Wikipedia:Teahouse

Eman235, a Teahouse host

Welcome to the Teahouse!
Your go-to place for friendly help with using and editing Wikipedia.

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

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

(Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.)

Creating a Page

Hi, I'm new (obviously). I have written a new page for Wikipedia in my Sandbox, but how do I make that a new page/article? Thanks Srcollier94 (talk) 15:37, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Srcollier94, welcome to the Teahouse. You can put {{subst:submit|Srcollier94}} in your sandbox to submit your article to the articles for creation process. (There are 2,554 pending submissions articles waiting to be reviewed, so it will probably take a while.) Eman235/talk 17:04, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, user:eman235! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srcollier94 (talk • contribs) 18:54, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi, user:eman235 and great question, Srcollier94! Just a follow-up question, if I have a conflict of interest, is my only option to add a description with citations to the appropriate section of the appropriate "Wikipedia:Requested_articles" page? In other words, since there are so many articles waiting to be reviewed, can you advise on the most expedient way to get a new page/article created? (I haven't written a page in my Sandbox, because of my COI. Perhaps I should go ahead and write one in my Sandbox - with {{subst:submit|Wikirstn}} in there and a note disclosing my COI - for the best chances at the quickest page creation? Signed by Wikirstn (talk) 18:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)Wikirstn

Check on Submission

How can I confirm that my submission is being reviewed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cristobal J. Alex (talk • contribs) 23:17, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Cristobal J. Alex. Unfortunately you have not submitted any article for review as yet. What you have done is to attempt to write an WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY in your sandbox at User:Cristobal J. Alex/sandbox. Whilst this is a perfectly OK place to work on a draft article, editors are strongly advised not to try to write about themselves as they are the least likely people in the world to be able to write in a neutral manner about that topic, and they would need to base everything solely on Reliable Published Sources. There is much in your essay which is totally unsupported by citations that would allow them to be verified. You would need to address this, whilst at the same time reading Wikipedia:Notability (people) to understand the criteria used for accepting articles on people here. So my advice would be to address those issues before submitting the article for review. Or, better still, leave it for someone less conflicted to write about you. Hope this helps. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:36, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :@Cristobal J. Alex: There are several issues here, but the first is that the article draft was already rejected. Draft:Cristóbal Joshua Alex. It appears you recreated a differently named version in your sandbox and resubmitted it. The second issue it that the article appears to be about yourself. Wikipedia discourages people from writing about themselves because such articles are almost always written from a biased perspective. Language like "During his tenure at the Latino Victory Project, Alex was one of the organization's leading spokespersons" and "Alex is a native of El Paso, Texas, and the proud son of immigrants." is often unsourced in addition to being non-encyclopedic. Please read WP:COI. It can be frustrating, but with a few more sources, and more encyclopedic writing, I think someone else could make an article about this that would be approved. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:42, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: I only figured this out because I tried to move the sandbox article to draft namespace and it said there was already something there. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:44, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

@Timtempleton: Good spot. It's important that User:Cristobal J. Alex realises he is not permitted to edit from two accounts at once, as he has been doing as User:Cristobal Joshua Alex, as well. This is likely to be an innocent mistake, but he should make a note of the connection on each userpage, and from now on only ever edit from ONE of these account, and abandon the other. Using both in the future could result in a block of both accounts if editing does not conform to this guidance on when multiple accounts are allowed. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:59, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not a he, but a she. I am not Cristobal J. Alex. I thought I had to create a username that was similar or the exact name of the Wikipedia submission name. Thank you for your feedback. I am completely new to the Wikipedia submission world.Cristobal J. Alex (talk) 20:10, 5 September 2019 (UTC)Maria Gonzalez — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cristobal J. Alex (talk • contribs) 20:04, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Issue

In one of my recently created articles, I discovered that it was the same as a existing article. If I use speedy deletion what template do I use?BigRed606 (talk • contribs) 1:57, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Update, I found a template. BigRed606 (talk • contribs) 2:18, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Problem with category name

On Category:Former municipalities in New York (state)

the subcategory Former cities in New York City is in the wrong place. Why? Thanks. deisenbe (talk) 12:33, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi deisenbe. It's sorted alphabetically under its initial letter "F". This is the default placement in categories. I guess you want it at the top like Category:Former towns in New York (state) and Category:Former villages in New York (state), not under a letter. Those category pages say [[Category:Former municipalities in New York (state)| ]]. The space after the pipe is a sort key. Pages with a space as sort key are placed first in the category and have no heading. Subcategories have the same sorting rules as other pages. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:47, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, but I can't figure out how to make Former cities in New York City appear first. deisenbe (talk) 18:55, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I told the exact code to use: [1]. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:48, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Write an article about yourself

How can that be done? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samridhhi Mandawat (talk • contribs) 12:51, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

@Samridhhi Mandawat: - Generally, it shouldn't be done. We frown on people editing with a conflict of interest and especially on autobiographies. And the reality is that most people who come here wanting an article about themselves aren't notable enough to meet our standards. However, if you believe you are in fact notable, and have been written about widely in reliable sources, you can write an article and submit it for review by an experienced editor by following the process at WP:AFC. Be sure to make sure it is balanced, non-promotional, and has enough high quality reliable sources. Hug^syrup 12:54, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Hug the only true way to write about yourself while staying in the Wikipedia guideline is to write about yourself on your talk page(talk.

BigRed606 (talk • 16:21, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

No, BigRed606, your user talk page is for other users to communicate with you, not to write anything at all about yourself. You possibly meant your User page. Lest that advice confuse you, Samridhhi Mandawat: you are allowed to write something about yourself as a Wikipedia editor on your user page. You are not allowed to write anything there that looks like a Wikipedia article. --ColinFine (talk) 17:33, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

How do I organise lists of species?

What is the best way to both format/organise a list of species found in a geographical zone?

Eg, is the idea to organise the species into taxologic subgroups?

Is there a template for this anywhere? I've seen a lot of variation / inconsistency with this.

• List_of_species_on_Caroline_Island
• List_of_birds_of_Tasmania
• List_of_extinct_animals_of_Australia

Specifically, I'm trying to improve this: Smooth_Island_(Tasmania)#Biota

I'd be very grateful for your constructive assistance.

Vitreology (talk) 13:57, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Vitreology. Great question, and some good examples there of how lists unfortunately vary considerably in their structure and content. I am not aware of any dictat which states how species lists should be structured, though all need to be based upon properly published checklists, floras or faunas if they aren't to be simply a random selection of 'stuff people have found out' via a mishmash of incomplete sources.

I'm probably a bit biased, but speaking as someone who spent 18 years collecting nearly a million plant records in order to publish a definitive Flora of the English county I live in (see here), I would always want to put the likely information needs of users to the fore. As far as I am concerned, an online list potentially offers something far, far better and more useful to the reader than any printed book or checklist list, and that's by offering them the ability to sort listed information according to their individual needs. Assuming you want to create a really useful and complete list of an area (and not just a random selection of a handful of taxa, badly arranged but with a few pretty picture), then the best way is to give users the option to sort species along the following lines:

1. Sortable in Taxonomic order (this groups closely-related species together)
2. Sortable in Alphabetical order by scientific name (allows listing by universally recognised names)
3. Sortable in Alphabetical order by common name (pretty useless, as sorting occurs by the first word - e.g. "Common", and English names vary between regions and nations
4. Sortable by IUCN Conservation status, or local status (takes more work, but can be valuable if properly sourced)

This can only be done if the list of species is created within one single, sortable table, and not split into multiple tables of separate groups (birds, mammals, insects, plants etc, albeit full of nice pictures). However, it is quite reasonable to keep these groups in separate, sortable tables if the lists really are complete and each quite long. Now, it's clear that, unless that table includes a numerical global species identifier to permit taxonomic sorting (which I've never seen deployed here), then the original display arrangement of that sortable list should always be in taxonomic order. This then permits subsequent alpha-sorting by common or by scientific name. To return to original taxonomic order, one simply reloads the page.

If it's a long species list, I would do all the preparation work off-wiki, in Excel, and all in one go, based upon the relevant checklist(s). Whilst there, I'd add the wikilinking double brackets to scientific name and then convert my list into wiki format and test it in my sandbox, and tweak the wikilinks. There are tools available to do thos convertsions - just ask. If it's a long list, or a long main article, I'd put the 'List of..' table or tables into a separate page and link to it from that main article.

Of course, one can add extra confusion by discussing which particular taxonomic arrangement is best to use (preferred arrangements do vary over the decades, as you probably know), so I'd be tempted just to utilise whatever system(s) the various source checklists/floras/faunas you base the list upon use. If all else fails, use default display by scientific names because of their universality

Summing up, I quite like the look of the list at Smooth Island (Tasmania), though it needs wikilinking to scientific name, capitalisation of common names tidying up. The one big thing that don't like is the source of the data. This seems to be a crowd-sourced website (inaturalist) which, I would possibly ignore completely as wholly incomplete and equally unreliable unless it could be shown that some academic rigour had gone into the data collection and collation. If that is the only source of data available (and I would not conclude it to be anything approaching a 'survey' as such), I would ask myself what value adding such a random list serves to an article and whether I'd be wasting my time trying to follow the approach I outlined above. I would probably conclude that I'd be better off just simply adding the inaturalist source to the 'External links' section of the article!

Notwithstanding my last paragraph, I hope this reply is of some use or interest on the practicalities of making effective species lists. My impression is that my approach is in the minority here! But here's how I approached this problem in List of species and habitats of principal importance in England. In that particular instance I followed the arrangement used by the government body who prepared that formal selection, which forms part of our national biodiversity protection legislation. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:22, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Page's

Can a person create a page that is about a diary?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukhozi (talk • contribs) 17:13, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Depends. Is it your personal diary, or is it a famous diary like Anne Frank's? Wordswasted (talk) 17:24, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Lukhozi. Like any other article in Wikipedia, it would have to be almost entirely based on places where people who have no connection with the diary or diarist have chosen to publish, at some length, about the diary. Not many diaries meet that criterion (Diary of Anne Frank and Diary of Samuel Pepys aside.

