Wikipedia:Teahouse

Welcome to the Teahouse...                        

A friendly place to learn about editing Wikipedia.

Click here to
ask a question

Marchjuly, 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

Hello Teahouse, please help me write a properly page as I am a very new and not experienced on this. I am trying to create a page but I do not know how to do it.

Please help!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loc - Xinchao (talk • contribs) 13:25, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@Loc - Xinchao: Hi, I suppose the WP:YFA page could give you some useful hints. --CiaPan (talk) 14:00, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@Loc - Xinchao:,You can also refer to Wp:ACR, but I believe the best is to get the help of a friend who is also a wikipedia user. Alex-h (talk) 14:08, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@Loc - Xinchao: Specifically, you can check the Article Wizard as it will give you a step-by-step guide if you are ready to create a page. Good luck. Darwin Naz (talk) 02:56, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism

Why has vandalism been so high for the past few months. I'm pretty new here so I am wondering if this is normal. Doublethink1954 (talk) 20:31, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@Doublethink1954: Are you talking about a certain page? If the vandalism is coming from one user, warn them and report to WP:AIAV when needed. If it is coming from multiple users, you can request that the page be protected here. Does this answer your question? Mstrojny (talk) 20:34, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Not really I meant that the vandal EnterpriseyBot has been reporting high vandalism for a while. Doublethink1954 (talk) 20:39, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@Doublethink1954: The user you mentioned is a bot. You may want to contact the operator Enterprisey to express your concerns about the editing of this bot. Mstrojny (talk) 20:45, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@Doublethink1954:, are you talking about {{Vandalism information}}? You can see a history of vandalism levels here. I checked real quick, and for the last 500 updates, this is the data: 3 times at level 5, 114 times at level 4, 204 times at level 3, 136 times at level 2, and 42 times at level 1. This doesn't take into account how long it's been at that level; it looks like the bot checks every hour but only updates when the level has changed.

The level is based on how many reverts per minute there have been on average over the last hour. If you're interested, the code for the bot is available here. rchard2scout (talk) 12:09, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@Rchard2scout: Hello, thank you for clearing that up, it was very informative. Doublethink1954 (talk) 20:00, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Getting an article approved

Hello, I am Veronicah

I am really looking for the day I will get an article accepted and approved by Wikipedia. I have submitted several and every time I get a decline message. So disapointing. but I am so much into this and I need to get the skills to get an article approved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vkangethe (talk • contribs) 01:26, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, @Vkangethe:

I have written a set of detailed but simple instructions that cover everything you need to do to write a successful article, which you can see by clicking this link. In short, all you really need to do is cite and summarize at least three professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources that are specifically and primarily about the subject but not dependent upon nor affiliated with nor connected to the subject.

Addressing some specific issues with the Gill draft, Gill's own profile on a site is not independent, while this article only mentions him in passing but really is not about him. This source is closer to what you need but it would be better if it was not an interview and it'd also be great if you had sources about other things he has done.

As for your other draft, there's really only two sources with one repeated. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:39, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Vkangethe:, aside from the previous suggestions given by the other editors, I would also advise you to take a look at other Wikipedia articles and note how they are presented and structured. For instance, I have read your drafts and they begin with Brief introduction section. The lead of an article does not have a heading. Please also note text formatting for the heading. With regards to the Sohinder Gill draft, it currently reads like an advertisement. For more insights, you could take a look at Kumar Mangalam Birla's page. Darwin Naz (talk) 03:19, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Editing tool

Why in mobile browser I can’t find section “more” but in browser version I can find that section? Ни дебил 14:08, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Not debil welcome back to the Teahouse. Now, in the absence of anybody else replying to you, I'm simply going to suggest that what you see in mobile view is inevitably a cut down version of the full functionality you get in desktop mode on a mobile. The "More" Tab at the top of the viewing screen is not that essential to viewing, so almost certainly was left out for simlper viewing. (I've been editing via a mobile for well over a year now and have never used mobile view. It may be great for reading stuff, but not for editing as far as I'm concerned.) By the way, do please be careful to sign your posts with 'four' keyboard tildes (like this: ~~~~) to ensure your username and hyperlink to it appears properly. I think you typed five, which only added the date, so it was hard to know who had posted this question. Alternatively, you may have set your signature to include a Russian(?) phrase which it is not hyperlinking to your username. This is a requirement, so you might wish to uncheck the box in the signature section at Special:Preferences so that the hyperlink is included. Thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:34, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Am I vandalising?

Begoon (talk · contribs) reverted all my work from the past few days on James Arthur and left a message on my talk page. He also removed my thread on his talk page with no explanation. Now, I'm no expert Wikipedian, but I'm pretty sure you're not allowed to do this unless it's highly offensive content or copyvio. I'm geniunely confused – first he removed some stuff I'd put up about James Arthur's pets, fair enough (although he just put the rather confusing explanation er, yeah - no, which pissed me off more than it should've), and then reverted all the other stuff I've spent hours on that seems pretty encyclopedic to me. Now I'm afraid of making a new thread on his talk page due to the message he left on mine. --Biscuit-in-Chief ^{(Talk – Contribs)} 15:05, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

What you added to that article was badly sourced gossip on a WP:BLP. Your account has a history of trolling and sockpuppetry. What has changed that means we should trust you when your edits appear to fit the same pattern? -- Begoon 15:16, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I took the information from a book written by the man the article is about. Could you clarify what you mean by badly sourced gossip, then?

I've spent possibly hundreds of hours in total learning about (and editing) Wikipdia since I vandalised (and I regret that I did, a lot), both on dawiki and enwiki, and also a bit on nowiki. I also spent hours gathering the information I then provided in his article. --Biscuit-in-Chief ^{(Talk – Contribs)} 15:41, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

And what has changed? Well, I love Wikipedia and I spend many hours a day on it, up to about 8-9 hours even.--Biscuit-in-Chief ^{(Talk – Contribs)} 15:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

"Eye injury" and "Foster care" seemed the most problematic. That's like if you went to any other celebrity and then added a section called "Paper cuts" and wrote about each paper cut they received throughout their livelihood. StaringAtTheStars (talk) 16:01, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

The problem with "eye injury" I see now. However, that's an honest mistake and a lack of encyclopedic understanding, not a bad faith edit. How would it be, is my question – why would I spend hours on researching about stuff I knew wasn't for Wikipedia? Please, see WP:FAITH2#What "Bad Faith" Is NOT. And about the foster care part: Stuff about him being in foster care was there before I started editing. If you're only referring to the "Arthur punched a boy in the face part", I felt it was encyclopedic to explain why he left foster care. I guess I'm wrong. But again, Begoon threatened me with blocking me due to this, which I find unfair. I might have written some unencyclopedic stuff, but removing my thread without any explanation is, I'm pretty sure, against Wikipedia's rules. Again, assume good faith. --Biscuit-in-Chief ^{(Talk – Contribs)} 16:19, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Actually, other than some specific types of warnings, editors are free to delete whatever they want from their own Talk pages. Some prefer to archive, but not required. AND, the place to take up a dispute about article content is on the Talk page of the article. You could describe what you want to add back to the article and invite Begoon to discuss. David notMD (talk) 01:13, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

are my articles ok?

hello!

i just made Bethan Wright a few minutes ago, and i was just wondering if experienced editors could check over it for faults/anything to be improved. i have a feeling the categories may be wrong but i’m not sure? another of my articles, Sam Retford, also had maaaany categories and i was wondering if it’s too much? any help on them would be much appreciated! – DarkGlow (talk) 15:58, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Judging off of other WP:BLP's, the amount of categories are fine. Fine article – lacks text but well sourced (although, no reference in Bethan Wright#Modelling) and NPOV. --Biscuit-in-Chief ^{(Talk – Contribs)} 16:08, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

However: The ref to her birthday is not reliable. From where do you know she was born in 1996? And how do you know that the guy on Twitter published it on her birthday? --Biscuit-in-Chief ^{(Talk – Contribs)} 16:22, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

the twitter source was posted by her co-star who lives in the UK, so the timezones and everything are correct. she also responded to several birthday tweets on that day so i’m taking it as a common sense source if that makes sense. thanks for checking it out! – DarkGlow (talk) 16:55, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I understand the temptation; unfortunately, you are not allowed to do this. WP:SYNTH states: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. It's incredibly annoying, yes, but it's all a part of the endless quest to making Wikipedia as reliable as possible. --Biscuit-in-Chief ^{(Talk – Contribs)} 17:46, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi DarkGlow. Some other things to considered here are WP:DOB, WP:BLPSPS and WP:BLPSELFPUB. Tweets, Facebook posts, etc. are for the most part considered to be self-pubished, user-generated content which are generally considered to have questionable reliability. An actress tweeting about herself and saying "Today is my birthday" might be considered OK to cite in some contexts (though people do occassionally lie about their age or dob for personal and professional reasons), but generally tweets about other people (no matter how benign they seem) are not usually considered OK. An official website listing her birthday is probably OK (again to a certain degree), but it would be better to find secondary reliable sources which corroborate her dob and cite those as well. FWIW, it's OK for a BLP to not have the subject's dob listed, especially when it's information which cannot be supported by a citation to a reliable source. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:52, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

image into an info box help

Hello Im new and trying to create a page for a car but cant figure out how to get an image to show in the info box. Would appreciate help, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JaunWhick01 (talk • contribs) 17:02, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

JaunWhick01, I've fixed it. In infoboxes you only need the filename --valereee (talk) 17:06, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

JaunWhick01, not sure whether it actually is already covered here, though: T20 Medium Tank ? --valereee (talk) 17:08, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

This T23 is a seperate project. Thanks for the help — Preceding unsigned comment added by JaunWhick01 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Pitot/Static System Malfunctions

An area that most technicians and maintenance organizations overlook regarding the Static ports on aircraft is the type of covering on the ports during maintenance/painting etc. In many, if not most, cases the ports are covered by masking tape to prevent the holes from being contaminated by paint or other solvents. If using a masking tape or other material that leaves a sticky residue you must assure that the sticky glue residue is completely removed from the surface of the port or contamination could be a problem due to the sticky residue collecting debris on the surface of the ports and will deteriorate the pressure sensing of the ports. This could lead to inaccurate instrument reading and in the case of ADC's affect other automatic aircraft systems such as autopilot etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.1.252.60 (talk) 17:20, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

No doubt you are right, but The Teahouse is a venue for newer editors to ask questions about the mechanics and approaches of how to edit Wikipedia. As such it is not an appropriate venue for you to record your observations about aircraft maintenence.

If you have a query relating to the above, you might more appropriately enter it on one of our Reference desks. If you think the above merits inclusion in an appropriate article, you could select such an article, go to its Talk page, and suggest this for the consideration of other editors. Please note, however, that material can only be added to an article if it is backed by proper citation to a published Reliable source. An unreferenced synthesis by yourself (or anyone else), however pertinent or correct, would constitute Original research and is not allowed – Wikipedia only summarises (without copying) already published material. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.123.27.125 (talk) 17:59, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Person Messed With 2019 India-Pakistan Standoff Page

Help! Someone messed with the link to 'Part of the indo-pakistani conflicts' and when you hover over it shows a nude man. This is on the 2019 India-Pakistan standoff page.

