Can someone give me a quick pointer? bzzne (talk) 21:57, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Ah, Bzzne, welcome. That might be something like this fascinating Wikimedia blog post which analysed the re-use of citations across all language Wikipedias. Whilst the magnitude of their reuse - and, indeed, a couple of the titles themselves - do seem surprising, I find it heartening that, as we seemingly drown amongst waves of articles on what I might call 'notable trivia', we actually see massive re-use of some weighty factual sources. Lets preface that top ten list with this interesting quote from the investigation:

There are 4.5 million unique sources in the datasets. While on average, every source is cited 3.5 times, the vast majority of sources in this dataset are used less than 500 times across wikis. Only nine “super publications”’ are used more than 10,000 times.

1. Updated world map of the Köppen-Geiger climate classification: 2,830,341 citations [doi.org/10.5194/hess-11–1633–2007]
2. Prediction of Hydrophobic (Lipophilic) Properties of Small Organic Molecules Using Fragment Methods: An Analysis of AlogP and CLogP Methods: 21,350 citations [doi.org/10.1021/jp980230o]
3. The status, quality, and expansion of the NIH full-length cDNA project: the Mammalian Gene Collection (MGC): 20,247 citations [doi.org/10.1101/gr.2596504]
4. The de Vaucouleurs Atlas of Galaxies: 19,068 citations [ISBN: 9780521820486]
5. The Complete New General Catalogue and Index Catalogues of Nebulae and Star Clusters by J. L. E. Dryer: 19,060 citations [ISBN: 9780933346512]
6. Galaxies and How to Observe Them: 19,058 citations [ISBN: 9781852337520}
7. A Concise History of Romania: 15,597 citations [ISBN: 9780521872386]
8. Catalog of Fishes California Academy of Sciences: 11,980 citations, [ISBN: 0940228475]
9. Dictionary of Minor Planet Names: 10,651 citations [ISBN: 9783540002383]
10. National and religious composition of the population of Croatia, 1880–1991: By settlements: 8,230 citations [ISBN: 9789536667079]

And just of out interest, you might like to know which articles on English Wikipedia contain the most number of separate references. If you do, then visit Wikipedia:Most-referenced articles. I hope you find these this as fascinating as I did. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:45, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

That is extremely interesting, thank you! Who knew there were so many fish? bzzne (talk) 23:05, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

You didn't give an example but they may have used the search box on the source name or used Special:LinkSearch on an online source. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:50, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you - LinkSearch is exactly what I was after. bzzne (talk) 23:05, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Article review for notability

Hi guys does this article meet notability for Wikipedia. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chase_(2019_film) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:741:100:1A3F:B90E:534D:3148:629E (talk) 02:29, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Not just guys. David notMD (talk) 02:35, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

For films, the relevant guideline is Wikipedia:Notability (films); however, for not yet released films, etc. the relevant section of that guideline is Wikipedia:Notability (films)#Future films, incomplete films, and undistributed films. You might want to try asking about this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film since the members of that WikiProject probably can give you a more specific answer. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:12, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia.

Hi There,

I asked for publishing a draft for ARZAQY and here what I got (not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia.).

In my opinion , it is good to share such new information about a new sources for HR for MENA market and specially for county like Yemen , which most of people use Wikipedia for searcing for new information.

Thanks

Areqi85 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alareqi85 (talk • contribs) 06:20, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Alareqi85. Sorry, Wikipedia is exactly the wrong place to document a new thing. It is one of our major inclusion policies that, as an encyclopedia—by its nature is a tertiary source—the entries in it must only provide a survey of information already the subject of publication in the wider world. We do not contain entries on things that are not yet topics of knowledge by their previous publication by third parties, i.e., writings by people and organizations other than ARZAQY and anyone connected to it in any way. Please see Wikipedia:No original research.

Though the no original research policy directly invalidates the idea of using Wikipedia to first document a topic, multiple other fundamental policies and guidelines require reliable, independent, secondary sources, treating a topic in substantive detail to exist for an article on a topic to be warranted. These include the verifiability policy (mandating that all facts in an article be attributable to previously published, reliable sources) and the notability guideline (requiring that, for an article to be warranted, it be shown that the world has taken "note" of the topic by non-trivial publication about that topic in secondary and independent reliable sources).