So the question is, where have several people published books or articles about this particular diary? If the answer is "nowhere", then we cannot have an article about it. Sorry. --ColinFine (talk) 17:44, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse, Lukhozi. Because Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia only of 'notable things', it's fine to have pages like Diary of Anne Frank or Diary of a Wimpy Kid. Unfortunately, the type of diary-like stuff you've put on your talk page is not acceptable. It's far too personal and not relevant to Wikipedia at all. I would urge you to remove it all immediately please, and perhaps read this advice relevant to young editors. For what is ok for your talk page, you might wish to read this guidance. Nick Moyes (talk) 17:52, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi!

I’m completely new to editing Wikipedia can I have some tips? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zachy2208 (talk • contribs) 18:52, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia and to the Teahouse, Zachy2208. I think the best advice I can give a complete beginner is to start slowly, learning how to make small edits to begin with, then finding out how to add new factual statements (which absolutely have to be supported with a reference for each key fact). You might like to visit Help:Getting started and to try out The Wikipedia Adventure (which has 15 different badges you can earn as you learn the basics of editing). Don't be put off if another, more experienced editor drops by your talk page and tells you you've done something wrong - just listen to them and learn from the experience. We all make mistakes to begin with, and the Teahouse hosts are always here to assist you with editing problems. If you don't understand something, just ask. Best wishes for your own Wikipedia adventure. It can be life-changing! I'll pop by and leave a welcome message full of useful links to our help pages. These can be overwhelming at first, so take it slowly to begin with, and remember: one small edit for man; one giant encyclopaedia for mankind. (or womankind, of course!). Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 19:21, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Need assistance to transclude to an new category User:Mac_Henni/Cat

Thank you in advance. The category is already there. Mac Henni (talk) 19:27, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what it is you are trying to do, but the basic way to transclude any page is to put the page name inside double curly brackets, so this {{user:Mac_Henni/Cat}} would produce Copy of User:Mac_Henni/Cat

Teahouse IS MAD AT A CAT BECAUSE IT WAS MAD AT Teahouse!

this. Why you would do that in a category is what I'm not getting. If you want to add categories to a page I would strongly suggest using WP:HOTCAT. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:30, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

@Mac Henni: The source of User:Mac Henni/Cat says | usercategory Wikipedians who see, but do not necessarily own, pets. Are you trying to make uses of the userbox add the user to a category called Category:Wikipedians who see, but do not necessarily own, pets. There is currently no such category. If you want it created then it seems a long title with limited connection to the userbox. Userboxes don't have to add a category. The correct code is | usercategory = .... If you want others to use the userbox then I suggest picking a more descriptive name than User:Mac Henni/Cat, e.g. User:Mac Henni/Mad at cat. There are dozens of userboxes about cats. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Determining official Wikipedia editor role and authority of editors coming in commenting on a persons additions

I'm quite new at Wikipedia editing (1 month), and did a few additions to articles.

Various other editors have come in making changes, sometimes small like spelling or grammer, but sometimes large, "like this violates policy x, policy y, and policy z."

In certain cases, I see the violation, and have attempted to correct. And in certain cases, didn't find the assertion of violations expressed in an imperative or non-collegial way.

In other cases, a person comes in, and makes demands of removal (in a peremptory tone). Then, when I click on the person's name, I don't find sufficient detail on what the authority level of the person within the Wikipedia authority structure is, or the person's experience level, or anything about their education, or how much they are able to comprehend technical matters under discussion. This is problematic, and is causing a lot of wasted.

The issues are coming in over work on the articles Medicaid estate recovery and Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and an editor, who appears to have some authority in the official Wikipedia structure has indicated deletions of what I wrote are coming.

That deletions are coming, if they are coming from the official legitimate hierarchy of editors at Wikipedia, or by whatever legitimate consensus, is not a problem for me. But for new creators of content experiencing similar issues, the authority structure really should be exposed.

So, my question is-->

How do we found out an editor's authority level, and any other information (like what their field of study is, experience duration) so we don't waste a lot of time? (And so you don't lose a lot of content creators. That is, you try to contribute, and all kinds of people with names that don't mean anything come at you with criticisms, sometimes imperative, and you have no idea if they have authority, or they're just someone pretending to be in charge.)

Note: This is no particular complaint about the one editor that the issue is coming up with for me. The editor seems attempting to be helpful throughout my interaction. I sent, today, an email through the system to the editor suggesting he add his authority level, and other relevant information, to his page, so that people will understand the authority to give imperative-sounding instructions.

In fact, if there is no place else to get that information, I might suggest each person giving imperatively-expressed instructions should be required by Wikipedia rules to post that information prominently on their page. NormSpier (talk) 20:40, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

@NormSpier: Welcome to Wikipedia. We do not operate with ranks or levels of authority. Wikipedia is built by consensus between editors. If someone makes a change you don't agree with, discuss it on the article's talk page. See WP:BRD and WP:DR for details. RudolfRed (talk) 20:53, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

@NormSpier: fixing ping. RudolfRed (talk) 20:53, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

No authority? The person in question really sounds like they have the authority. Thus, I had thought they had authority. (I have addressed, already, the issues extensively on the talk pages for the articles involved, so we'll see what happens.) Thank you for the helpful response.

NormSpier (talk) 20:58, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

NormSpier it is confusing to most new users, but authority on Wikipedia is bottom up. There are editors called administrators that have a set of tools to enable them to carry out the decisions of the community, but they only have limited authority to use them unilaterally. I would guess that the Affordable Care Act might be under discretionary sanctions for American politics, so on that article, administrators do have some unilateral authority.

Second, what an individual's qualifications are is irrelevant. It doesn't matter. We determine content by consensus formed from arguments based in reliable sources and informed by Wikipedia policies and guidelines. One's resume doesn't factor in. John from Idegon (talk) 21:14, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

• to be perfectly clear, administrators have no authority over article content. Removing vandalism or whatever is one thing but when an admin is editing an article, they are just another user, and if they are editorially involved they should not be using their admin tools at all. (as an aside, there is a user script you can use that automatically shows you extra details when you look at someone's user or talk page, such as how long they've been ending and what user rights they have. More information is at User:PleaseStand/User info) Beeblebrox (talk) 21:24, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks both of you for additional information. Can you tell me (a) how to tell if the editor in question is an administrator? (I don't see it on the user's page.) How to tell definitively if a page is under "discretionary sanctions"? (ACA apparently is: I had to wait a week and do 100 edits before being allowed to edit it, and further, something pops up for me now about it when I start editing.) I assume the other article is not, since nothing pops up, but it might be nice to know how to know for sure.

(Right now, the status is it's just me debating the one editor. No one else has chimed in. Hopefully, other people who understand the topic will come in. The editor in question has sought people from working groups, but I don't know that they'll come in.)

John from IdegonThanks for "credentials don't factor in". That's actually how I conduct myself personally, as well, never disclosing credentials unless asked. In the case in question, I just have no idea whether the editor in question understands the details of the stuff the article is about. I have no idea that they do or don't. So, a degree in economics or health economics would reassure me that the editor at least understands the technical details. It's not necessary at all (I don't have economics degree--mine is math), but it's more like seeing such a resume would be more or less sufficient, and keep me from worrying if the editor understands the subject of the article.NormSpier (talk) 21:39, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

NormSpier, you seem to have a misunderstanding of the role of Wikipedia editors. What we do is accurately and neutrally summarize what reliable published sources say about a topic. No more and no less than that. An individual editor's level of education is irrelevant. Far more important is the editor's understanding of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. High school students who understand this can be outstanding editors and those with PhDs who fail to understand how Wikipedia works can be very poor editors indeed. There are no "authority levels" among editors working on content. Everyone is equal as long as they comply with policies and guidelines. And everyone can issue warnings if an editor strays from policies and guidelines. No special authority is needed to issue warnings. Only administrators can delete or protect pages, or block other editors, but administrators have no special powers when it comes to determining content. I am an administrator and I have never seen a userpage of an administrator that did not say that the person was an administrator somewhere on that page. Sometimes the only mention is in the categories at the bottom of the page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:57, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

NormSpier You might find this useful. It describes the permissions that different editors can have. Wikipedia:User access levels TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:24, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Editors can choose to indicate credentials on their User pages, but there is no requirement. David notMD (talk) 03:25, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Background: NormSpier has made more than 100 edits to the two articles in question, increasing length of one more than 10X. An editor put template tags at the top. There are already lengthy discussions (well monologues) on the relevant Talk pages. NormSpier's position is that only experts on a topic should be allowed to edit articles on that topic, or at a minimum, should be required to first declare their expertise. Wikipedia cautions against editors individually or in cadres acting as if they "own" articles. David notMD (talk) 11:12, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi, David notMD. My position is most definitely not that only experts on a topic should be allowed to edit articles on that topic, and I regret any impression I have created that I feel otherwise. Rather, it's that people editing should restrain themselves, using self-knowledge, to what they can do effectively. I'm delighted when people point out defects, and fix things, and make things better. Each person hopefully will have a natural sense of what they can do well. In the case of the particular editor giving the imperative tone, from the one person alone (with no concurrence from any other editor that it needs to be done), I'm getting stuff like "we have to take this down", "the article will be really cut down", "this has to go". The grounds are "neutrality" and "original research", which I really don't see as existing, at this stage of the two articles. (There may, however, be subtle issues that have the article needing adjusting or removal of small parts, in my mind.) The qualifications stuff is that I'm feeling the editor in question is declaring everything original research because the editor is unfamiliar with the details of the ACA, perhaps not willing take the time to learn the details (which are in references and text in the two articles), and possibly (only possibly) may not have a good head for for understanding the content technically. My guess is the editor may be declaring the stuff "original research" by looking at superficial signs, not taking the time, and possibly (only possibly) lacking the skills, to do the job properly. This is where issues of qualifications are coming up. (Thus, I clicked on your page, and I see you have a Ph.D. in nutrition. I would tend to see that as something fairly (not perfectly) sufficient, but not necessary, to indicate that you wouldn't tend to overstep the bounds of what you can do effectively on the technically involved parts of a nutritional biochemistry article.) Let me state: most definitely, I do not believe credentials are necessary to edit an article. But I do believe each person needs to have a sense of what they can do correctly in reviewing articles. (Like you, I am not an MD. If a person is sufficiently sick, with more than like an obvious cold, I have the self-understanding to send them to someone who is an MD, and I won't try to cure them myself.)