Hover over the link to the Indo-Pakistani conflicts page and you'll see what I mean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.123.150.46 (talk) 22:23, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. Thank you for pointing this out, apparently the vandalism has already been removed by another editor. If you still see the vandalized version, please try to refresh your local browser cache or purge the article in question. GermanJoe (talk) 22:44, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

It's still there. Second line of infobox on 2019 India–Pakistan standoff. Trying to figure out the source. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:47, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

One target was Template:Campaignbox Indo-Pakistani Wars (already fixed and protected), if that helps with the search. GermanJoe (talk) 22:49, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Also second line of infobox in 2011_India–Pakistan_border_skirmish TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:53, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Also 2011 border skirmishes in events and conflicts section of Template:Indo-Pakistani_relations TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:55, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

You can see the effect by mouseovering 2011_India–Pakistan_border_skirmish. I have no idea where this would be coming from. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:44, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@Timtempleton and GermanJoe: Having checked and mouseover-ed every links at {{Kashmir conflict}}, {{Indo-Pakistani relations}}, {{Military of India}} and {{Military of Pakistan}}, I've now found this issue with only the following pages.

• Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts
• Simla Agreement
• 2011 India–Pakistan border skirmish
• Operation Gibraltar
• Operation Grand Slam
• 2011 India–Pakistan border skirmish

I'm surprised that I can't find any common denominator or odd and recently inserted image links, so think this needs reporting asap to WP:VPT. Do one of you want to do it, or shall I? Nick Moyes (talk) 23:52, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: That's a great idea - go ahead. Thanks for hunting these all down - very odd. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:55, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

OK, will do. I'm fascinated, but I didn't want to steal your thunder. And a big thanks to the IP for reporting this. It's really appreciated. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:58, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

UPDATE:  Done Issue now reported over at WP:VPT. Watch that space! Nick Moyes (talk) 00:13, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Apparently now fixed. I'm not sure what the issue was but the image is gone on the mouseovers. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 01:08, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Is it OK to cite a YouTube as a reference?

I wish to add a notable case to another wiki entry, and the best reference I can find for it is actually a video of the individual I am referencing, telling the relevant aspect of his life story in a 10 min. YouTube, published by a third party in 2010. Is this a legit source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ConsumerWithSpasmodicDysphonia (talk • contribs)

@ConsumerWithSpasmodicDysphonia: Please supply the subject name/article title. Please supply the YouTube url. Please sign your posts so we know who is asking the questions. Then we can more effectively answer your question. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:57, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@ConsumerWithSpasmodicDysphonia: It's not expressly forbidden, but there are some guidelines to follow. See Wikipedia:Video links#References. One issue is the deep fakes coming out. Also, you should sign your posts using the four tildes ~~~~ so your name appears. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:59, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi ConsumerWithSpasmodicDysphonia. In addition to the advice you've been given above, you might also want to take a look at WP:YOUTUBE and WP:COPYLINK. When it comes to YouTube, people often seem to upload content to that they didn't originally create and have no copyright ownership over. So, just because something is uploaded to YouTube doesn't mean it should've been uploaded to YouTube.

Some other things you might want to look at are WP:BLPSELFPUB and WP:BLPSPS. Interviews (video or print) are generally considered to be primary sources. This doesn't mean they cannot be cited as a source, but it does mean that they need to be used with care. So much, as explained in Wikipedia:Interviews, depends on who is conducting the interview, whose publishing the interview, the format/setting of the interview, etc. For example, if the interview is simply nothing more that the interviewee simply speaking at length about themselves or their experiences in which the interviewer basically nods in agreement with respect to everything that's said, makes a few casual comments, and asks a few softball questions, then the "interview" amounts to bascially really nothing more than a video public relations piece for the interviewee. On the other hand, if there's some kind of fact checking going on where the interviewer is actually challenging some of things being said, then it might have more a critical commentary feel to it. The reputation of the person/organization conducting the interview is important to consider because reliable sources with a strong reputation for editorial control are probably less likely to alter or change any content than perhaps some unknown person who might see the interview as a chance to gain some sort of notoriety to help further their career or agenda, even if it means editing the content a bit to present it in a certain context. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:38, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Infobox not displaying correct information

Im finishing up an article but the main info box will not show Armament and Armor data underneath even after removing and re adding. And yes I added the information to it twice but it refuses to show any new data.JaunWhick01 (talk) 00:47, 13 March 2019 (UTC)JaunWhick01

Hi JaunWhick01. Assuming you're talking about User:JaunWhick01/sandbox, then try looking at Template:Infobox weapon. Often problems with infobox templates are the result of someone trying to use an non-existent parameter or a typo in the paramter syntax. Templates will only work properly when you format them properly; so even a simple thing as forgetting to add an underscore or capitalizing a letter which shouldn't be captialized can cause a problem. Another thing that sometimes works is to look at how the same infobox template is being formatted in existing articles. Since you're writing about a tank, then articles like M1 Abrams, M4 Sherman or Panzer IV might provide a clue as to what the problem is. Certain template parameters might have been been deprecated or changed at some point, so trying to use them no longer works. For example, none of the three articles I've referenced above seem to use |primary_weapon= in the infobox, but use |primary_armament= instead. One mistaken parameter can sometimes cause others to not work properly. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:12, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The docs do include, under "Vehicle/missile specification parameters (most only available if is_vehicle is set to "yes"; some are also activated if is_missile is set to "yes")" — "primary_weapon – optional – the primary armament mounted on the vehicle, if any". Adding |is_vehicle=yes got the armor to show up, but still not the weapon. Thanks for fixing it Marchjuly! I do wonder if that's a bug in the template, though. —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/their)｜😹｜✝️｜John 15:12｜☮️｜🍂｜T/C 11:53, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Adjustment to time framing of nuclear red level event

I am requesting a change to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Calhoun_Nuclear_Generating_Station section "2011 flood and cold shutdown" paragraph 2. The requested revision is to change "The fire impacted pumping of coolant water through the spent fuel pool. Cooling was interrupted for 90 minutes while the estimated time for the pool to reach boiling temperature was over 88 hours.[28] In response,"

To:

The fire impacted pumping of coolant water through the spent fuel pool. Cooling was interrupted for 1.5 hours while the estimated time for the pool to reach boiling temperature was over 88 hours.[28] In response,"

The reason I ask for this revision is because to the general onlooker, this event might have seemed more dangerous to the public than what is stated. The original indicated 90 minutes and the margin to failure is 88 hours. Your normal person is going to say well... 90 is greater than 88 so could something have happened? Then they read ahead and see it was 88 hours not minutes, but unfortunately this sentence has the word "hour" appear on the next line which may create an unneeded panic for the nuclear industry and how it approaches nuclear safety.

I understand if this is a mundane request, but I just wanted to reach out to clear the name of nuclear as a professional myself in this field and that Fort Calhoun was a successful use of our FLEX systems even just after the Fukasmima flooding and nuclear event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.168.25.131 (talk) 01:06, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done I made it an hour and a half rather than 1.5 hours, which was awkward phrasing. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 01:15, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Trying to remove a duplicate reference

I am trying to change a citation to link to the proper reference. ConsumerWithSpasmodicDysphonia (talk) 01:17, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@ConsumerWithSpasmodicDysphonia: It will be easier for others to help you, if you can be a little more specific. Which article are you trying to edit and which citation are you trying to change? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:41, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@ConsumerWithSpasmodicDysphonia: Is the article in question Spasmodic dysphonia? I can see you had a battle with the reference in Thyroplasty, but it looks like you worked that out - is there still a problem we can help with? --Gronk Oz (talk) 01:58, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey there!

Hi guys I’m trying to create a page but When I search it on google I can’t see anything what’s the matter..? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nic korha (talk • contribs) 01:20, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Nic korha. The only edits made by your account so far are to this Teahouse page and your user page. Looking at your userpage, it appears that you might be misunderstanding a few things about Wikipedia. A user page is a place where you can briefly introduce yourself and your Wikipedia activities to other Wikipedia editors; it's not a place to try an create an online profile about yourself or a place to try and write a Wikipedia article about yourself. Generally, only subjects deemed to be Wikipedia notable are considered OK to write articles about and then it's preferred that those doing the writing be unconnected to the subject matter as much as possible. So, before you continue on with your attempts, you might want to carefully read through Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide, Wikipedia:Ownership of content, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Law of unintended consequences, Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing and Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles. These pages (the names in blue) will explain some things about Wikipedia which you might not know, and which might point out how trying to write about yourself is not always a great idea. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:55, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

You attempted to create an article about your self at your User page (wrong idea, and tagged for Speedy deletion), and recently put the identical content in your Sandbox. The latter is the right type of place for a work in progress - it exists in Wikipedia - but does not appear through Google or other search engines. As Marchjuly mentioned, you may not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. And autobiography is frowned upon. David notMD (talk) 02:04, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

How do I request a neutral editor to review several completed articles and how can their neutrality be ensured?

I had been compensated to write several Wikipedia articles by a particular client without knowing that I had to disclose this fact on Wikipedia. Two editors recently pointed this out to me and I now have inserted the Connected Contributor tag on the appropriate Talk pages. However, in this case, the problem is not about adding new edits to these articles, since I have finished my work on them. Rather, the question is what will happen to these articles and all the edits that have already been made to them?

One of the editors who had questioned me in the first place about the paid edits suggested on the articles' Talk pages that a neutral editor volunteer to review these articles I had worked on... and actually, I agree with that.

So I have two questions: a) what is the procedure for having a neutral editor review these articles?; and b) since the first editor's comments on the articles' Talk pages were so sneeringly (and in my view totally unfairly) insulting about the articles in question, how can I prevent the reviewing editor from being biased by those comments?

Thank you for your feedback. Dylanexpert (talk) 02:10, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Refs 5 and 9 are dead. Refs 2, 7 and 8 written by QuisLex staff. The content may be true, but you will need to find independent sources to cite, or else delete the content. In general, descriptions of details on how a company has gotten bigger over time do not make it notable. And do not put the list of awards back in. David notMD (talk) 03:02, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

The very first thing to do, Dylanexpert, is to declare all of the articles that you have been paid to edit. This is mandatory per WP: PAID. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:46, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

David notMD: Thank you for your comments. But as far as I know, none of the content on the current QuisLex page is mine, since all my edits were erased. Everything that's there came from previous editors. I will try to find independent sources, then make suggestions on my Talk Page.

Thank you Cullen328, but I already know that. I have already put the notifications on the individual article Talk pages and will also put the notifications on my own User page. I don't need to know the first step, but the second, third and fourth steps, namely, how to get editors to do the difficult work of fixing the articles, which I'm not allowed to do myself, and to make sure they're really neutral.