For these reasons, please document this, but not at Wikipedia. If in the future it gains such treatment in sources, only then might it be suitable for a Wikipedia entry. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 06:49, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

How do I go about replacing a low quality .jpg on an article

Hi! I would like to replace the yucky .jpg used in the page .OOO. After some effort, I found a nicer transparent .png version of the logo in the Wayback Machine. (I forget where exactly and it was tricky to find, but I could probably find it again if needed.) All the rules for Wikipedia images and copyright and yadda yadda are long and scary and so after going around in circles in the Help articles I decided to ask here: what do I do to make this page image not be a jpeggy mess anymore and how do I do it without messing up something? Is the .png I found sufficient? thanks in advance :) --Undead Shambles (talk) 07:36, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I assume that the logo is registered as a trademark, so you cannot upload a better image to WP:Commons. The existing low-quality image is deliberately low-quality under a WP:Fair use rationale, so I'd leave it as it is. Dbfirs 07:42, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

@Dbfirs: Whether the logo is trademarked doesn't really have anything to do with whether the file can be uploaded to Commons; there are plenty of trademarked logos uploaded to Commons. Copyright and trademark are separate concepts and what typically matters when it comes to Commons is whether the logo is deemed to be too simple to be eligible for copyright protection in its country of origin and int he United States. The jpeg file File:.OOO (DotTrippleO) Domain Logo.jpg is a Commons file licensed as {{PD-textlogo}}; so, it's not subject to Wikipedia's non-free content use policy and it should be OK for a cleaner .png file to be uploaded under the same license. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:58, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps I am being over-cautious. American law seems to be slightly more permissive than British law. I've striken the inaccurate advice above. Dbfirs 08:14, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

You might be right depending upon the country of origin; so, I apologize if my response was a bit curt. Commons pretty much never accepts logos originating out of the UK per c:COM:TOO United Kingdom or countries which follow UK practice when it comes to the threshold of originality because the threshold applied by the UK is quite low (much lower than the US). So, just because the file jpeg exists on Commons that doesn't mean it should exist on Commons. This might be a good thing to ask about at c:COM:VPC. The file would be public domain in the US though in my opinion; so, if Commons can't keep it because too complex to be public domain in its country of origin, it can most likely be uploaded locally to Wikipedia under {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:27, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

@Undead Shambles: You should be able to upload the png version to Commons under the same license as the jpg. The format is different though, so you should upload it as a separate file and not an updated version. You can probably ask someone at c:COM:GL to do it for you; they may be even able to create a svg version of the file. If, however, you do it yourself, I wouldn't claim it as "own work" like the jpeg uploader did because that's not really the case; you should provide a direct source for the png version and also a source for the copyright holder. For future reference, although Commons and Wikipedia are sister projects, they are separate projects with their own policies and guidelines. You can ask questions about Commons here at the Teahouse, but it might be better to ask them at c:Commons:Village pump instead. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:05, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Thank you! I think I'll make a request at Graphics Lab for an .svg... but should I ask for one of the original upload, or the .png I found (does it matter?)? And just so I know, when you say "direct source", would it be a link to the page I found it on in the Wayback Machine? I was slightly concerned about this since I... kinda forgot what article it was in. But I suppose the copyright holder would be the company owning the .ooo domain, "Infibeam", right? --Undead Shambles (talk) 09:24, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Referencing the same source more than once

Hi there. Sorry to bother you, but when there’s a lot of information about a Wikipedia subject in the same non-Wikipedia article (a different website), can I reference it as a source on the Wikipedia article twice, thrice etc.?

Many thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NickyNelka (talk • contribs) 12:14, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, NickyNelka. Yes you can do that, and it's relatively easy to give the reference a name, which you can then use on subsequent instances in the article where you want to cite it. You can read how to do this at Help:Referencing for beginners#Same reference used more than once, but please do ask again here if you're struggling with it. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:22, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

third party sources

I have a question about an article I created but was declined here [[1]]. I understood third party sources to be those who are not affiliated with the party the article is about and as for notability, texts about the subject in question. I thought the newspaper articles that I have meet those requirements. However Robert McClenon declined the article as the sources are "not in depth" and "are what the organization says about itself." (User_talk:Robert_McClenon#Tepito_Arte_Acá) He also suggested coming here for help. If this is the case, could anyone give me an idea of that kind of information that is missing? Thank you.HicksW (talk) 21:33, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Tepito_Arte_Acá

The draft in question is Draft:Tepito_Arte_Acá. Do any other experienced editors want to comment on the draft and either on what the author can do to improve it or whether I should have accepted it? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:17, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