(Also, I noted on your page you indicate you have a doctorate. I'm keeping mine, so far, off of my page, because of my own feeling that there should not be rank here at Wikipedia, or in general, except where really needed. (My page only indicates that I have a mathy background.) Anyway, I think you should keep the detail you have on your page. It helps in the job of doing a better article, when generally what happens is that all sorts of fully anonymous editors come by and make deep changes and deep comments. And nothing about what there role is, what their background is, what their interests are.

Otherwise, those interested, please note that the one article I expanded by a factor of 10x, Medicaid estate recovery, when I started to expand it, said "This article is just a stub. Please help and expand it ..." It was only maybe 6 lines at the start, and I did what it said.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by NormSpier (talk • contribs) 17:01, 7 September 2019 (UTC) 

NormSpier (talk) 17:18, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

NormSpier, PhD or no, your last comment reads self-contradictory to me. At any rate, you have said enough in it that I would want to be pinged if it was about me. So, I am pinging @Newslinger: who seems to be who this is about (just as a courtesy notification). If you think the other editor doesn't get it, tell them so frankly, and seek a third opinion, go to dispute resolution or initiate a request for comment. Talking about a user's competence here, is inappropriate. If any user's incompetence is disrupting the building of this encyclopedia, there are appropriate fora to raise the issue, as competence is required, but the Teahouse is not it. Finally, if you would keep your comments succinct and to the point, it would help uninvolved editors to be able to easily catch up and participate. On a cursory glance, immediately after this post was initiated, I had actually been impressed by Newslinger's patience in reading and replying to your walls of text. But, if you are only complying not collaborating and they are unaware of it, you are wasting both your times. Regards! Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 18:42, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, Usedtobecool.

Hi again, NormSpier. I'm sorry if my writing style is "peremptory". I tend to state things as I see them (especially when interpreting policy), but I'm not asserting authority when I do so. To be absolutely clear, I am not an administrator on Wikipedia. In content disputes, all editors (including administrators) have equal voices and work together to determine article content through consensus. Arguments are still expected to be backed by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and editors regularly refer to applicable rules during discussion. There is no editor hierarchy in content discussions, and factors such as an editor's education level are not considered on Wikipedia.

I apologize for the delay in responding to your comments, but the volume of your comments is high enough that I wouldn't have time to do anything else on Wikipedia if I attended only to your edits. Unfortunately, no editors responded to the invitations I sent to the WikiProjects listed at the top of Talk:Medicaid estate recovery. If you are no longer interested in the review plan I proposed in WP:NPOVN § Medicaid estate recovery and User:NormSpier, we can resolve this entire dispute with requests for comment (i.e. asking the entire Wikipedia community whether your content additions should remain in the articles). Please let me know (preferably in the NPOVN noticeboard discussion) if this works for you. Thanks. — Newslinger talk 19:16, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Sure, Newslinger, ask the whole community sounds fine. (Do note that are only two articles now under discussion, ACA and Medicaid estate recovery. I removed my content from the other 4, as discussed prior.) NormSpier (talk) 19:29, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

​Okay. I'll continue this conversation at the NPOVN noticeboard discussion to keep everything in one place. — Newslinger talk 19:33, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

I need to check now on whether the process for the above has been appropriate. (I am continuing the question above with a question about the procedure used here by Newslinger, so that you can enlighten me.) Newslinger posted this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Requests_for_comment , which in the context of the now only 2 articles in question Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act and Medicaid estate recovery, Newslinger has proposed keep Medicaid estate recovery (the minor article) and delete all of my contributions to Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act. Then, all are asked to vote on the binary choice. Effective delete or keep all contributions to Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act. The binary choice seems fishy to me, since the optimal resolution is by line by line handling, though apparently the resources are not available. Note that one of my added sections is "Problems", detailing 5 problems with the ACA, including "Subsidy cliff" and "Family Glitch" "Excessive Copays", in article that is extremely pro ACA, and a year ago, in the talk section, a commenter indicated the article was inappropriately pro ACA. Thus, would any one, perhaps Beeblebrox or RudolfRed, who seem to be alert on issues or editor overstep, explain how the binary choice could be given? (So far, no one besides Newslinger has had any comments that anything in the "Problems" section is biased, or incorrect. Some people seem to have passed over the sections, making at least corrections of grammer, spelling, or where I have written "the the", but there has been no comment that anything is biased, etc.)

NormSpier (talk) 20:53, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

To clarify the question I am asking now, it is about procedure, which I am new to here. I see you have put down the Request for Comments here, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Requests_for_comment and my resulting question about procedure (to Beeblebrox and RudolfRed, based on their familiarity with procedure and editor oversteps, and Newslinger and whoever else wants to handle the question), is Newslinger has phrased the question in the RFC as:

"For the articles which we disagree on, we can start a request for comment on the respective talk pages to ask the whole Wikipedia community whether your changes should be kept or removed. Editors who participate in the discussion might suggest other solutions, but they will usually choose one or the other."

I'm questioning whether this is the standard way things are done. It's a course question, "keep it all in", or "take it all out". Is this standard? Is this how it's supposed to be done? Again, one could be suspicious that you're trying to get out the 5 problems with the ACA that I put in, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act#Problems , out, for reasons of your own political opinions. (I'm not saying you actually are doing it for that reason.) So my exact question for the Teahouse, where users learn about the software and procedures at Wikipedia, is, "is it standard to use such a coarse, leading "keep it in" or "take it out" question in the phrasing for RFC"?? (Biased to possibly just get rid of a whole load of user content?)

NormSpier (talk) 01:26, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Content that is added at once is generally treated as a unit if contested. Once a consensus is reached for whether the version with all of the added content or without it is preferable, further edits can be discussed to either reintroduce/remove individual portions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:52, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Rosguill explains the process concisely. The initial request for comment makes a decision on a starting point for the article (before or after the content additions). Whether specific portions of the content should be included or removed can then be debated on the article's talk page (in this case, Talk:Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act). — Newslinger talk 04:20, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Finding articles that need editing

I'm a (relatively) new Wikipedian, and would love to help out some more - but I'm struggling to find articles to edit. Could anyone point me to a list of articles that just need cleaning up, grammatical fixes, etc? I don't have a lot of knowledge to contribute but would still love to help. Thanks in advance, MrConorAE ( user | talk | contribs) 23:07, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Welcome MrConorAE. You can try to find those articles via the Typo team. LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 23:26, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

MrConorAE, Let me also suggest that you visit Wikipedia:Community portal. You will find links to articles that need improvements grouped by type of correction needed. Eddie Blick (talk) 23:41, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

What's the most efficient way to check which articles within a category have images?

I'm looking to check which pages within the category "Members of the New Zealand House of Representatives" have images, as I have the opportunity to take photos of some of these people where they are missing.

I don't want to manually trawl through over 1,400 pages. Is there a quicker way to filter this list?

Similarly, is there a way to filter for people who are both in the above category and are marked as Living People?

Thanks! HenryCrun15 (talk) 00:26, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

@HenryCrun15: How about this search? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 03:35, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks very much, that looks close, but to clarify I'm looking for articles that don't have images, so I can try to photograph these people. Could the search string be reversed to do that? HenryCrun15 (talk) 03:40, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

@HenryCrun15: OK. This one is a little better, also not catching articles with only |image= parms (I hope – the [:word:] class seems problematic, so this new search will include articles with |image= values that start with something other than [A-Za-z0-9_]). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 04:04, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Fantastic, this looks just what I was looking for! HenryCrun15 (talk) 04:29, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Conflict of interest: Production music and trailer music

I'm a composer of production music as well as its subset trailer music. I would like to make a contribution in these areas but since I have or am pursuing business relationships with various production and trailer music libraries I want to avoid a conflict of interest. Any thoughts on this would be appreciated.

--Shenrichs (talk) 03:07, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

@Shenrichs: See WP:COI and the other articles to which it links. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 03:37, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Accidental publishing

Help! I have accidentally published a page to a talk page, then tried to move it to an article page and now the talk page redirects to the article and I am not sure how to fix it! The article is titled Judy Kensley McKie. Thank you in advance for your help! Terasaface (talk) 04:02, 6 September 2019 (UTC) (Note: added section header, as it appears Terasaface forgot to do so - MrConorAE ( user | talk | contribs) 04:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC))

Hi Terasaface. Most mistakes made on Wikipedia can usually be easily corrected, but simply undoing edit and trying again. In this case, I just deleted the redirect from the article's talk page to the article, and replaced it with some WikiProject banners and other templates. Perhaps Cullen328 or 331dot (both are administrators who are quite active at the Teahouse) wouldn't mind taking a peek just to make sure I didn't make things worse.

I also did some minor cleaning up of the article, but you should try and add some more categories if possible. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:44, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you MrConorAE !! I quickly flew above my skill level and didn't want to make it worse. I will add more categories, thanks for that suggestion. Thank you for your help! Terasaface (talk) 04:54, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

How to get barnstars

How can i get stylish barnstars? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realyemabhi (talk • contribs) 04:06, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Realyemabhi. You can find out more about barnstars in WP:BARNSTAR, but basically it's something that another editor might decide to give to you to show their appreciation for an edit or series of edits that you've made; in other words, it's sort of like an unofficial way of thanking another editor for helping to improve Wikipedia. There are really no specific criteria that you need to meet in order to get one and getting one doesn't give you any special editing privileges, etc. The best thing to do would be to always try and make edits that show others that you're truly here to help improve Wikipedia; if you do that, someone will likely give you a barnstar someday. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:16, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Acquisition of Apollo Munich Health Insurance by HDFC Ergo

Apollo Munich Health Insurance company has been acquired by HDFC Ergo, then what is the solution for the Apollo Munich's wikipedia page. Should the Apollo Munich's page be deleted and hence create a new page for HDFC Ergo when the merger completely happens in future or we add a write up in Apollo munich's page and then redirect people to HDFC Ergo's page initially and then later merge the pages?