Dylanexpert (talk) 18:21, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

At Talk for the article, Voceditenore reported trying to find quality references to add to the article and did not find any: "It doesn't pass WP:CORPDEPTH with its current references, and I haven't been able to find anything significantly better to replace them, apart from this book which lists them (with 2 sentences) as one of the 6 main competitors of Cobra Legal Solutions."" Perhaps Dylanexpert can do better, but this looks to me like an article that never had valid resourcing. David notMD (talk) 18:54, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Dylanexpert, to the best of my knowledge, we have no formal mechanism for a paid editor to request reviews of existing articles written by that paid editor. The normal editing process which takes place across the entire encyclopedia encourages uninvolved editors to improve all articles as time goes by. Before accusing other editors of a sneeringly insulting attitude, begin by assuming good faith of volunteer editors, unless you have convincing evidence to the contrary. The working presumption among many highly experienced volunteer editors is that your judgment may be clouded by your paycheck. It is up to you to prove them wrong by your own indisputably productive behavior. If you think that changes should be made on a specific article, please see Template:Request edit for a method to request a change. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:31, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Matthew HK and Raiffeisen ZentralBank and Raiffeisen International

Dear Tea house,

I feel we have a biased wikipedia editor in the house and I really need your help to curtail his actions. There is an apparent lack of neutrality and destructive actions on his part. His name is Matthew hk (talk)

History: 1) I first bumped into Matthew HK when I added Raiffeisen news related to the Holocaust and Mafia to this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raiffeisen_Bank_International The same news was already on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raiffeisen_Zentralbank (the parent company of Raiffeisen Bank Intl). I determined that the content should be on both pages since they are IN FACT the same company / owner. I pointed out that many companies in Germany who had Holocaust news e,g, Bayer, Hoechst, BASF and other subsidiaries of IG Farben https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IG_Farben followed the same treatment. Matthew HK deleted my edits and brought this issue to the dispute board and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Robert_McClenon User:Robert_McClenon presided. Matthew HK never responded to my point about IG Farben and now I cannot find the original dispute on the board. It seems to have disappeared mysteriously.

2) Now Matthew HK is trying to change the name of Raiffeiisen Zentralbank to disassociate itself from Raiffeisen Bank International. Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Raiffeisen_Zentralbank He is trying to use 2 sources do do this never mind there are thousands of tier one sources and wikipedia article sources that refer to Raiffeisen Zentralbank as the parent company of Raiffeisen Bank International. We have to question Matthew HK independence on this Raiffeisen issue.

3) To further censure my work Matthew HK is now trying to bring Sock Puppetry violations against me. I have had the same IP and same account, nothing has changed. If he can prove that I used another account while I was using my current Josephintechnicolor account I would like to see the proof. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mohamed_Ouda [[Sockpuppet_investigations/Mohamed_Ouda ]]

4) A smaller issue came up when I created the RZB Securities LLC page which was a subsidiary of Raiffeisen Group of Companies (Raiffeisen Zentral Bank and Raiffeisen Bank International) and Matthew HK placed a deletion tag on the page. I accepted his deletion and offered a solution to add RZB Securities to the Raiffeisen Bank International page, this has not been done yet.

Conclusion: Matthew hk does not seem like an independent person on the topic of Raiffeisen wikipedia articles and he needs to declare himself as such. He is trying to change the Raiffeisen name and corporate structure with 2 ambiguous sources where there are thousands that say the opposite. He is not following normal wikipedia protocol with regards to the parent companies / subsidiaries and their shared news. He has aggressively been harassing my attempts to put properly sourced news on Raiffeisen's wikipedia articles. Matthew HK does not follow up on statements I made to defend my actions on the dispute board when it was HE Himself who made the disputed page on Raiffeisen in the first place. Matthew HK is overtly defending and removing Raiffeisen wikipedia pages of content/news sources. My news sources represent millions of people and many reporters who have been affected by Raiffeisen past actions and the truth should be upheld as it is for IG Farben and many others like them. I feel matthew HK is disruptive to wikipedia and should be banned.

All of these entities are related and their news is related. Matthew HK has a HIDDEN agenda to clean up Raiffeisen's past. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raiffeisenbank https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Wilhelm_Raiffeisen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raiffeisen_Zentralbank https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raiffeisen_Bank_International

02:43, 13 March 2019 (UTC)Josephintechnicolor (talk)

Hello @Josephintechnicolor:, and welcome to the Teahouse. Please use talkpage discussion or one of the venues listed in WP:Dispute resolution to resolve such disputes. The Teahouse is not one of these venues and is primarily aimed at help with editing-related questions and general advice for new editors. Thank you for your understanding. GermanJoe (talk) 11:08, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

OK Noted. Thank you. I will move the discussion to the talk page & dispute resolution. GermanJoe (talk11:34, 13 March 2019 (UTC)Josephintechnicolor (talk)

@GermanJoe:. Despite SPI CU check was declined. The case was seriously fishy that the controversy section was added by a SPA (which know the wiki code very well) in 2012 (Wevans104 (talk · contribs)) to the bank Raiffeisen_Zentralbank and no one ever edited it since except some ip (69.171.101.3 (talk · contribs), 134.226.214.248 (talk · contribs) and 205.201.107.58 (talk · contribs)) and then Josephintechnicolor, which content forked to Raiffeisen_Bank_International. On top of that, Kelly Hyman which was deleted also in Kelly Hyman (lawyer) and Kelly Hyman (attorney), was recreated by Josephintechnicolor in Draft:Kelly Hyman. It do look different when checking wiki echo when comparing Kelly Hyman (attorney) and Draft:Kelly Hyman. However, it still looks like a meat sock or paid editor for hike to promote some subject or posting UNDUE controversy . Which also make me to recall the memory of Communion and Liberation, that the problematic user, end up blocked as sock , but before that stuck in an endless loop in Talk:Communion and Liberation that the user did not get to the point. Josephintechnicolor refused to response to UNDUE , and then gaming the system. Matthew hk (talk) 19:07, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Some self-correction, it seem the section was introduced single handed by Gazpr (talk · contribs) and not much changed , some ip even removed it (195.248.32.227 (talk · contribs)). Matthew hk (talk) 23:44, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

wikipedia with gadgets / explorables / interactive content

Reuleaux triangle based film advance mechanism in the Soviet Luch-28 mm film projector

I don't know the best place to ask this question, but I wanted to know is interactive content on wikipedia not allowed? if it is not, what is the policy for linking such content? I would believe that explorables would greatly aid in understanding explanations in math and physics. If they are not ok in wikipedia, then would WikiBooks or wikiversity a good place for them? --My Sistemx (talk) 02:50, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Sistemx. Welcome back to Wikipedia and to the Teahouse. Things have not changed much in that regard over the years, and we still discourage excessive animation on our pages. See WP:IUP#ANIM. I'm honestly not sure on policy in linking to external animations, but External Links should only be included if they add genuine value to an article, provide further content that can't be included on a page, and should not be promotional, nor pointlessly repeating what has been covered in an article and, like all content linked to from a page, should be reliable and safe to view. Not all of the world's Wikipedia viewers are sitting in a comfy room with a super-whizzo computer connected to high-speed broadband connection. If this encyclopaedia's purpose is to make knowledge and information available to everyone, it's important our pages can be viewed by anyone, anywhere, and on simple devices. I understand where you're coming from, but I don't think big animations within articles wouldn't be appropriate. That said, there are quite a lot of animations already on Wikimedia Commons - have you looked for them?. If not, try c:Category:Animations of physics or its parent: c:Category:Animations by subject? Hope this helps answer your question. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 12:00, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

BRODY STEVENS

BRODY STEVENS, A VERY POPULAR, PAID REGULAR COMEDIAN AT THE COMEDY STORE AND ACROSS THE COUNTRY AS WELL AS STAR OF HIS OWN SHOW ON Comedy Central COMMIT SUICIDE FEB 22, 2019. WHY ISNT THERE A PAGE FOR HIM. THIS GUY WAS IN THE HANGOVER 1 & 2, BEST FRIENDS WITH ZACH GALIFINAKIS, BRADLEY COOPER AND A MILLION OTHER COMEDIANS, MOVIE STARS, AND THERE IS NO PAGE FOR HIM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:9346:9E00:8F3:E7D6:14B:6568 (talk) 05:00, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi IP 2605:E000:9346:9E00:8F3:E7D6:14B:6568. There is an article for Brody Stevens and was added to Wikipedia in March 2010. So, I'm not sure why you weren't able to find it. Perhaps you misspelled his name when you were searching for it? Finally, please don't type in all capital letters when posting. It's considered to be the equivalent to shouting at someone when posting online, and there's no real need to "shout" at the Teahouse. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:15, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Teahouse

Thank you for inviting me to the Teahouse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpiritofAccuracy (talk • contribs) 11:00, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome, SpiritofAccuracy. If you ever have any questions as you start out learning how best to contribute here, just pop back and ask for guidance. I'll leave a few helpful links on your talk page. A great place to start is by taking our interactive tour called The Wikipedia Adventure. There are 15 different badges to collect as you learn the basics of how things work around here. We do ask everyone to 'sign' their posts on talk pages, which you do by simply typing four keyboard tilde characters (like this: ~~~~) right at the very end of the last sentence in your posts. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 11:24, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Help with dealing with "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject." flag

Hey, the "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject." flag is on the page of the band i'm working with as i see it's a problem for the community and i will stop updating their page. can someone help with getting the flag down? thanks

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lola_Marsh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anovamusic2013 (talk • contribs) 11:19, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

OP blocked for WP:CORPNAME. Also I suspect undisclosed WP:PAID editing. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:24, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Doubts in the creation and publication of a biography.

Good afternoon.

Great day for all

Excuse. A few days ago I started reading about Wikipedia because I have a job that I would like to create here in this vast encyclopedia, but when I try I do not succeed. I want to create the biography of a Model Mozambique more following the rules of Wikipedia is not possible, I would ask for your help to carry out this task. He is a public figure known and admirable because he has struggled to innovate the fashion world in Mozambique. so I'd like people to find some good information about it in this encyclopedia. when I try to insert the information that I have about it does not accept, I follow all rules to be able to create an article, I make the citations from where can be found this information of sites that are genuine. Please if anyone can help me, I appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cristo J. Toqueleque (talk • contribs) 11:35, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Please read the advice against creating an autobiography. The content of your user page was inappropriate and has been nominated for speedy deletion. Your sandbox draft is presumably written in Portuguese, and doesn't belong on the English Wikipedia. If the subject satisfies the criteria for inclusion in the Portuguese Wikipedia, you will find that Wikipedia at pt:. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:43, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@Cristo J. Toqueleque: (edit conflict) Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I would note that you seem to be writing about yourself. I'm glad you are doing good things for the fashion industry in your country, but you should not be the one to write about yourself on Wikipedia. You might misunderstand what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia is not social media like Facebook to tell the world about yourself. This is an encyclopedia, where we are only interested in what third parties state about you in independent reliable sources. We are not interested in what you want to say about yourself. Further, autobiographies, or writing about yourself, is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. This is because people naturally write favorably about themselves. If you are written about in independent, third party sources, eventually someone will take note of you and write about you. If you just want to tell the world about yourself, you should use social media.

Also please understand that a Wikipedia article about yourself is not necessarily a good thing. Please read this page for more information.