First, Yo no hablo Espanol. It's borderline in my opinion, but I would accept it. Consider copying some of the content and references from Daniel Manrique. This would strengthen the article. Would need to acknowledge that content was copied. David notMD (talk) 20:17, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

User:HicksW - Please expand the draft as advised by User:David notMD. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:25, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I copied text and refs from the Tepito article to create a section. I believe this is a useful addition to the draft, but leave the final decision to HicksW. I did not copy in content from the Daniel Manrique article because I have no idea what would be a useful addition. David notMD (talk) 00:31, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Protect article

Could someone help me with protecting an article? The page belongs to my boss and it was recently vandalised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devdas420 (talk • contribs) 16:50, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

No page on Wikipedia belongs to any one person or company, but if you tell us what page then we can revert any vandalism and possibly protect the page. Dbfirs 16:54, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

@Devdas420: (edit conflict) Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm not certain which article you are referencing, making it difficult to know if protection is warranted. Note that articles here do not belong to any one person, they belong to the community, see WP:OWN. No one editor gets exclusive control over an article or any special rights to dictate its content. If you are here editing for your boss, Wikipedia's Terms of Use require you to disclose that per WP:PAID; you should also review conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 16:55, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

... later ... I assume that this is about Lal Vijay Shahdeo. I note that there has been some vandalism but that it was quickly reverted. Dbfirs 16:59, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Is that in fact the article? Because a few hours later it was deleted as G10: Attack page or negative unsourced BLP. David notMD (talk) 20:20, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

The article was about a film director and included this reference but I must admit that I didn't check some other facts claimed. Dbfirs 00:05, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes it was about that article and why was it deleted?

Tracking down items in my Watchlist

I just found this

20 January 2019 (Deletion log); 04:58 Drmies (talk | contribs) changed visibility of 3 revisions on page Wikipedia:Teahouse: edit summary hidden ‎(RD2: Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material) (Deletion log); 04:57 Drmies (talk | contribs) changed visibility of a revision on page Wikipedia:Teahouse: content hidden and username hidden ‎(RD2: Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material) (Deletion log); 04:57 Anna Frodesiak (talk | contribs) changed visibility of a revision on page Wikipedia:Teahouse: content hidden, edit summary hidden and username hidden ‎(RD2: Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material) (Deletion log); 04:57 Anna Frodesiak (talk | contribs) changed visibility of a revision on page Wikipedia:Teahouse: content hidden, edit summary hidden and username hidden ‎(RD2: Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material)

and would like to follow up on what it means, but I haven't found a way to gain access to the material. Have tried various ways of searching the Wikipedia:Teahouse page (by RD2, by Drmies, and by date).

Could someone please give this newbie a step-by-step guide?

cheers Tarkiwi25 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarkiwi25 (talk • contribs) 20:28, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

The idea of changing the visibility is so that you can't gain access to the material. Only administrators can see the information which has been deleted. The relevant part of the article history shows that the edits in question took place, but the material which was deemed to meet revision deletion criterion RD2 is now not visible to normal editors. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:48, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

How do I tell if an article has been approved or rated?

I know about the rating system of articles but where do you actually see if it's been rated or what the rating is?

Also, if an article is live it must have been submitted, correct? I haven't had any activity on this since I wrote it so I just want to double check I did it right. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Shipman_Howard Actaudio (talk) 23:50, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Actaudio, and welcome to the Teahouse. Article assessments may be added at any time by an interested editor, via a template put on the article's Talk page. Your article hasn't yet gone through New Page Review, so you may receive feedback via that, though the process can take some weeks for volunteers to get around to. Unless it's clearly a stub or a start class article (and yours is the latter), I tend to leave assessment of pages I have created to other uninvolved editors. I have just made a couple of small edits myself to show you it is visible (but not yet Google indexed until reviewed), and there is quite a bit you could do right now. If you wished you could add an {{Infobox person}} template, add birth and death dates, and improve the citations. The obituary, for example, has entirely the wrong title, as has the piece from Audio Record magazine. Forgive me if I don't spend time offering more detailed feedback or suggestions as I'm rather busy right now working on improving an article of my own that I've just created. Maybe others may wish to add to this reply. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:24, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer

I have been reverting vandalism a lot since I was granted rollback rights. Another right I would be interested in to fight vandalism is the pending changes reviewer right to determine whether edits contain inappropriate content. The requirements are similar to getting rollback rights. Should I apply for these rights now or should I wait? Mstrojny (talk) 01:02, 10 February 2019 (UTC)