Shashanksinha93 (talk) 06:56, 6 September 2019 (UTC) Shashanksinha93

References

Saving Drafts

Good Afternoon,

I was creating my first draft on Wikipedia. I have yet finished my draft, but I must work on other things now. I wish to save my draft, but I do not know how, and am worried I will lose my work. Can somebody tell me how to save a draft?

Thank you,

Yours sincerely, Sterling Saini — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sterling Saini (talk • contribs) 07:32, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Sterling Saini Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If you click "Publish Changes"(just as you did to make your post here) this will save your draft. "Publish changes" is equivalent to "save changes"(and in fact used to say that) and does not mean that your draft is "published to the encyclopedia". 331dot (talk) 07:38, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Volunteers wanted for article on business process management firm

Dear Wikipedians, Yesterday I started an Article (my first with this account) about Axon Ivy, a Swiss based firm, that offers business process management software and various other tools. From the moment I started I wanted there to be full disclosure: I am a PR-Volunteer and took on the task to create an article about Axon Ivy and although I tried my very best to keep the article neutral and not ad-like. Then my client made some edits and the result was unquestionably "unambiguous advertising or promotion". Unfortunately I had no say in the matter. To me this project is not about pushing the firm or their product, but about describing a publicly traded company in general terms. I looked around on the Wikipedia and found a number of articles that seem to be cut from the same cloth. Some have issues like mine - but others, such as Accenture, Appian, Forrester seem to be alive and well. Finally, my question to you guys is, whether one or more of you would be interested in going over the article, and editing it according to the Wiki guidelines. I could provide information and you can decide whether and which parts to use and which to discard - or to do some research on your end. I'm looking forward to hearing back from you, best DKNEL — Preceding unsigned comment added by DKNEL (talk • contribs) 08:00, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

DNKEL Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The draft was sourced to almost nothing other than the company's own website, or press releases from the company. These are not independent reliable sources and unacceptable for establishing that this company meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable company. Primary sources can only be used in certain circumstances, and not to establish notability. Wikipedia is not interested in what a company wants to say about itself, but in what third parties say about it with significant coverage(not just brief mentions, press releases, etc.) Wikipedia is not for "describing a publicly traded company in general terms"; Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state and is not for merely telling about something.

Please read Other Stuff Exists; other inappropriate articles potentially existing does not mean yours can exist too. Each article is judged on its own merits. At least one of the ones you cite, Accenture, seems well sourced with a cursory glance. 331dot (talk) 08:09, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Courtesy info: Draft:Axon Ivy AG subjected to Speedy deletion, so it no longer exists in Wikipedia space. David notMD (talk) 10:50, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Edit request at Talk:The Hague Institute for Global Justice

Hey guys. I posted an edit request at Talk:The Hague Institute for Global Justice seven days ago and no one has come around to fulfilling it yet (more recent requests have been continuously reviewed and/or fulfilled). Would someone kindly be able to take the time to review and implement my request? Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 10:04, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

@Davykamanzi:. Welcome to the Teahouse. I had a look, and it feels like your question doesn't quite tell the full story, because the edit request you posted 7 days ago seems to have been the fifth attempt, and on the previous ones Spintendo and other users responded promptly. I don't think you can be entirely surprised if people don't rush to review your request if they've already declined it what looks like five times.

The latest request does look better to me, but you'll have to appreciate you are asking for a lot of changes, so it's going to take a fairly committed editor to take the time to go through each one, decide if they should be done, and implement them. It may well be that other requests have been simpler.

Someone from the teahouse might be happy to review the request, but otherwise there's not much we can do to help except advise you to be patient. There's rarely any rush to make changes to Wikipedia, and all backlog items do get actioned eventually. Hug^syrup 10:19, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

how to create a disambiguation page for my page

Hi team,

please let me know to create a disambiguation page for my page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laksanmd (talk • contribs) 11:25, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

@Laksanmd: - a disambiguation page is created much the same as any other page, although there is some guidance you should read here about how to set it up. However, first, what is your page and what makes you think it requires a disambiguation page? Hug^syrup 11:48, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Laksanmd and welcome to the Teahouse. Disambiguation pages point to articles. They cannot point to user pages. Dbfirs 14:18, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Create new page for Chaz Ebert

What is the process in creating a page for Chaz Ebert, wife of Roger Ebert? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MyrinNew (talk • contribs) 11:52, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

@MyrinNew: - you would need to follow the process at WP:AFC to create a draft and then submit it for review. The first thing to do is make sure you can find enough sources to establish Chaz's notability - that means detailed coverage in reliable, independent journals, news sources or books. It's best to find those sources before starting to write the article, and using them to write it. That way, you will be certain a) that enough sources exist before you spend time on an article about someone who may not be notable and b) that all of the content in your article is from a reliable source. Hug^syrup 12:16, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I would add that she would not be notable merely for being married to Roger Ebert, as notability is not inherited. She would need to meet the definition of a notable person herself(she may, I don't know) 331dot (talk) 12:19, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Increasing diverse voices with a Wiki 101 approach: Editing should be accurate and unbiased but not difficult.

Thank you for replies - and... Just saw that this is message is part of "6 hidden categories"? What does that even mean? Why would they be hidden? I feel this scene has been created by fans of Dungeons and Dragons -

USER FRIENDLY - Increasing your editing pool requires the platform become more User Friendly. If the democratic process of this behemoth makes it challenging to modify - then create a representative governing board to move things along.

Make Wikipedia editing easier. Friendlier. All this open source product is made by.... analytical people who see yet cannot explain their logic.

You will not change the product output, unless you change the mode of input

Wikipedia can become the paradigm, or part of the paradigm, that erases geographic abstracts called "countries". Currently, you are a tribe of white men. I know you're trying to change it, but the culture, and the ancient restrictions - I'm looking at my screen as I might as well be in 1980 folks.

I'm not here just going to complain - I'm going to continue to work on figuring out how to EASILY enter data into this old beast. I'm committed to improve the information provided to this incredible global resource. I'm going to start a Wiki group, with your permission, when I move up near Yale.

As for non-English speaking editors - Google Translate will eventually make it possible for people all over the world to participate in Wiki - if you let them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cityfolk (talk • contribs) 14:24, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

GOAL: To increase the number of women editors, diverse editors, and non English speaking editors by making Wiki editing accurate and unbiased but not difficult.

MY STRATEGY: Make the initial process a RESULTS BASED EXPERIENCE

BACKGROUND: In the two Wiki events I attended knowledgeable, friendly editors actively walked around and made sure we were comfortable and entering information correctly. Megs Wacha sat chair by chair in the MOMA library with me as I made my first entry at the Arts + Feminism event.

THE PROBLEM WITH AN EXAMPLE: However, there is an awkwardness due to the lack of process for Wiki editing. I'm sure that now that you're on the "inside" the repetition of the activity makes you think that it's pretty straight forward.

It is not.

For instance, I worked for several hours on an entry covering a multiple-day Women Composer's Music Festival, checking in with the numerous editors at the meeting, and, as there were about 100 entries of composers, performances, and pieces over this long festival, left it partially finished. When I tried to open it to add to it later on I discovered - it had been deleted by The Unknown Editor.

Luckily I had a business card of the attendee who'd given a brief 'how to' presentation, and she somehow brought it back to life.

MY KNOWLEDGE BACKGROUND FOR WIKI EDITING: I was a librarian for six years, have numerous Microsoft IT certifications, have made websites, and am a writer by trade. To improve my skills I'm taking a Super Researcher mini-course at the CUNY Grad. School of Journalism. <<I'm saying-without-saying I'm not your "Where's the mouse?" "Do I right click?" kind of editor.>>

SOLUTION: 1) MAKE THE FIRST FEW EDITS EASY EDITS For beginner editors. This can't be a "pick what you choose," unless choices are culled so the subject isn't overwhelming and in threat of being deleted by The Unknown Editor. You don't toss a non-swimming adult into the deep end: you let them paddle about and let them touch bottom for a while first.

2) HAVE A CLEAR, EASY TO ACCOMPLISH PROCESS. Note: Even adding THIS entry into "Teahouse" (I don't even know if I'm in a room with editors - but I'm assuming I am - why not call it Editor's Room or something? Why make it arcane?), when I simply want to "Bold" something I see parenthesis: why the heck shouldn't I just see BOLD text? Where's the WYSIWYG in 2019? Why make it weird? I was around for UNIX, and we used abbreviated terms because character count and bytes were computer precious. That was thirty years ago.

2) INCORPORATE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE SEARCH ALGORITHMS Algorithms exist that can perform searches. Why aren't they used? Can we collaborate with a large A.I. company to assist our work? I feel like I'm working with not a pen or pencil or computer, but with a stick in the dirt. Here's one such Search Engine: {down below, again, says to use ref ref so} ref https://lucene.apache.org/solr/features.html ref ~ I bet my bottom dollar that some company would LOVE to say they donated the A.I. Search Engine to Wiki.

I want to draw in more editors. We need to make this easier to use. Perhaps editors need to be involved in the AI vetting process.

I will continue to edit, but I'm hesitant to leap back in - especially after the deletion of all my work on my last edit job - that was overseen by an editor! Yikes. [I see below "Sign your posts on talk pages: Cityfolk (talk) 12:06, 6 September 2019 (UTC) " again why? - so Cityfolk (talk) 12:06, 6 September 2019 (UTC) CityFolk

@Cityfolk: - welcome to the Teahouse. Many of the ideas you have highlighted are issues that Wikipedia is well aware of, such as making editing easier, creating an inclusive and welcoming environment, and using technology to improve the encyclopedia. However, because Wikipedia is not run 'top-down' but 'bottom-up', with all decisions made by a huge and varied community, these changes are often slow to implement. When changes have been dictated 'top-down' in the past they often do not work and have to be removed. Either way, The Teahouse is a place to ask specific questions about editing, and I am not sure what your question is? Hug^syrup 12:19, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Cityfolk, I understand some of your frustrations, having been involved with a small number of Women in Red Editathons myself. Firstly, we ask you to sign your talk post a) so we know who is saying what, and when, and b) because an editor is only only notified of a reply to their post if the recipient username is included and the editor posting the comment includes their signature within the post at the same time. See WP:PING for more details.