I would also note that you wrote in Portuguese; this is the English Wikipedia and contributions need to be in English. There is a Portuguese Wikipedia: Portuguese Wikipedia 331dot (talk) 11:48, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@David Biddulph Thank you very much for your answer. Apologize for the confusion in the languages, to say that I first wrote the biography in Portuguese with another quota after I gave it to my account, I know that this seems strange to me. this biography is not mine and a Mozambican Model. I understand that it is against the rules of Wikipedia to create matters of personal interest. Taking advantage of the occasion how can I ask to create a biography? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cristo J. Toqueleque (talk • contribs) 12:25, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@Cristo J. Toqueleque: If you are not Cristo Toqueleque, you cannot use his name as your username. You will need to change your username. You may do so at Special:GlobalRenameRequest. What is your connection to him? 331dot (talk) 12:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I now see that you can't create an article on the Portuguese Wikipedia as your account there has been indefinitely blocked. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:00, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@Cristo J. Toqueleque: As I see it, your sandbox draft is clearly about yourself, and uses a photo of you taken by your cousin in your house. It is not in English; it contains only trivial detailed personal information that only you would know about yourself, and is purely and simply your own personal profile. You say nothing that suggests any Notability. As such it has no place here. Please delete all the content before an administrator deletes it all for you. We are not a free webhosting service for you to create a biographical page. If you can supply one reference to an independent source that suggests Cristo J. Toqüéque is a notable person, and has been written about in books, journals or newspapers, we might view things differently. Can you do that? If not, please blank the page immediately. Having done that, if you would like to tell us the name of the person you DO want to write an article about, we might then be able to guide you. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:40, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Visual editing

Can I use visual editing to add infobox or tables because using source code is a bit hard? Not debil (talk) 13:37, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi again, Not debil. Yes, you can insert both with VE. Simple tables are very easy to insert and to edit. It's also easy to remove or add new columns and rows. See Wikipedia:VisualEditor/User_guide#Editing_tables.

But adding infoboxes in VE, I'd avoid like the plague. It's simply too clunky to insert the template and then to edit in all the fields you need. Infoboxes are 'templates' so you'd need to use the Insert - Template tool. See Wikipedia:VisualEditor/User_guide#Editing_templates. My suggestion would be to find a very similar article to the one you're working on, copy the infobox over in source editor, and edit data back in to the relevant fields. Each infobox (and there are dozens an dozens of them) have their own documentation to explain how the fields are used. Don't be tempted to add your own fields, as these will be flagged up as invalid, and won't display). Hope this helps, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:56, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

wiki signup

Hello, I am running a small meet-up and several of my participants are having difficulty signing up for an account? Some are saying that there is a 3 month backlog. Is there anyway to speed up this process? In the past my user-rights have been modified to create accounts at larger meet-ups but bcs this was a small event and everyone tried to sign up beforehand I didn't think it would be a problem. hmmmm. --Ella Dawn 13:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Elladeer welcome. It's great to have you here at the Teahouse. Are you at the event right now? If not, event organisers can be granted temporary creation rights in advance of a scheduled event. I've done this when I've participated at Editathons. We now have a new permission called Wikipedia:Event coordinator which will allow you to apply for the right to create more than the maximum six accounts per day. From experience, it is always much better to get participants to create their own personal account on their own internet connection before they attend - it saves using up valuable time at the event. There is no 'backlog' for account creation - any user may create an account for themselves at any time, provided they aren't all trying to do so from one IP address. They simply need to go to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:CreateAccount So I've no idea where the 3 month backlog rumour came from.

If you are at the event right now, I'm not sure how best to help, except to say go over this minute to Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Event coordinator and enter your reason for needing that permission. In extremis, you could then go to Adminstrator Noticeboard and plead for any willing admin to check and grant your request, explaining that you're actually in the middle of an editathon event today, and need 'eyes on' your request.

If the event is later in, can I make two further suggestions to help the event go well. Firstly, get a big blackboard, or signing-in book, and ask every attendee to write down their username so that after the event you know precisely who was active, and you can then go back and offer support and encouragement later, if necessary. And at my last IWD event, I handed out a double sided A4 sheet to every attendee. This gives them something solid to take away which contains useful links and guidance on getting help, and so on. You can find the content at User:Nick Moyes/editathon/handout1. Hope some of this might be of assistance. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 13:59, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Collapsing only part of a table?

Is there a way to collapse only a portion of a table? We are trying to make a box in a table that could then be expanded to show more details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walkyo (talk • contribs) 13:55, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Walkyo.Welcome! I don't think I've ever tried this particular issue, but you'll probably find the section on innercollapse and outercollapse most relevant to your needs. See Help:Collapsing for details. Word to the wise: Test a copy in your sandbox before editing a pre-existing article. Been there, done that, messed it up big-time. Thank heavens for 'revert'. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:13, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

This is usually not allowed in articles, MOS:DONTHIDE – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Reading the exceptions, I think this falls under the exceptions. For more detail, we are trying to show a timeline of the most subscribed youtubers, but with this period of back and forth between PewDiePie and T-Series, it's hard to do. I suggested putting a box that said "Contested", which you could expand in order to show the detailed back and forth between PewDiePie and T-Series. If it is not allowed, it will start open with the option to be collapsed if it is not needed. Walkyo (talk) 16:09, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@Walkyo: Hi, I'm really concerned with you using a plural pronoun “we”. Are you more than one individual? If so, please split your activity into separate accounts – a shared use of a Wikipedia account by multiple people is explicitly forbidden and usually results in blocking such account from editing. Please see the relevant policy at Wikipedia:Username policy, esp. the section WP:SHAREDACCOUNT. Also Wikipedia:Sock puppetry with its part WP:ROLE for a specific case. --CiaPan (talk) 14:37, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Oh, sorry for the misunderstanding, I'm just referring to the group of people that came up with the idea. All of us on seperate accounts, we just came up with a solution together. Walkyo (talk) 16:03, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Walkyo! That's OK for me. I did not assume 'you' are collective, just considered it as a possibility. Actually, I'm personally not much concerned about a shared use in general, as long as it is done in good faith. However Wikipedia community is, because of the licensing rules, implying a legal requirement of unambiguous attribution of any contribution to its author – so I was concerned about possible negative results of such use for you. As a result I've put my comment above 'just in case', as an advice rather than a warning, for you to keep yourself on a safe side before any admin may take some actions. :) Best regards, and happy editing! --CiaPan (talk) 07:33, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

wikipidea does not create article on ameer shirolkar

ameer shirolkar is an famous internet celebrity , knows 17 languages, popularly known as google genius of india. awarded padma shri and maharashtra ratna in 2015, particpated in various news debate. https://www.google.com/search?q=ameer+shirolkar&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjJtNGLrP_gAhXm63MBHfQaBN0Q_AUIDigB&biw=1280&bih=689 search AMEER SHIROLKAR on google search .. ameer shirolkar name is everywhere around internet with 3 million followers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ameershirolkar (talk • contribs) 14:40, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

1. @Ameershirolkar: I'm very sorry to say that, but not everywhere – I haven't seen any mention about him yet. Anyway, if you think he should be described in Wikipedia, please check WP:N for general notability guidelines (notability in a strict, Wikipedia sense) and WP:NBIO for guideleines specific for biographies. --CiaPan (talk) 14:50, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
2. @Ameershirolkar: The title you gave above makes me wonder: aren't you by accident confusing Wikipidea with Wikipedia? --CiaPan (talk) 14:54, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
3. @Ameershirolkar: Your account name suggests you are the person, whose biography you propose. If that's the case, you are strongly discouraged from writing and publishing your own biography here – let others do that. Please see the relevant guidelines at Wikipedia:Autobiography.
   On the other hand, if you're e.g. his relative or fan, you should not use the username suggesting you're actually him. If this is the case, please see Wikipedia:Username policy with its WP:MISLEADNAME section for reasons, and the WP:UNC section for guidelines on changing a username. --CiaPan (talk) 15:01, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Laura Crafton Gilpin - accidental deletion?

Dear Everyone, I have been looking for an entry on the poet and healthcare worker, Laura Crafton Gilpin. A dead link exists for her at [[1]] (she won the award in 1976). There also appears to be an original entry at http://www.thefullwiki.org/Laura_Crafton_Gilpin I would happy to re-create the article, but the presence of entry in fullwiki.org suggests an accidental deletion.

I would be grateful for any advice about what I should do.

Many Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KingOfCabbage (talk • contribs) 15:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

KingOfCabbage, According to the redlink page, It was AFDed and there was no objection. I would bring it up with the person who AFDed it if you want it to be recreated. WelpThatWorked (talk) 15:30, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Actually, this did not go via AfD; it was prodded and subsequently deleted. So I can restore this, but the lack of reliable sources makes the creation of an article problematic. Lectonar (talk) 15:53, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, KingOfCabbage. To translate what WelpThatWorked into less jargony language: the article Laura Crafton Gilpin was deleted in 2015 using the Proposed deletion mechanism, which is where the proposer expects the deletion to be uncontroversial. Anybody may challenge the proposal within a week, but since nobody did, it was deleted. The comment with the proposal was: "2015-01-12T10:33:05 Shirt58 (talk | contribs) deleted page Laura Crafton Gilpin (WP:PROD: Nominated for seven days with no objection: This is not Laura Gilpin. If I could rescue this page, I would do my best to do so. But no books, no media coverage, nothing that would suggest passing WP:GNG or other criteria.) (thank)".

• @Lectonar, KingOfCabbage, and ColinFine: Hi all. Thanks for letting me know about this. I have checked my browser history to look for context, but it doesn't go back that far. Please let me know if I can be any further help about this. --Shirt58 (talk) 09:48, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

If you think that Gilpin meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability (which is what Shirt58 was talking about), then you could contact Shirt58 and ask them to restore the article to a draft that you can work on. But do check that first, because if Gilpin does not meet Wikipedia's critiria for notability, then no amount of work on the draft will make it into an acceptable article, and you will be wasting your and others' time. --ColinFine (talk) 15:55, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

It's now at Draft:Laura Crafton Gilpin. Lectonar (talk) 15:56, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

• Fine with me about the undelete and move to draftspace. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:48, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Might it be a good idea to add a hatnote to Laura Gilpin with a redirect to Laura Crafton Gilpin (and vice-versa) if/when the latter becomes an article? Or would the approver do that as a matter of course? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.123.27.125 (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Thankyou everyone! - your advice is much appreciated, and thank you Lectonar for resurrecting the entry - Now it is in draft, is it just a matter of waiting for approval? - sorry for my ignorance... Re. The original deletion, the reason seems to be that the entry in the list of Walt Whitman prize winners was for “Laura Gilpin” and not “Laura Crafton Gilpin” - Laura Gilpin being the photographer - the hatnote for each person seems a must. Please could you also advise - there is a (paid for) obituary in the NY Times for her, and an award in her name, given by the organisation she worked for - would these be valid references or just external links?

I welcome your advice... Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KingOfCabbage (talk • contribs) 20:03, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello again, KingOfCabbage. No, it is not just a matter of waiting for approval. The draft won't be formally reviewed until you (or somebody) submit it for review, by pasting {{subst:submit}} (with the double curly brackets) at the top.

However, it is not ready for that, because it doesn't cite any sources. The obituary will probably be a good source, unless it is very short (it doesn't matter that it is behind a paywall), but you really need at least one other place where somebody unconnected with Gilpin has chosen to write about her at some length, and been published in a reliable place such as a major newspaper, or a book from a reputable publisher: see WP:REFB and WP:IRS. Basically almost nothing in the article should come from her or from people or organisations associated with her - only uncontroversial factual data like places and dates. Everything else should come from independent sources. Note that Shirt56 looked for such sources in 2015, and didn't find enough; and that Theroadislong has added a comment to the draft that implies that they have looked yesterday and didn't find any. But it is possible you can find some others. Have a look at your first article as well. --ColinFine (talk) 17:32, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Submitting a page for review and publication

Hi,

I submitted a page for review in late January and I wanted to ask if there's anything else I need to do in order for the page to be published and searchable via Google, etc.

If a link to the page is needed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:TenTonKodiak/sandbox

Please let me know what I need to do in order to contribute and finalize the page for publication.

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TenTonKodiak (talk • contribs) 17:50, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

You didn't submit it for review. There's no point in submitting it until you have references to published reliable sources independent of the subject. Advice is available at WP:Your first article. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:00, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

How do I insert a table of contents into my article

Hello,

I am looking to insert a table of contents into a article I am creating, as the article has around 6 or 7 seperate headings. Is there a specific piece of code required to write this, or does Wikipedia do this automatically.

Thank you for your help,

(Greentree21 (talk) 18:13, 13 March 2019 (UTC))

Dear @Greentree21: Wikipedia should do it automatically for all articles with three or more separate headings. Please reply if you have any further questions! Zingarese talk · contribs 18:44, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Four or more, according to WP:TOC. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:47, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, four or more! My mistake Zingarese talk · contribs 19:05, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Article has such table now. David notMD (talk) 19:16, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

There didn't seem to be any relevant page written by the OP at the time of the original question, but Draft:The Constantine Plan has been produced subsequently. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:26, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Approved via AfC as article Constantine Plan. Not bad (very good!) as a student assignment. Congratulations. David notMD (talk) 20:43, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

N-word pass

Why is there not an article for the n-word pass. The least we could do is mention it. It is the most culturally significant thing to date.— Preceding unsigned comment added by NinetyNinja34 (talk • contribs)

@NinetyNinja34: See User:Ian.thomson/Howto for dead simple instructions on how to make articles. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:13, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Page flagged for speedy deletion

My page Wikipedia:Outreach_Dashboard/University_of_Derby/5PU506_Content_Development_(January_2019) has been flagged for speedy deletion, under criteria G8 - and I'm not sure why, or what I've done wrong here, or how to fix it. Can anyone help?

Thanks!

Cbderbylib (talk) 18:15, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Cbderbylib, it looks like maybe it was created in the wrong space. I have never seen this before so don't know how to help, but no worries, even if it does get deleted, it's easily restored by an admin. valereee (talk) 18:31, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

There are other similar course pages that have also been flagged for deletion, those have the note that the subpage Wikipedia:Outreach_Dashboard doesn't exist - so I get why criteria G8 has been used - I'm just not sure where I should move a course page like this to. And if it gets deleted and restored, it might just get flagged again? Cbderbylib (talk) 18:33, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Cbderbylib, someone will be along, either here or on the talk page of the article, to make sure things get fixed correctly. If it gets deleted and restored, the person doing the restoring will no doubt know how to restore correctly. valereee (talk) 19:02, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done Page now moved to be a subpage at Wikipedia:Wiki Ed. Not perfect - as you get a 'Do Not Edit This Page' notice which you should completely ignore for now. I'll raise the matter of the other deleted Educational Outreach pages at Wikipedia:Education noticeboard. Not pinging the OP as I've responded directly on the project talk page. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:45, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Weapon infobox troubles

Creating an article for The T34 Tank but certain lines on the infobox will not display/update such as Main Gun, Armor, and Engine. Ive had this problem before and cannot solve it can i please get some help???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JaunWhick01 (talk • contribs) 19:07, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Dear @JaunWhick01: According to Template:Infobox weapon, those parameters only display if the parameter is_vehicle is set to yes. Place |is vehicle=yes into the infobox and let me know if that works. Zingarese talk · contribs 19:26, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@Zingarese: Setting it to that showed engine but not armor or main gun. Am I also missing more? Are there essential parameter i need to set for it to work properly?

@JaunWhick01: Try also adding |is_missle=yes Zingarese talk · contribs 19:34, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@JaunWhick01: Is this the same problem you were having above at #Infobox not displaying correct information? Did you see the reply I gave there? If this is the same problem or similar problem, then you can respond there and there's no need to start a new thread each time. You might also want to try asking for help at WT:MILHIST since tank articles fall under the scope of WP:MILHIST and you likely going to find editors there who are quite familiar with how this particular infobox template works. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:24, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Is this a suspicious situation

If you look at the revision history of Enclosure, you will see edits by 3 users since 11 March. These edits take the article in a direction that I regard as off-subject (yes, I might be wrong!!). The 3 users have not edited any other articles. Does this look suspicious? If so, is there any recommended course of action? ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:56, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@ThoughtIdRetired: Welcome to Wikipedia. It is best to Assume Good Faith that the editors are not conspiring together. Start a discussion on the article's talk page to get consensus on what changes should go into the article. If you can't get consensus, then move on to other steps at dispute resolution. RudolfRed (talk) 23:12, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Looks to me like one user making a substantial addition to the article and a couple of others (perhaps associated with the major contributor, but hey, friends or classmates can have a simultaneous interest in a topic) making very minor tweaks which do not amount to manipulation.

The substantial addition, which has an international theme, does seem to flow tangentially to the previous focus of the article, which was primarily about the historical process in England, but the article's title is perhaps over-broad and arguably the new material does legitimately fit under it.

My suggestion would be to either:

(a) Move the new material into the existing subsection of 6.2 (See also: Other countries), or

(b) Create (or find) a new (or existing) article on the general topic with an international scope and integrate the recent contribution to that, and also move the existing article to a more specific title such as 'Land Enclosure in England'.

Either way (or other ways), the contributor(s) should be engaged on the Talk page to discuss the way forward as RudolfRed suggests. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.123.27.125 (talk) 00:43, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I boldly deleted all content not relevant to land enclosure in England, suggesting instead the creation of other article(s). And started a discussion at Talk. Plausibly, descriptions of exclusion of farmers and nomads from traditional land use could be in a section on other countries, but all the stuff about digital commons, etc, not here. David notMD (talk) 03:07, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Youtube videos can be cited as source?

This video shows an inside look of the production of the film Despicable Me 2, and I was asking if it can be used as a source to the corresponding article -Gouleg (Talk • Contribs) 23:47, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Whether or nor a YouTube video can be so cited depends on the video. Videos that are copyright violations absolutely cannot, nor should those that merely express the personal opinions of an individual, or the original research of someone with no editorial oversight.

However, this video is on the official YouTube channel of Illumination, the studio that made the film it discusses, so can likely be regarded as a reliable source at least for what the Studio wishes to say, so it is likely usable for facts (such as who worked on the film, what techniques were used, etc.) but not for subjective judgements about aspects of the film.

There is more guidance about linking to YouTube at Wikipedia:YouTube, and I suspect somewhere there is discussion of citing material on it, but I can't find it at the moment. Anyone? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.123.27.125 (talk) 00:21, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

thank you for your reply. Saw another user cite this same video (but uploaded by Universal UK) and it got removed; while i assume it was because of original research based upon the video, i was unsure if it also was because the source was a youtube video -Gouleg (Talk • Contribs) 03:55, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

"Using author link" examples

The documentation in Template:Cite web#Using author-link has six example citations. Only the first one uses the author-link parameter. I don't feel competent to edit this, but somebody should. --Thnidu (talk) 03:12, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Good spot, Thnidu! Best thing to do is leave this feedback at the Talk page of the Template itself. It might not get picked up immediately, but that's probably the most sensible place to comment. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Thnidu, thanks for spotting it! I took a deep dive into the archives, and found that this mistake has been there since a cleanup in 2012! The problem was that some headings were lost: there's only one example for author-link, the other examples are for multiple authors, no author, and no author and no publisher. I've fixed the mistake.rchard2scout (talk) 11:59, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, Nick Moyes. I was going to put it on the talk page, but there's a banner there warning that the page is rarely visited and that it would be better to go to a help page.

And thanks for fixing the section, Rchard2scout. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have been sharp enough / familiar enough with these templates to do it myself. --Thnidu (talk) 21:57, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

can't read media description page

My father, 92 years old this month, is writing a memoir in which he wants to use an image where we can't read the media description page; it’s in Russian (https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Махлуп,_Фриц#/media/File:Махлуп,_Фриц.jpg). Must we find someone who can read it, or is there an easier way to find out what’s needed in order to use this image in my father's book? --KWW52 (talk) 04:45, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, KWW52. Welcome. Yes there is an easier way. Either visit the website in Google Chrome (which offers you a a "translate this page" icon on the far left of the url bar, or copy the relevant text and paste into Google translate.

I used the former method, and it's clear there are image-use restrictions. Translated, it says "This file is non-free (does not meet the definition of a free work of culture ). In accordance with the decision of the Wikimedia Foundation, it can be used in Russian Wikipedia articles only if the criteria for fair use are met . Any other use (both in Russian and outside Wikipedia) can be a violation of copyright."

Lower down there is a link to where the image was sourced from, which you can find at this location. With a bit more detective work you may well e able to trace the original author and maybe find contact details to approach them directly for permission to re-use an image. We can't give copyright advice here I'm afraid. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:22, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Nick Moyes! I never thought you could give copyright advice here. Your answer gives us a way forward. Hooray!

Sources for an Article

In between 2011 and 2015, American pornstar Riley Reid published posts on twitter and her personal website detailing her self-described raping of her highschool boyfriend. As she is a pornstar and was relatively new at the time, no major news outlet reported this, as far as I can tell. Nevertheless, there exist images of her now-deleted tweets. For your reference, she said the following things in her tweets and on her website:

• "I raped a kid in a movie theatre cause I wanted to fuck and he kept sayin no."
• "He on the other hand didn't want to lse his virginity in the movies and said no that we should wait."
• "Well I guess in my book, n means yes because his boner didn't turn me down! I placed myself in cowgirl on his lap and slide his cock right inside me."

I beleive a section in Riley Reid's page should mention this, and I edited the page to include a paraphrased version of what she said in her own tweets, as well as including direct quotes. I also included as sources: 1) images of the self-published writings; and 2) a website called naughtynews which I can't link in this question because it keeps getting flagged by Wikipedia's algorithm. The entire section was eventually deleted by another user, who stated that the website is not reliable and the self-published sources are not sufficient.

My questions are: 1) Are the self-publiushed sources allowed?; 2) Are the self-published sources sufficient as the sole sources?; 3) Is the website allowed to be an additional source (if not, why)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cynwniloc (talk • contribs)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Cynwniloc. In the case of serious allegations: 1) No, 2) No, 3) Reliable, high-quality, investigative websites such as mainstream newspapers might be used to cover stories of serious criminal allegations, but not salacious tittle-tattle website aimed at prurient readers like "The Naughty News". So, again, No. You should not have included external links to sources within the text you add, instead cite them as proper references. But never, ever use stuff on user-generated sites such as Reddit.