I agree with you about how demoralising it can be to have a new page immediately put up for deletion by someone else. That's why we encourage everyone to start either editing a topic in their sandbox or as a draft (via Articles for Creation). Only when it's ready need it be put into the main encyclopaedia (aka mainspace).

I also agree that it's incredibly valuable to collate and share the usernames of everyone attending an editathon for a number of reasons, not least of which is to be able to monitor editor involvement and to offer post-event support and guidance. (See my personal notes on this here). I think it is valuable to give every participant a printed handout to takeaway to offer them help after the event. I create a 2-sided A4 handout from this page: User:Nick Moyes/editathon/handout1. I'd be interested if you have any feedback or criticism to offer. You might like to see the self-help notes for organisers at Wikipedia:How to run an edit-a-thon and make any comments on its talk page, if you wish.

To make general editing easier, and less like html, the guys at Wikimedia Foundation created Visual Editor. Have you tried it? But even here at the Teahouse (a safe, friendly name, rather than an arcane one, in my view) the basic wikisource editor still has easy button for things like bold and italics. Highlight the text and click the 'B' button. Yes, you'll see the markup code inserted, but this isn't a bad thing as it introduces new editors to the basic and most powerful form of editing here. Most experienced editors find the lack of control in Visual Editor too limiting. For those simply wanting to edit an article, and not go off into talk pages and the like, they do indeed get a WISYWYG experience with VE.

Finally, I can't comment on A.I., though the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) do have teams of developers working on free tools for everyone to use and wouldn't be able to tie themselves in to corporate deals with software that's controlled by another body. Whilst complicated searching is possible here, I admit that I find doing more than the basic searches quite challenging. Sometimes I resort to using Google to find stuff, even when I know the page I'm looking for is actually here within Wikipedia. I really appreciate your comments you've made today. We do have a formal venue for making specific suggestions on how things work, and that can be found at Village Pump, or Village Pump (technical). regards Nick Moyes (talk) 13:36, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Just a couple of points. "non English speaking editors" – this would be a problem since this is the English language Wiki. If you want to include non English speakers you should encourage them to work on their onw language Wikis. Next, where in the world is "CUNY Grad. School of Journalism" or the "MOMA library"? This is an international encyclopaedia and you cannot expect readers to be aware of locally or even nationally important institutions that may be half a world away. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 13:29, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Help with WP tools

Hi all. Perhaps someone can help me out. 2-3 months ago, several of the tools I use in my gnomish activities stopped working. It has to do with signing in to WP on that tool, and the OATH script. I keep getting the message: "There was a script error --> --> A problem occurred in a Python script. /home/dispenser/public_html/cgi-bin/tracebacks/connect_OAuthException_120_SjBvb1.html contains the description of this error." Anyone know I can fix this? Thanks in advance.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:08, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

@Onel5969: Sorry you're having trouble. Try asking at WP:VPT, that's where technical issues get discussed. RudolfRed (talk) 16:32, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks RudolfRed - will do that. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:39, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Adding an article for a book already published on online stores

Hi,

I have published a book and it is already available on online stores. I like to add the article for my book on Wikipedia with whole information and references of stores. Can I add article for my book. Which editor should I use for the same.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasbeersingh05 (talk • contribs) 12:29, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jasbeersingh05 and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, so has articles only on topics that have already been written about in WP:Reliable sources. It might be WP:Too soon for an article on your book unless you can find reviews that have already been published independently. Dbfirs 12:37, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Jasbeersingh05: - Welcome to the Teahouse. First off, we strongly advise against editing in subject where you have a conflict of interest, such as adding an article about a book you wrote. If you wish to do this, you should first read out policy on COI editing. As for the book, we have criteria here for whether a book should have its own article: WP:NBOOK. If you have a quick look at the list of five requirements in the box at the top, would you say that your book meets one or more of these? If so, you could start creating an article via the WP:AFC process. If not, then your book probably isn't ready for an article. Hug^syrup 12:40, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi (edit conflict)@Dbfirs: and (edit conflict)@Hugsyrup:, Can you please let me know who is authorized to write for my book and bibliography for me as an author. It is required as an author to be authentic. Can you help me with this, so that I can proceed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasbeersingh05 (talk • contribs)

@Jasbeersingh05:. Any editor without a conflict of interest can write about your book if they a) want to, and b) believe it is notable. I'm afraid I can't say whether anyone will meet both of those conditions! Did you look at WP:NBOOK as I suggested and, if so, which of the five criteria do you believe your book meets? Hug^syrup 13:55, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jasbeersingh05, if you can point us to the WP:Reliable sources that have published reviews of your book, then I'm sure someone will make a start for you, or you can use WP:Requested articles. Unfortunately, self-published books tend not to get independent reviews unless they are exceptional, and the publication was very recent, so perhaps wait and see? Dbfirs 14:05, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

@Dbfirs:, Can reliable reviews be from goodreads, Review from an famous author already on wikipedia about my book on social media, amazon reviews etc.

@Hugsyrup:, What does the review mean here in this point :

This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews

@Jasbeersingh05: reviews means critical appraisals. It would need to be published in a reliable source. Self-published sources such as goodreads, social media and Amazon are not considered reliable sources. A review in a well-known newspaper would be more suitable. By the way, you don't need to put {{ec}} every time you reply - that is specifically for when there is an edit conflict. Also, you should sign your posts by typing ~~~~ after them. Hug^syrup 14:54, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

@Hugsyrup:, Will the review on a news channel Indiablooms help

https://www.indiablooms.com/life-details/LIT/4605/book-review-jasbeer-singh-s-poetic-thoughts-on-the-emotions-of-life.html Jasbeersingh05 (talk) 15:03, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

@Jasbeersingh05: - It seems to be an independent news site (which is good) although I've never heard of it before which might be because it's not well-known, or may just be my ignorance of Indian news sources. In addition, the review is very brief and cursory, so that's a negative point. In my view, it wouldn't be nearly good enough on its own, but if it was in conjunction with some other good sources, this would potentially help establish notability. Other editors who have more insight into whether India Blooms is reliable or not might be able to add more info. Hug^syrup 15:19, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Jasbeersingh05, please stop trying to use Wikipedia to publicise your book, which is plainly what you are doing. Promotion of any kind is forbidden on Wikipedia. Once several people, unconnected with you or your publisher, have independently chosen to publish some substantial material about your book, and been published somewhere with a reputation for editorial control and fact checking, then an article can be written, based almost entirely on what those independent writers have said about the book. Until then, even if you manage to collect several brief reviews, they will not contain enough information to write an article from. Once there is such an article, it will not belong to you, and you will have no control over its content. --ColinFine (talk) 15:28, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Note that both Notion Press ("India's Fastest Growing Self-publishing company"), who less than a month ago published the paperback available on Amazon for Rs. 120 (~ US$1.69) and Xpress Publishing, the publisher shown on the picture of the back cover in the India Blooms review, appear to be vanity press outfits. My understanding is that this can make establishing notability difficult. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 17:24, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Notability

Hi there. I'm just wondering if the Sydney Morning Herald newspaper is a reliable source to prove the notability of a topic? If so, I'm assuming three SMH articles about the topic is enough to prove notability? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by RebeccaMc81 (talk • contribs)

RebeccaMc81: they might be, if they are independent of the subject (not based on interviews or press releases) and have in-depth discussion of the subject. Maproom (talk) 14:22, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Maproom: Thank you. Much appreciated. I definitely have one that is based on a press release, so I will cut that one from the list. What about if the not-for-profit company (which wants a Wiki page) releases a research report and then the SMH writes an article mentioning the release and discussing what the report means? I'm guessing this would be acceptable as a reliable source for notability purposes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RebeccaMc81 (talk • contribs) 14:41, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello, RebeccaMc81: that sounds as if it might be a valid source. Please note that Wikipedia has no interest in whether or not the company wants a Wiki page; and that if somebody writes a Wikipedia article about the company, it will not belong to the company, and the company and its associates will have no control whatever over the content of the article (though they will be welcome to make suggestions). --ColinFine (talk) 15:32, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Need independent editors to share views

Hi,

I am a connected contributor working on the page of Lori Greiner. I have made all declarations and am suggesting changes via talk page. There are certain tags on the page assigned by editor - Ronz. I have worked on the page to address those issues including completing citations with clear citation style and providing reliable references. I want independent editors to please check the page, talk page and help me remove those tags. Thanking in advance.

FamJoshua1 (talk) 17:09, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

@FamJoshua1: I went through and made some changes to the article, and removed the hatnotes. Since you are a connected contributor, please continue to request future edits on the talk page for future edits, or the article will be hatnoted again for COI editing. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:02, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

WOULD LIKE TO CONTRIBUTE NEW VOCABULARY, DEFINITIONS TO UNKNOWN WORDS, LITERATURE.

Good Day Every One,

Topic: I WOULD LIKE TO CONTRIBUTE NEW VOCABULARY, GLOSSARY, DEFINITIONS TO UNKNOWN WORDS, LITERATURE, GRAMMAR ETIQUETTE.

Perhaps continuously add lost grammar of the highest caliber to continuously feed our brains, I am not new to Wikipedia, I have been a Fan, reader, follower, and donation support for over a decade.

Since i am, new to creating any post, I would like to ask if this is Kosher with Wikipedia Rules, and the community.

I intent to deliver quality Wiki's with relevant, and truthful content, which does entail time and effort as all the pros know.

Essentially contribute to what Wikipedia has been accomplishing, I wanted to respectfully ask for word, grammar, etc, etc.

Q: I would like to essentially ask before i start, so there is no time or effort wasted on a misunderstanding of technicalities.