Wikipedia is only interested in collating what independent, RELIABLE, sources say about a subject, and not what they say about themselves. Wait until a so-called 'controversy' has been competently investigated and reported upon by proper news outlets, or criminal charges have been brought and made public. Well done for self-reverting your addition. All controversies, especially those relating to living people, must remain off the page of Wikipedia until covered by proper sources. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:11, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Help editing a list

I am really dumb when it comes to editing a Wicki page and would appreciate it if someone could make an edit for me. The page listing the oldest Americans is incorrect, my mother turned 111 January 28 and I would like to see her listed. Her name is Doris Jablonsky Sperber. She was born in NYC on 1/28/1908 and now lives in San Francisco. I have any number of references, including an article that ran in the San Francisco Chronicle on 1.22.2018 (sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/SF-woman-is-well-into-her-2nd-century-12512397.php). The page that needs editing is

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_American_supercentenarians&action=edit&section=1

Thanks very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brooklyn39 (talk • contribs) 06:02, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Brooklyn39. Welcome to the Teahouse. May I suggest you repeat this post over at the relevant talk page? Just go to Talk:List of American supercentenarians and click the tab marked "Add Topic". Having the url to a reliable newspaper or other available evidence is essential, so I'm glad you provided that. I suspect another editor at that page would be very happy to add in the details for you. Best wishes to you - and to her! Nick Moyes (talk) 08:52, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Approval criteria

Which criteria is being used to approve an article or page on wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amandlaxoki (talk • contribs) 06:49, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Amandlaxoki, and welcome to the Teahouse! I see that your draft for Amandla Xoki at User:Amandlaxoki/sandbox has recently been rejected because the topic is not notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. For details, please read through Wikipedia's notability guideline, which is also summarized at WP:42. If you can produce at least 2 independent reliable sources that offer significant coverage of Amandla Xoki, then the draft will be eligible to be published. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! — Newslinger talk 08:43, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Update account email

Hi there,

Could you point me to where I can update my email to the account pls? Thank you! --Redzebras (talk) 07:29, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Redzebras, and welcome to the Teahouse! To update your email, go to the preferences section and scroll down to "Email options". In the future, you can go to this page by clicking on the "Preferences" link at the top-right of each Wikipedia page. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! — Newslinger talk 08:34, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you!Redzebras (talk) 14:19, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

why am i not visible to the general public.

Hello, i created an account with Wikipedia and i even confirm my email,i also have edited some contributions about myself but when some my boss and some acquaintance search for my name on Wikipedia they couldn't find me(am i not visible to the public) what am to do because i want to be visible to the general public, i will be glad to get a reply soon, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foretv (talk • contribs) 08:27, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello Foretv. For the time being, your user account can be seen at User:Foretv (i.e. at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Foretv.) We do not allow user accounts to be indexed by Google in the same way that articles are indexed- you are simply not a notabe person, so why would we? Unfortunately you have chosen to use a promotional username, and as such, it breaches our username policy, so will be deleted very shortly. (See WP:USERNAME for what is and isn't allowed.) Please tell your boss that Wikipedia is not here to help you or them promote your company. You say you have already made other edits here, yet your account does not show this. We do not allow one person to operate two or more accunts here, and any evidence of that happening will result in all accounts being permanently blocked for WP:SOCKPUPPETRY. Sorry this isn't what you or your boss want to hear. Please try The Wikipedia Adventure for a simple interactive tour on the basics of editing Wikipedia. Nick Moyes (talk) 08:44, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

To resume being an editor: 1) Follow the instructions on your Talk page about appealing the block by creating a new User name; 2) Do not try to create an article about yourself, as a) you are not 'Notable' by Wikipedia, and B) Wikipedia frowns on autobiography (see WP:Autobiography); 3) Use only one account. Editing while signed in and while not signed in counts as multiple accounts. David notMD (talk) 12:24, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Rejected article help please

Hello Tea house, Greetings Kindly requesting help editing a previously rejected article/page. I am new here and have no idea how to go about writing an article that will be approved by Wikipedia. Thanks and looking forward to any kind of assistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Athienorachel2 (talk • contribs) 09:20, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

@Athienorachel2: See WP:YFA. Mstrojny (talk) 10:06, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Something weird is happening when I write

Suddenly everything changes size and color. I must have done something, but I can't figure out what. I need help; its really annoying. Creuzbourg (talk) 10:19, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Creuzbourg, welcome to the Teahouse. It sounds like you activated syntax highlighting. There are several such features. The easiest to activate by accident is a highlighter marker button to the left of "Advanced" in some toolbars. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:34, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Problem solved! I really appreciate your help. Creuzbourg (talk) 13:24, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

References for Traka page

Hi

I am preparing a final version to re-submit a page for Traka, which was previously removed. There are a couple of points that I can't find a reference online other than a press release, which I know isn't accepted. Should i leave the reference off?

Currently, I have in place: 4. ASSA ABLOY acquires Traka Plc in the United Kingdom https://www.professionalsecurity.co.uk/news/press-releases/assa-abloy-acquires-traka-plc-in-the-united-kingdom/

11. Justin Sasse appointed as Managing Director for Traka https://www.psimagazine.co.uk/justin-sasse-appointed-as-managing-director-for-traka/

Please let me know and any advice welcome.

Thanks LydiaLydiaFionaLewis (talk) 10:56, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, LydiaFionaLewis welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid your question is somewhat moot, and that you will be wasting your organisations's time and money - and our volunteer resources - if you do try to recreate the Traka article. Following a formal discussion process, it was deleted in January on the grounds of not meeting our notability guidelines for companies (WP:NCORP}. So, unless you have new sources showing that Traka has very recently been the subject of detailed and in-depth reporting by a number of non-insider news media, books or so forth, your task will be futile. Your parent company, Assa Abloy already has an article, and I see there is already a brief mention of the Traka takeover. Please be advised that we require all users who have a Conflict of Interest to declare their connection if they do choose to write about their employer, friends' business and so forth. You would also be obligated to then declare that you are remunerated in so doing, under our WP:PAID policy. Both links explain how you should, if appropriate, declare that company connection. I'm sorry I can't be more positive, but this encyclopaedia is not here to help non-notable companies promote themselves. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:01, 14 March 2019 (UTC)  

Oh, and last month you asked at the AfD discussion what does 'pre-PAIDCOI version' refers to. A weird term, I agree, but they were talking about was giving time for the deletion discussion contributors to look at versions of the article prior to a load of paid-edits being added to it by one or more users with a suggested WP:COI and WP:PAID link to the Traka company. Sometimes, seeing all those obvious PR phrases and promo-links tends to make Wikipedians immediately assume that the company isn't notable, and is just pushing itself forward. So, it was to give more time for a fairer assessment of notability to be made. That happened - and it failed. Sorry. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:23, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Not approving Company Wikipedia

Hi, I am digital marketer. I write content and market them on digital platform for various client. But, wikipedia doesnt allow me to publish the content for my clients business. I although its genuine content and client want it to publish on their behalf.

Regards Aduber.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aduber Digital (talk • contribs) 11:04, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia records information about independently notable companies and persons. It is not a platform for self-promotion or advertising. There are strict condition of use: WP:COI and WP:PAID which you would need to read, understand and apply before attempting to edit. If there is a page about your client, once you have satisfied the policies with appropriate declarations, you may request a change on the relevant talk page. In passing, if English is not your first language then doing things this way may actually produce a better page for your client. Finally, please ensure you sign all posts to talk pages by adding four "~" symbols at the end of your text. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:30, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

The Bull Theatre, Barnet

The listing for The Bull diverts to the Susi Earnshaw Theatre School. Whilst both businesses are based in the same building they are in fact separate businesses. Is it possible to have these split out on Wikipedia please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clpcreativemanagement (talk • contribs) 13:47, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

@Clpcreativemanagement: This question/request is best asked at the talk page of the relevant article, giving links to demonstrate any point you wish to have changed. From the photo on that page, they do look extraordinarily closely connected, so a separate page might not be necessary. I fact, there is no actual redirect page, just Wikipedia's search results offering the Theatre School when "The Bull Theatre" is entered. This seems like a case of a non-involved editor simply improving the existing article itself.

May I just politely point out that your username breaches our username guidelines as it suggests a promotional use of an account, operated by more than one person. My advice is to simply abandon that account completely, never use it ever again, and create a new one like 'JoeatCLP' and ensure you don't edit articles yourself without first declaring any Conflict of Interest you might have with the subject. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:36, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Help requested

How do I ask for the opinion of people related to an article and whether it meets basic WP:GNG without WP:CANVASSING? (This is in related to an actual article I am currently working on) DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 13:52, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi DiplomatTesterMan, you're welcome to do so here. Asking notability questions neutrally at a noticeboard meant to help users out would rarely be considered canvassing.--SkyGazer 512 ^{My talk page} 14:05, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

You can, for example, post a neutral message like "Looking for more input on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pratik Sinha" at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:50, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

SkyGazer 512, Gråbergs Gråa Sång, thanks for the reply. I had written this teahouse message before the the article was nominated for deletion. The message arose since a page I had created, Pratik Sinha had been blanked without any discussion whatsoever and I reverted it and requested the user to seek consensus before making such an action. Since it has been nominated for deletion now, that is ok and normal Wikipedia procedure will apply now in related to AFDs, no problem now.

But my question was also general also since in the past I have had doubts where more opinions would have been good but haven't asked them since I don't want it to be labelled as WP:CANVASSING or wasting editorial resources. So thank you for replying and I know now that teahouse is a good place to start these kind of discussions. Thanks DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 14:58, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

How do I customize my talk page username?

I see all these people with customized talk page tags. How do I change it from just the standard "Walkyo"? Walkyo (talk) 16:05, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Walkyo, I'm going to assume you mean your signature. Go to your Special:Preferences and go to the User profile section. Scroll down and you will find the "Signature" section. You can edit that to change your sig. Check the "Treat as wiki markup" box to be able to use some of the fancy formatting you see on others. WelpThatWorked (talk) 16:42, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Adding to that, if you check "treat as wiki markup", remember that the signature code then needs to include the code for a link to your user page (|[[User:Walkyo|<link text>]]) and/or user talk page (|[[User talk:Walkyo|<link text>]]). Also, see Wikipedia:Signatures for what is and isn't allowed. Regards SoWhy 16:50, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Using a table from a journal article

I recently tried to implement a table from a journal article (https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00801999 ) into Bwiti but was slapped for copyright stuff n junk. I added a citation but I'm not sure how I could "paraphrase" such a table. I suppose I just need to ask permission from (the journal? the authors?) - I don't know where to start with that process (nothing obvious at the journal link). Any pointers? (There's a ton of great information in the journal - it'd be a great boon to get some of it in wikipedia) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyle Kost (talk • contribs) 16:11, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Diannaa, the goddess of copyright infringement, has rightfully smitten your contribution. You can paraphrase content from the journal article but not use the table. Remeber to sign your comments by typing four of ~. David notMD (talk) 16:33, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

"ok"....tildetildetildetilde Kyle Kost (talk) 16:58, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Re-stating the question because I guess I wasn't clear. Are there any suggestions on how I could ask for permission? Said table is the best way I can think of to visualize the rituals and their lineages. Kyle Kost (talk) 16:58, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Kyle Kost. You would need to get the copyright owner (who may be the author, or may be somebody else) to agree to license the material under CC-BY-SA. See Donating copyright materials for what steps you would have to ask them to follow. --ColinFine (talk) 17:43, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you ColinFine. Will see what I can do. May just try to digest/regurgitate the article some more first. I promise I mean well! Just a nooby noobin' it up over here tryin' not to be much of a pirate. Yarrrrrgh Kyle Kost (talk) 01:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia Article Capitalization

Why do we make Certain Wikipedia Article Names have the first word have capitalization and the other word not capitalized, It Doesn't Make any sense? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwc435 (talk • contribs) 16:54, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Mwc435, welcome to the Teahouse. Would you care to supply some examples so that we can better understand your concerns? This shortcut: WP:TITLEFORMAT gives guidance on how titles should be formatted, as well as Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization) which states in bold on its first line: Do not capitalize the second or subsequent words in an article title, unless the title is a proper name. If you have found examples that contravene this style guideline, do let us know. Nick Moyes (talk) 17:03, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Problem With Permissions When Trying To Run The InternetArchiveBot To Fix Dead Links Automatically

Hi. I'm fairly new to editing Wikipedia, so am looking for a bit of help with automatically fixing dead links using the InternetArchiveBot please.