Thank you for reading,

Ken --KenMastersLee (talk) 17:18, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Cheers and thanks for your interest in editing Wikipedia, though I'm afraid it might not be your "cup of tea". Wikipedia presents and summarizes, in accessible, neutral language what has already been written about in reliable sources that must be properly cited. While there is some room for some creativity in writing, it is a lot more like technical writing. An editor's opinions, knowledge, synthesis of sources, etc., should not come into play per WP:OR. You should also have a look at WP:NOT for what Wikipedia is and is not. Note that, if you're focused on words in particular, Wiktionary might be more appropriate. I hope this helps. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 17:34, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

@KenMastersLee: I've left a welcome message with a more complete set of links to information about Wikipedia and editing on your talk page here. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 17:37, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi AlanM1,

Thank you for the Reply, and Helpful directions, I am making note of everything, As well as checking the Wiktionary, this makes absolute sense. Again thanks for the Help, Good thing i double checked before creating, and posting on the wrong place.

If you have a moment, I wanted to know am i using the Reply or talk correctly by replying this way ( modifying post ) I would like to make sure i am seeing everything correctly, certainly would be funny to view a forum or html as an app.

I clicked the link with your name, and well as talk link, one lead me to your page, awesome by the way, and the talk button lead me else where.

Hence, responding through article modifications. Making sure i get it right, well anyhow, see you around, thanks again.

KenMastersLee (talk) 19:26, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi KenMastersLee. You would be very welcome over at WikipediaWiktionary, but most words are already there. Any new words need at least three citations spanning at least a year and more than one author. There are lots of definitions there that need improving, but it takes a while to learn the format, so don't be discouraged if some edits get reverted. Dbfirs 19:41, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I presume that Dbfirs meant to write "very welcome over at Wiktionary". Cordless Larry (talk) 19:53, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. That is what I meant to write. Now corrected. Dbfirs 19:56, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

@Dbfirs:

Thank you very much for the Clear and Concise directions, as well as the warm welcome to a Subject such as vocabulary.

I'll certainly remember your considerate heads up in regards to the format, and especially your advice in encouragement.

Live, and Learn Right, no losing in a win, win.

Thanks again @Dbfirs: KenMastersLee (talk) 17:46, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

@KenMastersLee: You got it – on "Talk pages" (those that have the word "Talk" or "talk" before a colon in the title), you continue a conversation by editing the section it's in and adding to the end of it, just like you did. If you start it with {{Ping|username}} (as I've done here), the user will be notified.

Note that it's common to insert increasing numbers of colons in front of responses to break them up, as has been done here (this one has four colons in front, the next should have five, etc., cycling back to none when it gets to be too far to the right to be useful. If you have multiple paragraphs in your posting, each new paragraph should have the (same number of) colons to indent it. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 23:49, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

P.S. There are a few pages without "Talk:" in the title that are nevertheless "talk pages" also, like this page itself (Wikipedia:Teahouse). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 23:53, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

@Alanm1: Behold ! the power of @Username:

Hi AlanM1, Thanks again for all the pointers, This is becoming a very interesting journey back to the basics of it all. Perhaps, Remembering Dialup and knowg Wikipedia and our conversations would still load, is pleasant in itself.

Thanks Again. KenMastersLee (talk) 17:46, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Replacing an image

I would like to replace an image on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troy_Perry. Rev. Troy Perry does not like the photo of him under "Activism" and wants to replace it with a photo he provided. How can I verify that it is an image he has provided with his caption? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnboswell (talk • contribs) 21:09, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

@Johnboswell: He will need to release the photo under a license that allows for reuse for any purpose. If he is willing to do that, then see WP:DONATEIMAGE for the process. Also, photos for articles are based on consensus of editors, so you won't have any control over if that image is chosen for the article or not. RudolfRed (talk) 22:50, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Writing a Company Wikipedia Page

Hi, I really need help with creating a company Wikipedia page. The company is notable, and has an abundance of credible sources that have written about it since its inception in the mid 1990's. Is there an editor that I would be able to work with to go through the process of creating the company's Wikipedia page? I also need to disclose that I work for the company, and have been asked to create this page. My proposed draft will be as neutral as possible and provide credible sources. Please let me know how I can move forward with this process. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Holly0312 (talk • contribs) 21:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

@Holly0312: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Thank you for being open about your circumstances. You will need to make some formal declarations, please read WP:COI and WP:PAID for information on how to do that. That said, I would advise you to be very careful in how you proceed. Wikipedia articles(not just "page") summarize what independent reliable sources state about article subjects that meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability(more specifically, that of a notable company). Wikipedia is not interested in what a company wants to say about itself, on in enhancing search results for the company(a common reason that companies want "Wikipedia pages"); we're all here to add to this collection of human knowledge for the benefit of humanity as a whole. In order for you to be successful in writing even a draft about your company, you would essentially need to forget everything you know about it and only write based on the content of independent sources. Please understand that independent sources does not include press releases, routine business announcements, staff interviews, or other primary sources. Most people in your position cannot write in such a manner. However, if you feel that you can, you should read Your First Article and use the new user tutorial first; you may then create a draft using Articles for Creation. Alternatively, you can make a request at Requested Articles that someone else write an article, though that process is severely backlogged. Feel free to show this message to your superiors.

Also please understand that a Wikipedia article is not necessarily desirable; anything about your company, good or bad, can go in article as long as it appears in an independent source. Your company cannot exclusively dictate what appears there, lock it to the text it might prefer, or prevent others from editing it. 331dot (talk) 21:30, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Holly0312. The first thing I think you'll need to realize is that Wikipedia articles are not written for subjects, but rather about subjects. This might seem to be a trivial distinction to make, but when someone wants to create an Wikipedia article for a subject, they may mistakenly assuming that the subject will have some sort of editorial control over the article or just like they do over their official website. Moreover, when a company requests/instructs/pays someone to create a Wikipedia article for them, the company may be under the impression that the article will be just another part of its online presence that it will be able to use as it pleases. Neither of these things are true per Wikipedia:Ownership of content and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not; so, it's important that not only you realize this, but that also the company realizes this.

The next thing you'll need to do is carefully read through Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide and Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. Wikipedia doesn't expressly prohibit conflict-of-interest editing, but it does highly discourage and expects such editors to comply with the guidelines the Wikipedia Community has established over the years to help such editors avoid problems. Although following these guidelines isn't mandatory, the community for the most part treats them as such and is going to expect you adhere to them. There's much less room to maneuver, however, when it comes to a financial conflict-of-interest, which you almost certainly would be considered to have. Editors being paid or otherwise compensated to edit or create content on Wikipedia are required to formally declare their relationship to whomever's paying them to edit this content per the Wikimedia Foundtation's Terms of Use and a failure to do so can lead to the account being blocked.

Finally, whether this company should have an article written about depends on whether it meets the guidelines given in Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). If it can be shown to have received the "significant coverage" in multiple independent reliable sources as explained in Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Significant coverage, then an article can probably be written; if not, then an article shouldn't be written. If you feel it does, are willing to comply with the conflict-of-interest/paid-contribution guidelines and policies, and want to create the article yourself, then you can start by creating a draft. When you think the draft is ready to go, you can submit the draft to Wikipedia:Articles for creation for review. Another option would be for you to request that another editor (i.e. someone without a conflict of interest) create the article by asking for help at Wikipedia:Requested articles; if the article is as Wikipedia notable as you seem to think it is, perhaps someone else will decide to do it. You can also ask for help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Companies to see if a member of that Wikipedia project would be willing to help. Creating a Wikipedia article is technically a fairly simple thing to do, but creating a Wikipedia article which is not going to end up deleted is quite hard. It's not impossible for an new editor or even a paid editor to do, but those things do make it just that much harder. You can find suggestions on how to write/format an article in Wikipedia:Your first article, but paid editing is viewed quite suspiciously by many members of the community and many are simply not interested in helping someone else be compensated for doing something that can/should be really be done for free; in other words, some people like to help others do their homework and others simply will not under any circumstances. So, the best thing for the company might be to try and let someone else to write a Wikipedia article about it even though that might not necessarily be the best thing for you. In the end though what matters is really what's best for Wikipedia, not the company, not you and not any other editor. So, if you can show that having an article about the company makes Wikipedia "better", one will likely be written by someone. It might not be written today or tomorrow, but eventually someone will likely write one. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:53, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

How can i contact someone who edited my edit?

Hello, someone called Diannaa removed an edit I put into

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

citing that I violated copyright.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:119.224.2.210&diff=cur

As I did not save that edit to my harddrive I now have no history of it.

How can I contact Diannaa in order to retrieve that edit?

I've tried every which way, without success. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.224.2.210 (talk) 23:47, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Copyright violations are removed from all the Wikipedia history, because they would still be violations if they remained there. Your best option is to retrieve what you copied from https://web.archive.org/web/20110603071351/http://lepidoptera.butterflyhouse.com.au/plus/eriosom.html, http://www.terrain.net.nz/friends-of-te-henui-group/moths/moth-green-garden-looper-moth-chrysodeixis-eriosoma.html and copy it to your hard drive. You can contact Diannaa at her user Talk page.--Quisqualis (talk) 00:01, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

@119.224.2.210: You can go here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chrysodeixis_eriosoma&diff=909055083&oldid=900913708Oldperson (talk) 00:09, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

(ec) @119.224.2.210: Diannaa, an experienced administrator/sysop with 10 years and 260,000+ edits saw your edit, and deleted it with the edit summary: remove copyright content copied from https://web.archive.org/web/20110603071351/http://lepidoptera.butterflyhouse.com.au/plus/eriosom.html, http://www.terrain.net.nz/friends-of-te-henui-group/moths/moth-green-garden-looper-moth-chrysodeixis-eriosoma.html. She then left a long message on your talk page at User talk:119.224.2.210#Wikipedia and copyright, explaining the problem in great detail. Basically, your edit was to insert text that was copied (or very closely paraphrased) from the pages she cited. You can contact her either by editing that section on your talk page, beginning it with {{Ping|Diannaa}} (preferred), or leaving her a message as a new section on her talk page at User talk:Diannaa. I hope this helps. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 00:12, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

how to upload a scanned photo of my grand father in wikipedia

hello I am trying to add the name of my grand father Manuel Joseph in the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clifford_Pier under Architecture, Since he was the chief engineer on this project. But i am unable to upload his image because it says it is a scanned image. What can i do?

ajeet — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajeet071084 (talk • contribs) 08:31, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ajeet071084, before even contemplating doing that for that purpose, there would need to be a reliably cited statement in that Wikipedia article that Manuel Joseph was the chief engineer. Right now there is nothing of that sort, and I am unable to find anything via a Google search. We can't just go on your hearsay; in addition, photographs of the architects or engineers involved are rarely included in Wikipedia articles on structures. Softlavender (talk) 09:19, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajeet071084 (talk • contribs)

Ajeet071084, do not add your claim into the article without adding a confirming reliable-source citation. You just did that [2] and I have reverted you. If you cannot find a reliable independent citation which explicitly confirms the information, do not add it to a Wikipedia article. Also, please do not remove discussions, even if you opened the discussion. Softlavender (talk) 11:18, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Names Database

For research purposes, is there a way to extract a list of names & surnames of famous people from Wikipedia? I'm guessing it will have the most comprehensive list.

Name Surname Country Known For (Actor/Politician/Artist/Scientist etc) Pronunciation of the name (IPA & sound clip file)

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by VarkBiltong (talk • contribs) 10:01, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Question about Infobox recurring event

Hi Tea friends!

I'd like to ask about infoboxes applying to certain pages. The R U OK? page is about an organisation in Australia that facilitates the R U OK? Day [sic]. While the page is about the brand, the content is largely about the actual day, as that is their actual headlining campaign.

My two-pronged query is that, could "Infobox recurring event" apply to an organisational page? And if not, is there a precedent for page move proposals for event-based organisations? (to move R U OK? organisational page to R U OK?Day event page).

Sorry about this being a bit messy, and thank you for your time and advice! SunnyBoi (talk) 11:05, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Why can’t the real person be apart of developing there own Page?

Why can’t the real person be apart of developing there own Wikipedia Page? They would seem to be very important to ensuring that even our sources are accurate. On many occasions I have been in very important meetings with Heads of State, but only to see a completely different statement or action reported by “trusted sources.” There has got to be another way to help famous people or worthy people do their own pages and then we validate those pages. I think our audience would appreciate it coming directly from the source or the horses mouth. I am sure many people do their own with a unique user name....Just asking...

Why can’t the real person be apart of developing there own Wikipedia Page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Earth Country33 (talk • contribs) 11:43, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Earth Country33 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. For the answer to your question, you may want to read about conflict of interest and the autobiography policy. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state about a subject, and has no interest in what the subject wants to say about themselves. In addition, people naturally write favorably about themselves, and Wikipedia strives to have a neutral point of view. That said, the subject is welcome to make suggestions as edit requests on the article talk page. If there is incorrect information, we want to know what it is, whether it is from the subject or not. 331dot (talk) 11:47, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What you are talking about are personal homepages. Anyone is free to create a web site that contains just what they want people to know. However, since people usually have a tendency to exaggerate their virtues and hide their flaws, just believing them is not a valid strategy to write a neutral encyclopedia. Regards SoWhy 11:48, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Real people often have their own websites, and sometimes Wikipedia takes information from there, but it is not regarded as a WP:Reliable source because some real people put there what they would like to be true. The real person has a WP:Conflict of interest if they edit Wikipedia, and we prefer that they point out any errors on the talk page of the article. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on independent sources, not what the subject would like to say about themselves. Dbfirs 11:51, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

OK...Understood...Thank you.

Athlete info page

How can I create a professional athlete information page?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Victrixmortali (talk • contribs)

@Victrixmortali: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia does not have "information pages", it has articles that are not for merely providing information. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state with significant coverage about articles subjects that meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability. In the case of athletes, many sports have their own notability criteria for athletes of that sport to merit articles. For example, American football players must meet the guidelines written at this link to merit an article(having appeared in a regular season game). The page WP:NSPORT lists the criteria for many sports' athletes.

Keep in mind that successfully writing a new article is the hardest task on Wikipedia. It takes much time and practice. You will be much more successful if you spend time editing existing articles, to get a feel for how Wikipedia operates and what is being looked for in articles. You may also find it helpful to use the new user tutorial. If you still want to write a new article, I would suggest reading Your First Article, the notability criteria for the relevant sport(as I note above), and then using Articles for Creation to create and submit a draft for review, so you get feedback on it before it is formally placed in the encyclopedia. 331dot (talk) 11:57, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

I know one athlete who Is Asian youth champion. Could anyone create a page on him? It would be a great help if someone does as I'm new to this and not aware about the template and stuff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victrixmortali (talk • contribs) 12:01, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Victrixmortali Please put follow up questions in the same section, instead of creating a new section. (click 'edit' in the section header). You can request that an article (not just "page") be created at Requested Articles, but the backlog there is severe, and it may not get done quickly, if at all. As there are no deadlines for Wikipedia, you are welcome to take as much time as you need to learn about using Wikipedia and practice editing so you can create such an article yourself. 331dot (talk) 12:05, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Lost In History Because of No Internet

What about events witnessed by many people prior to the internet? Events that took placed before the camera phone and YouTube and no reporting or records from magazines or newspapers. I am not talking about UFO sitings...Take for example Vince Carter is a great athlete that goes down in history as the first athlete to jump over someone’s head during a basketball game, but 20 years earlier 2,000 people in a stadium firsthand witness another athlete do that but there was no recording or no one wrote about it. Wiki seems like the perfect platform to address lost history. Can i recommend we do something about that or form a team that has a section that deals with that. We can even refer to it as LOST HISTORY. This helps our users understand that its without written recorded sources...I promise this is my last question. :)

What can we do about lost history?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Earth Country33 (talk • contribs)

Earth Country33 Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state, as noted in your prior question. We can't write about things for which there are no sources that discuss them in depth(though how would you know about something that occurred 2000 years ago if it was not written down?). What you want to do would not be possible on Wikipedia for this reason. There are places where such a thing would be permitted, such as a personal website where you control what appears there. 331dot (talk) 12:16, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

@Earth Country33: It does not need to be published on the Internet, but it does need to be published in reliable sources such as newspapers or books even if those are offline. See WP:RS for more information on what is usable as a reliable source for Wikipedia. RudolfRed (talk) 20:06, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

81.200.82.123

Hi. The IP address 81.200.82.123 has been making unconstuctive edits lately. Is there any way to stop that? Thanks! Ȝeſtikl (talk) 12:07, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello. If they have vandalized past the 4th warning, you can report them at Wikipedia:AIV. --LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 12:29, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Basically needs a mass revert. Need to find someone that can do that. Like MarnetteD or an administrator like Drmies. -- Softlavender (talk) 12:36, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

It's been taken care of. 331dot (talk) 12:44, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, 331dot. Drmies (talk) 23:47, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Redirects

I’ve created a draft redirect, and I want it to be a redirect that is not a draft. How can I move it? I’ve followed the instructions on W:Redirects, but I can’t move it like it says on W:MOV. Can you help me with this? Presidential Vault (talk) 13:23, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Presidential Vault. You only joined one day ago. You need to be autoconfirmed to move pages. A user becomes autoconfirmed when they have made 10 edits and been around for 4 days.LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 14:43, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

@LPS and MLP Fan: Thank you for your help. After I am autoconfirmed, how can I move the page? Presidential Vault (talk) 00:55, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

@Presidential Vault: A "more" button will appear next to the other editing buttons, if you hover over it the option to move a page should appear. TheAwesomeHwyh 00:57, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

@TheAwesomeHwyh: So is there an option for you to choose to move it to a redirect page? And what is the moving reason I should write? Presidential Vault (talk) 01:01, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

@Presidential Vault: Not sure what you mean. All you do is type in the new title you want to be at, it doesn't matter what kind of page it is. For moving reason, you could use something generic like "publish redirect" or "moving page to mainspace", or you could be more specific if you wanted to. TheAwesomeHwyh 01:07, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

@TheAwesomeHwyh:@LPS and MLP Fan: Thank you so much for your help. Presidential Vault (talk) 02:21, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

@TheAwesomeHwyh:@LPS and MLP Fan: Actually, I have a second question. Do I have to remove the template that says the article is still in the draft namespace before moving the page, or will it be removed automatically? There is an invisible comment, that says it is important, and I should remove it. Presidential Vault (talk) 13:54, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

My edits are deleted

Hi, on 7th of september I created 2 pages, that were "Konjuksioni" , "Disjuksioni" , and I edited a page named "Negacioni" , at 13.00pm - 18: and when I logged in at 21:30pm all my activities from today are not showing, can you help me?

Sincerely, Donat Balaj from Tech Media Online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Techmediaonline (talk • contribs) 19:43, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Techmediaonline, welcome to the Teahouse. This is a help page for the English Wikipedia. sq:Speciale:Kontributet/Techmediaonline shows you edited the Albanian Wikipedia at https://sq.wikipedia.org. Each language has its own logs so it doesn't show up in searches or contributions here at the English Wikipedia at https://en.wikipedia.org. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:24, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Would like to make my own page

Hi my name is Raman Sharma and I am an illusionist. I would like to create my own Wikipedia page. I am already mentioned under the “Tamil Movie - Mersal” which is under Wikipedia as (one of the three magicians that trained Actor Vijay Joseph) I just don’t know how to go about it? Would appreciate any help.