At https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:InternetArchiveBot it says:-

"You can use this bot yourself by browsing the history of any page, and clicking on the "Fix dead links" link in the "External tools" section at the top of the page."

but when I click the Fix Dead Links link at:- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Climate_engineering&action=history I go to:- https://tools.wmflabs.org/iabot/index.php?page=runbotsingle&pagesearch=Climate_engineering

which tell me:-

Permission error The action you are trying to perform requires the analyzepage permission.

This permission is obtainable with the following groups: basicuser, user, admin, root, bot

My account page at:- https://tools.wmflabs.org/iabot/index.php?page=user&id=57630957&wiki=enwiki tells me I'm not a member of any groups.

Could you please let me know if there is a way of becoming one of these groups, or whether I should have the permission to run the Bot?

Thanks Shalso (talk) 17:44, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I see from the history that you fixed dead links successfully. So, do you have this problem now? Ruslik_Zero 18:00, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ruslik0. Thanks for your reply. I've been manually editing the page to fix dead links, but wanted to have permission to run the AIBot on any page I find dead links on. It looks like you managed to successfully run it on the Climate Engineering page one minute before your comment above to create the following revision:- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Climate_engineering&oldid=887764381 which automatically fixed 3 of the dead links, so thanks for doing that. Do you know how you got permission to run the AIBot and do you know how I could also get permissions please? Thanks. Shalso (talk) 21:06, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Shalso, Hey, so I believe you need to be at least autoconfirmed in order to use it, and it appears you have just earlier today hit the requirements. Does it work for you now? WelpThatWorked (talk) 21:20, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi WelpThatWorked - Thanks for the reply. Unfortunately still not working. When I go to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Climate_engineering&action=history and click Fix Dead Links I go to https://tools.wmflabs.org/iabot/index.php?page=runbotsingle&pagesearch=Climate_engineering which still tells me "Permission error. The action you are trying to perform requires the analyzepage permission." and I'm still not a member of any groups at https://tools.wmflabs.org/iabot/index.php?page=user&id=57630957&wiki=enwiki Do you know who would know how to fix this? I have asked the Lead Developer of the InternetArchiveBot - cyberpower678 - this question on his talk page as well.

Shalso (talk) 23:32, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Shalso, I’m going to answer here so other teahouse helpers know this. Per https://tools.wmflabs.org/iabot/index.php?page=metainfo, you can see the list of user groups that exist there and what requirements need to be fulfilled to get them. You are actually shy 1 edit of obtaining the basic user permission. —CYBERPOWER (Chat) 23:44, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Cyberpower678, Thanks for the answer. I've just created my user page which has put me at 10 edits and so now I'm in the the autoconfirmed group. It looks like I have to have been registered more than 10 days in order to be in the basicuser group from what it says at https://tools.wmflabs.org/iabot/index.php?page=metainfo so I think I have have to wait 5 more days and it should then work. It would be good to have just a sentence or two at the top of the https://tools.wmflabs.org/iabot/index.php?page=metainfo page explaining how the system works. I did study that table at https://tools.wmflabs.org/iabot/index.php?page=metainfo but couldn't really understand what it was telling me. It seemed to be dynamic and so I thought it was telling me my current user group status, so I couldn't understand why I wasn't already a basic user. Now I understand that it is telling people the date they have to have been registered since and the minimum number of edits they have to have done in order to become a member of a particular usergroup.

Shalso (talk) 00:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Shalso, try going to the tool again. You should now be in the user group. —CYBERPOWER (Chat) 00:43, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Nevermind. You are right. You still need to wait 5 more days. I’ll just add you to the group myself. —CYBERPOWER (Chat) 00:44, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I added basicuser to your account. —CYBERPOWER (Chat) 00:51, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

You guys are persistent

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Are you guys looking at what is actually being published or NO. Damien Linson was a member or the Baltimore Ravens(NFL) and 2010 (GFL Champions) Kiel Baltic Hurricanes. Select a search engine and do your research, facts are facts. However to consistently delete facts when there are notable people who have done less, seems a little off. To the editors its 2019, based off of the criteria it should actually be a few more names on the list. As long as you guys delete, the information will be resubmitted because they are facts. National Football League and German Football League are both professional leagues. Editors please put your personal issues aside, just do your research and thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whitecityplymouth (talk • contribs) 18:10, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

@Whitecityplymouth: For interested editors, this is with regards to the editor trying to add Damien Linson to Plymouth, North Carolina#Notable people. Numerous editors have responded that site convention is to not include people on these lists unless they have their own article. If you think you have enough sourcing, you can create an article, even a stub, and from WP:GRIDIRON, if Mr. Linson appeared on one game, you should be OK. Please sign your comments with four tildes ~~~~ so we know who you are. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:44, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I think that's a misunderstanding of convention, Timtempleton. WP:CSC states that red links in lists are acceptable. However, references are still needed to demonstrate notability. Whitecityplymouth, I suggest you have a read of WP:BURDEN, which explains that the burden is on you to provide sources if you want to add something to an article. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:53, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry: It appears that you are correct - comment stricken. I had my notable people lists mixed up with DAB page lists. A better solution would be to add the person as a red-link, but with a single source demonstrating notability. Proof of an NFL game appearance would certainly suffice, and the red link might encourage the article creation. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:04, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Whitecityplymouth, According to the NFL page on him, he is a College football player, so I doubt he would be able to be on either of those teams. Have a good one! WelpThatWorked (talk) 18:45, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Vijay(actor) article admins especially cyphoidbomb quite annoying

I am new to Wikipedia legit users like me who wants to contribute to the Vijay(actor) article were unable to do so becoz of the unnecessary high protection level and the article remains outdated. even though if I contribute in the talk page of the Vijay(actor) article there is no response. so this is how Wikipedia works it sucks. somebody please do the needsome. regards Fgassh (talk) 19:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

@Fgassh: Welcome to Wikipedia. The only edits from you on Talk:Vijay_(actor) that I see are from today. You just need to be patient. Consider working to improve articles that are not under protection. RudolfRed (talk) 20:15, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

To RudolfRed and any other interested parties, Fgassh was evading a previous block. The master account was Bothiman. I don't dispute that I'm annoying, though. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Removing a template

Hi, Teahousers. I'm really confused about why my article (David Sampson (composer)) is tagged for additional citations. I think I used plenty of links and citations to internal and external sources throughout the article. I'm ashamed to say that I don't understand how to remedy the issue and remove the template, as I am lost when it comes to code.

I've checked various resources including Maintenance Template Removal and Help:Template and so on, down the rabbit hole, and just can't figure out what to do.

Would really appreciate it if some kind, patient soul could walk me through this. Many thanks.

EllBee — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lbatchelder (talk • contribs) 19:36, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Of the last 18 sections, one has a reference. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:41, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

@Lbatchelder: Also check out both WP:MUSICBIO for notability requirements, and WP:RS for more info on proper sourcing. One place to start to find sourcing could be David Sampson (composer)#Selected reviews, where I see there is media coverage listed but the info isn't formatted as proper citations. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:55, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

@Lbatchelder: Put simply, the article doesn't have enough inline citations to support the factual statements that you've added to the article. So you needn't worry about how to remove the template; you need to start the learning journey about how and why we add citations. May I advise you to start with Help:Referencing for beginners?

It's no good, for example, saying he was commissioned by the Colonial Symphony to compose Simple Live in 1990. We need editors to insert a reference to allow others to verify what has been added. Whilst this might be stuff you/they happen to know to be true, if you/they can't demonstrate it is true, it should not be included, no matter how much one would like to. Usually it is friends and work colleagues who know these things and insert them into articles, but can't prove them via reliable sources.

To that end, I should say that if you do happen to know, employ, or work with the subject you're writing about, then you would have a Conflict of Interest. We then require editors to be transparent and make a declaration according to the guidelines set out in WP:COI. I say this partly because I noticed a person with a very similar username as yours is listed as working alongside Sampson. On the offchance that this is you, it doesn't stop you editing the article; it simply declares, upfront, any involvement/knowledge/friendship or financial commitment to that person. (And, if the latter, see also WP:PAID for how to declare that, too). The thing I'd suggest you also focus on is finding reliable sources that have written about him in detail, or the awards he has won. I'm sure from the body of his work, he would meet WP:NBIO or WP:NMUSICBIO (these are two shortcuts to our key pages about how we assess the 'notability' of a person), but I would like the article to be less a resume of every one of his works, and more about him as a notable person, or how he is recognised for his great contribution to classical music. The lead, for example, is really far to short for the length of this encylopadic article, and could be used as an effective summary of why he is 'notable'. It's not yet all that clear in the article. Finally, we often recommend that new editors work through our interactive tour called The Wikipedia Adventure to understand how things work around here. I'll pop by in a moment and leave a welcome message full of useful links to get you started. Best of luck, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:56, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

How do I create a new stub form?

a — Preceding unsigned comment added by MetroManMelbourne (talk • contribs) 21:37, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

MetroManMelbourne, it is not clear what you are asking. Could you explain to me what a stub form is? Mstrojny (talk) 21:44, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Mstrojny Sorry, I said it wrong. What I meant was a new stub type e.g. the Berlin-U-Bahn stub type. How do I Create another one? MetroManMelbourne (talk) 00:40, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Remaining newby problems of a not-so-new-editor

Dear teahouse host

First of all thank you very much for being here so that I have somebody to talk to. I started editing in September 2017, but I am still struggling with problems. Probably what I need is mostly is being redirected to the right places. — Johannes Schade 22:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC) — continues after insertion below

@Johannes Schade: We don't normally get a volley of questions like these. I'd not realised they were from the same person (hence your comment at the end!). I've split them up into subheadings, so maybe they can be answered seperately under each section. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:40, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Citation

I feel that Wikipedia provides too many ways of citing sources. Ideally I think that there should be a Wikipedia house style for citations. I know that has been discussed and rejected, see WP:CITEVAR. I feel that the "sfn" and the "citation" templates should be recommended for newbies. The variety still confuses me and I think it gives a chaotic impression. I started with <ref></ref> and then the "reflist" template but changed to "sfn", "reflist" and a list of sources below it that should perhaps appear between "refbegin" and "refend". Originally I used "cite book", "cite web" etc. to describe the sources but later changed to "citation" template for all types of sources. I feel the parameters should always be listed in the same fixed order, but the template documentation (e.g. cite book and citation) do not seem to prescribe a standard sequence of parameters. I simply think it does not look nice (or professional) in the code when editors add source descriptions which show different orders of parameters (e.g., url at the end or after the title). The "efn" template should be recommended for explanatory notes.

I had problems with the "sfn" template in the article "Jean-Antoine de Mesmes (1640-1709)" where I cite passages in three volumes of Saint-Simon's Memoirs: The link between the notes and the references in the list does not work. — Johannes Schade 22:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC) — continues after insertion below

I've run over the article for you. First I added standard headers to differentiate notes, references and citations. Next I've forced these aristos to just use surnames which fits the sfn/citation templates. Hope that helps, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 23:43, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Projects

I still wonder how you can join a project. Do you need to be invited? Do you simply barge in by adding yourself to the list of users of the project? There are a lot of local projects. In my case that is Project Northern Ireland as that is where I live. Such local projects could eventually take over some of your Teahouse workload. They might be ready to go beyond this and really mentor newbies because the local project will be able to profit from it. — Johannes Schade 22:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC) — continues after insertion below

There is no formal 'joining up' process. You can either add your name to their 'participants' list, or simply just align yourself with their activities and ambitions. Projects are very good places to give specialised advice on a topic, and the Hosts here often send people to specific Projects for that guidance. If you wish, you can even add a Project 'Userbox' to your main userpage to show which projects you support. (also forms a handy quick link to get there, too!) Nick Moyes (talk) 23:48, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Article Promotion

Articles should be created as stubs and then be assessed and improved. After substantial improvement they should be promoted to Start-Class, C-Class, B-Class, GA, A-Class and finally Featured Article. This does not seem to happen. Who should do all these assessments and promotions? Probably not the editor who did the essential improvement. What is the procedure to be followed? There seem to be big backlogs of articles to be assessed and promoted. — Johannes Schade 22:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC) — continues after insertion below

So as not to be seen as congratulating oneself, editors who put in a lot of work improving an article tend to not also upgrade it. Any editor can upgrade from Stub to Start to C-Class to B-class, although if articles have glaring shortfalls, a subsequent editor is free to downgrade. Getting to GA and FA requires an article be nominated and another editor conduct a review process, identifying weaknesses of the article in question and requiring fixes. Before a GA or FA nomination, the editor intending the nomination is expected to do a lot to improve the article first. GAs and FAs can also be downgraded via a formal process. Lastly, many experienced editors work on a draft until it could be considered to be past Stub class. The person conducting the Article for Creation review might be willing to approve and rate it Start- or even C-class right away. David notMD (talk) 23:48, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Content assessment for more info on this. Assessment is very subjective, apart from WP:GA and WP:FA which involve a review and scrutiny process. I try to avoid creating stubs; I think any good editor using their sandbox to draft a new page ought really to be able to begin with a 'Start' class article at the very least. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:53, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Contents Template

The Contents template is automatically added to articles that have more than 3 sections. The Content box always lists all headings. The Content box therefore can become very long and this may discourage editors from adding deeper levels of subdivisions. Sometimes the citation apparatus with its headings Notes, References, Further reading etc. contributes more headings than the body of the article. — Johannes Schade 22:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC) — continues after insertion below

@Johannes Schade: Yes, true. Sensible section headings help users find the right information that they need. I've set my system up so that each heading and sub-heading is numbered, thus allowing me to navigate more easily within a long page. (For example, this subsection currently appears as 66.4 when I view it. I've had it this way for so long I've temporarily forgotten how I set it up. Let me know if you're interested in doing that, and I'll nip off and refresh my memory. (Or somebody else may remind us). Nick Moyes (talk) 00:27, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Spell Checker

There does not seem to be an English spellchecker. That would be a useful tool when editing. — Johannes Schade 22:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC) — continues after insertion below

I know what you're saying, but many browsers like Firefox and Chrome (to name but two) allow built-in spellcheckers which can assist you with that task. (A nifty trick, if you're aiming for the highest quality work when you're editing, is to save your edits and copy the displayed page into a wordprocessor (like MS Word) and do a spell and grammar check there.) Nick Moyes (talk) 00:08, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Warning Templates

Templates like "More citations needed" display warnings indicating that the article has some shortcoming, e.g. does not have enough references. Having done something to fix a shortcoming should I remove this warning? I feel that somebody else should do it as I am now biased. Un unbiased person might find that the the fix does not go far enough (e.g. added too few references) or was of poor quality (e.g. the references were not not reliable). The article Siege of Derry has a warning "Needs additional citations" at its beginning, but there are 51 footnotes. — Johannes Schade 22:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC) — continues after insertion below

Yes, if you address the issue flagged up by the notice, then feel free to remove it. Another editor can always add it back in if they feel you haven't addressed the key statements that still need citations. Complex or contentious pages contains many 'factual' statements; each needs to be supported with a reference. The Siege of Derry article still has many elements unsupported by references. One should read through and consider each statement in turn. Are there citations to support each one? If not, it's under-referenced. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:14, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Quotes

I feel that quotes in the footnote are not used often enough. References often cite a source like "A Smith, 2010, p345". The reference might be a recent book that is difficult to access unless you buy it and the reference is therefore difficult to verify. The editor who added the reference obviously must have had access. I feel he should have quoted the relevant passage. Another reason to quote is that in some works pages are huge and without quote it becomes difficult to decide which passage on the page might have been intended. On the other hand having a quote also makes it easier to identify which piece of information in the text is supported by the reference. — Johannes Schade 22:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC) — continues after insertion below

Once again, I tend to agree with you. I have mixed feelings about seeing quotations within a reference/footnote. There are obviously copyright issues over long quotes, and a bad-faith editor can potentially create a false quotation. But, in general, my own view is that these would be helpful...and I should probably start doing it myself on the rare occasions I use references to real books, rather than online sources. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Images

Images are not numbered in Wikipedia. I find it difficult to refer to an image in the text. The text is sometimes a better place than the caption to discuss information that can be gleaned from the image. WP:CAPTION does not seem to forbid Figure numbers, but I have not found an article yet that does use them.

Perhaps I talk too much. Just tell me to go somewhere else.

Johannes Schade (talk) 22:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Crikey, Johannes Schade if you think you talk too much, you should read some of my replies here. They can go on foreveeeeeer! Oh, and Wilkommen to the Teahouse. Erm, as scientists, we're used to reading journals that refer to Fig 1, Fig, 2 and so on, and that's really helpful on a static page. We know precisely what to look at and when. The problem with a user-edited encyclopaedia is that content changes all the time. An image that might have been used for some years could, one day, be replaced with a completely different one, or simply removed as unnecessary, or the whole article restructured or rewritten. So, it's really unwise to try to link text and images in the way you allude to. One of them is bound to be changed sooner or later, and would bound to cause confusion. What we do is use images and write captions for them that stand on their own merits, yet which nevertheless add to the encyclopaedic value of the text on the page. Does that make sense? Nick Moyes (talk) 23:19, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

@Johannes Schade: Not wanting to appear rude, I had not realised every one of the above question were yours. Wow. Prizes for the longest TH post, eh? Maybe in future you'd consider just asking specific questions about editing issues at the Teahouse. But I really welcome your comments, though it can be quite a drain to respond to general observations like these. WP:VP is the place to suggest changes; your own userpage is a good place to collate suggested improvements, until the time comes to unleash them upon an unsuspecting wikiworld. My own personal list is here. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:34, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@Johannes Schade: @Nick Moyes: I have numbered images and referenced the numbers in the text before for clarity. See Hexacyclinol. shoy (reactions) 01:14, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

That works for me. Thanks for the example page. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it's a very good idea at all to add location/numerical identifiers either to image captions or to inline references to images, and a properly captioned and inserted image shouldn't require such a thing to be done. If there are concerns that an image's location or description is confusing to the reader, then perhaps the image should be moved, recaptioned, or even removed. People read Wikipedia in all kinds of ways so an image that you see to the right side of some text may appear below the same text to someone else; there might also MOS:ACCIM issues for people using machine readers. The same thing can be said for numbering because there's no way to ensure the numbering remains consistent, esepcially for articles that are frequently edited, and trying to do so might be seen as more of a personal preference than something in accordance with MOS:MOS. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:25, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Incivility

What specific terms consist of incivility (or is it uncivility). I was told off for referencing to a female editor by term broad. I thought the term was innocent enough but apparently an admin admonished me for it. Is this platform some hyper politically correct platform ? Did I experience an anomaly ? What are the rules regarding uncivil terms ? Oofric Stormbloke (talk) 22:28, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Calling a woman a "broad" is extremely insulting on a collaborative project and you will definitely be blocked if you persist with this type of behavior, Stormcloak EthnoNationalist. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:32, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Explain how it is offensive. I don't see it in the slightest. The term has been used for decades with no negative connotation. 22:34, 14 March 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stormcloak EthnoNationalist (talk • contribs)

• Yeah, insulting editors is a no-no. Calling a woman a "broad" is considered a sexist slur considering its equivalent to "hoe" or "slut" in several cultures. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 22:37, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Broad wasn't meant as an personal attack. It's merely term I use for female when the other terms get too stale. Also reference the cultures where broad is a slur.

• The southern United States, as well as the New England area, in paticular. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 22:45, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I was born,raise, and live in Georgia. Never have I heard broad being considered offensive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stormcloak EthnoNationalist (talk • contribs) 22:48, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

To Stormcloak EthnoNationalist your experience - or lack of it - is not a good place to start in this. The term is demeaning and derogatory and has been for decades. Take today as a learning experience and be more circumspect in the future. MarnetteD|Talk 22:58, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Stormcloak EthnoNationalist Please do not use two different signatures in the same thread. Editors should not have to search for who is making what comment in a thread. MarnetteD|Talk 23:02, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict):@Stormcloak EthnoNationalist: Incivility and insults often depends on context they're used in. This edit of yours is reprehensible. That's no way to initiate any contact with a person you do not know. It's arrogant, sexist, derogatory and suggests some sort of superiority over another person that you don't actually have. So be advised to act respectfully in future. I would also point out that, whilst removing old edits and warnings from one's talk page is acceptable, immediate blanking suggests indifference and disinterest to the advice and warning of experienced editors. I don't fancy any editors chances of remaining unblocked if they show the sort of attitude that you have in your 2.5 hours here and use terms like 'damn feminazis'. Oops, whilst drafting this I see you've been temporarily blocked by an admin. Please come back with a better attitude and a mature desire to collaborate in a civil manner, or don't come back at all. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:04, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

The briefest of searches reveals that the term broad (synonymous with prostitute, promiscuous woman and later woman) has an etymology, which while confused, probably relates to both a physical description of a woman's figure, while having roots with the term "abroadwife", meaning a female slave whose enslaved husband has a different owner. In this case it could have pre-civil war origins, which might very well be familiar to those around Georgia, and if they aren't they certainly should be to someone who is motivated to discover and compile knowledge - i.e. a Wikipedia editor. Given the ease with which this information can be acquired, why would you double down on your use of the term and not apologize, after having discovered that the term may well have offended a fellow editor? Edaham (talk) 06:10, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Notif

I've clocked 10,000 tonight, I am curious, Do I get a notification of my 10,000th edit? I haven't gotten any. --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 03:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

No, you don't receive notification of particular edits. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Ta da!!! for your 10,000 edit. David notMD (talk) 03:42, 15 March 2019 (UTC)