Regards

Raman — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramansharmamagic (talk • contribs) 20:58, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Ramansharmamagic. I'm afraid the answer is that you shouldn't. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not social media or a business directory. Any attempt to use it for promotion is forbidden. If several people, wholly unconnected with you, have chosen to write at length about you and been published somewhere with a reputation for fact checking and editorial control, then it is possible for Wikipedia to have an article about you, which should be based almost entirely on what those writers have published about you. The article will not belong to you, you will have no control over its contents, and almost nothing it in should be referenced to what you say or want to say. You are not forbidden from trying to create an autobiography, but if you do so, you will be taking the already difficult task of creating a Wikipedia article, and making it much more difficult by trying to write neutrally about yourself. I earnestly advise you not to try it. --ColinFine (talk) 21:09, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Ramansharmamagic. There is a website called https://en.EverybodyWiki.com/ , which is suitable for your purpose. I hope that I could help you. ––Handroid7 (talk) 21:18, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

I am new?

I am new and I want to know if there's a general forum? I want to get started with editing articles but I don't know where to begin. ````MissBlanketBurrito — Preceding unsigned comment added by MissBlanketBurrito (talk • contribs) 23:51, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

There are some very helpful links recently posted to your Talk page. They will help you to begin editing articles.--Quisqualis (talk) 01:06, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Editors are editing and removing my articles and demanding quotations of sources when they are already quoted.

Can Dr Kay be more consultative in approach instead of just wiping out my writings and removing my attachments and threatening to block me out? I have been one of the consistent contributors to wikipedia.

Can you please show me the guideline for removing my account?

Saqiwa (talk) 01:37, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Saqiwa. I am sorry that you are feeling frustrated, but I think that the other editor is trying to improve the encylopedia. Please read Wikipedia: Retiring and Wikipedia:Courtesy vanishing for your options. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:40, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Japanese stubs

I read Japanese and I would like to work on Japanese stubs (translating from the corresponding Japanese article).

Is there a list of Japanese stubs or shall I just go out and look for them?

Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wait57 (talk • contribs) 03:26, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Wait57, you can start here from this category and subsequent list of articles: and please read this page as well for guidelines how to translate and give credit: Wikipedia:Translation, thanks. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:47, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Wait57. Please look into Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan and there is a lot of useful information at the Wikipedia:Community portal as well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:02, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

@Wait57: do check out Category:Stub-Class Japan-related articles where you'll see all 36,000 stub articles have be subdivided into priorities. There are just two 'Top' priority stubs, and 160 'Mid' priority ones, which should make your task less far daunting. Good luck! Nick Moyes (talk) 08:21, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Is there a way to find out a music artist's chart history across different countries?

I'm not a beginner to Wikipedia, but I've never really gone into full-style editing and I would like to ask if there is a faster way to check a music artist's chart history? It seems troublesome to manually go and check if the artist charted in every country. Are there any editors out there who are specialised in this field? I'm also trying to create a draft for a new music artist, but I'm kind of unsure on how to go about doing it. Thanks in advance! Nahnah4 (talk | contribs) 08:19, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Rewrite A Page

While going through Modern Paganism, I discovered the page Wiccan views on LGBT people and found its scope quite narrow. Considering there's many other Modern Pagan belief systems besides Wicca, it thought it would be more apt to expand the scope, reorganize, and rewrite. I've done some of that on my own via User:Gwenhope/Modern Pagan views on LGBT people but I really don't know how to get to the next step of actually implementing this change and how to reach consensus to do so. Assistance would be appreciated Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 10:59, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

@Gwenhope: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. For something major like an extensive addition to an article, it's probably a good idea to go to the article talk page to seek consensus from other editors that might be following that article. You could be bold and just change it, but the more extensive the change, the more likely it would just be reverted. 331dot (talk) 11:15, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

@331dot: Thank you, I did leave a thing on the talk page for the article, but it's been months and nobody has replied. Heck the article hasn't received any edits or talk action for months. Is this a WP:BOLD situation? Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 11:21, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

@Gwenhope:. Yeah, if you've left a comment and no one has replied, I think you would be fine to do it. Maybe just leave an additional note on the talk page explaining that. 331dot (talk) 11:29, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

@331dot: What would I do about the existing page? Do I edit to completely change the content, then try to get the page renamed, or do I just create the new replacement page and try to get the old one deleted? Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 11:47, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I am not an expert on editing in religious topics, so feel free to wait for additional opinions, but it sounds to me like the existing article you refer to would be a subsection of the version you created. If it were me I might try to get the page moved first, explaining your reasoning for doing so("because I want to significantly expand the scope of the article, read my draft to see what I want to do"). You might also want to seek the involvement of any members of the WikiProjects listed on the existing article's talk page; I suspect at least the broad Religion project might have some members who can offer advice. 331dot (talk) 11:53, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I understand. However I have moved my draft from userspace into draftspace here - Draft:Modern Pagan views on LGBT people - in the meantime. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 12:26, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Gwenhope, as your draft is already good enough for mainspace I moved it, then added suitable WP:MERGE tags to the two pages. Perhaps another more experienced editor from WikiProject Religion could complete the process, as having another opinion is considered to be a "Good Thing™" here on WP. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:57, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Dodger67! I quite agree with other input! Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 15:02, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

edited my first article and someone reverted it without giving any reason

So, I made my first edit on wikipedia after looking up my mum's cousin and finding his birthday was completely wrong. made some minor edits about his parents' death dates and nobody interfered with them. His article was still pretty small and poorly written so I wanted to improve it more. I checked the source for his cause of death and found it actually said something completely different. So, changed that and gave the reason. Then this editor came and reverted my edit and added a new source. I checked the source. It was a recent article that had copied from the wikipedia article... SO, obviously I changed it back because oh my god. Then the editor changed it again to a 'heart attack'! Again, the article cited does not say he had a heart attack. It just says 'natural causes'. I thought 'whatever, it probably WAS a heart attack'. Then I reorganised the page because it was not very standard. I just added some new headings (Early life, Death) and a couple sentences more detail. Changed a detail about his residence that was wrong (based on the article being cited). Then the same editor just came and reverted it without giving any reason.

What do I do? I don't really know how to use wikipedia, but the page looked way more like your usual biographical entry after I edited it than before.. This person seems weirdly possessive over this page. It's not a big page.. Do I just let them keep all the misinformation up?? I don't feel like checking all the time to make sure they've not reverted it. I guess I have a minor COI because I'm related to the subject, but he died before I was born and I never knew him - it's more of a genealogical interest - unsigned comment at 13:46 (UTC), 8 September 2019 by Oguhugo (talk · contribs), signature added by Gwenhope (talk · contribs)

@Oguhugo: Thank you for being interested in contributing to the Wiki! Wikipedia takes biographical information very seriously (See WP:BLP). You also can't use your personal research without a third-party, reliable source (See WP:NOR). However if you have verifiable copies of legal documents or other third-party research to correct inaccuracies, I would suggest as a new Wikipedia editor that you contact the respective project team. Each article has a talk page, where you can also create a new section to discuss any misinformation with other editors. (Also, it general policy to sign your posts on talk or help pages (like this) using four tildes ~~~~ (See WP:SIGN).) Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 14:12, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

@Gwenhope:Hi, thank you for your response. The only thing I didn't source was his birth date, because there wasn't a source given for the wrong one either. The other changes I've made have been based on the news articles already referenced in the article. Like, the cause of death on wikipedia was listed as 'illnesses relating to drug and alcohol addiction'. So, I read the article referenced. It said he died of natural causes and they were waiting on the autopsy results. I couldn't find an article with the autopsy results so I changed COD to 'natural causes'. This other editor seems to have really poor reading comprehension because they keep writing things that are clearly at odds with the articles they cite to back it up. The article, Bernard Lafferty is only part of two projects - Biography and Ireland. It's listed as low importance in the latter. So, I don't think they would be interested? I also feel like this other editor is going to ignore anything I put on the talk page since they don't put any comments when they edit? Oguhugo (talk) 14:31, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

@Oguhugo: I read the articles cited by Pajokie (talk · contribs) when undoing your revisions. They hold weight. Bernard Lafferty seems to be one of the pages Pajokie watches. I would suggest that you start a discussion with them in Talk:Bernard Lafferty instead of edit warring. That might get your banned or restricted from the page. I understand that it's easy to feel, as a new editor that you don't understand the method to the madness or that more senior editors (like Pajokie) won't give you the time of day. However, we always try to assume good faith. Don't knock it until you try it!~ Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 14:39, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

@Gwenhope: Except the articles they're citing are the ones *I'm* citing. The Wikipedia article was saying completely different things to what the news articles were saying. Except of course the one news article that was ripped from Wikipedia. If someone is to get banned for reverting edits, shouldn't it be the person who gives no reason and adds poorly sourced articles? I saw in the edit history that someone had previously corrected an error on this page and Pajokie reverted it. Again, the article says one thing and Wikipedia says different. The article says Bernard Lafferty died in a house he bought himself. The wikipedia article said he died in an inherited house. I don't know why anyone would be invested in the latter, against what the source actually says.Oguhugo (talk) 14:56, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

@Oguhugo: I know you're frustrated. Please, we need to talk this out. That's how Wikipedia works. Just start a new thread in Talk:Bernard Lafferty. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 15:05, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Am I allowed to edit if I work for a company?

I’m worried that I could be blocked since I am employed by a large corporation. Just asking here first to see if it’s ok. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Felchhole (talk • contribs) 16:57, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

You need to declare your WP:COI. Editing with a COI is frowned upon, but allowed as long as it is declared. You cannot edit your company’s page, but you are welcome to propose changes on the talk page. Hope this helps out. LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 17:02, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh, ok. Thank you Felchhole (talk | contribs ) 17:05, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

COI questions from a new editor

In the process of updating, for free, a page about a performer with whom I have worked with on occasion. "Gerrianne Raphael". Her page did not report most of her career accomplishments. I understand that while I am only citing details that appear elsewhere on the net (and will footnote the thing within an inch of it's life before I'm done), there is no doubt some unconscious level of curating going on. I would be happy to post a notice somewhere on the page that this page was created by a professional colleague, even use my name. Where and how do I do this?

Along those lines, I am posting her professional resume picture, which is all over the net, and is clearly in "public domain" in terms of use. I will get permission from the owner of the picture (the actress) if necessary - what form should that take?

Regards,

Jon JLONOFFJLonoff 17:07, 8 September 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JLonoff (talk • contribs)

Verify

How can i verified my bio