Wikipedia:Teahouse

David Biddulph, 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.)

Why are there so many rude, condescending people on here?

Why is there so much rudeness? Aren't we all here for the sharing and gathering of knowledge? I expected more professional and polite attitudes from the most well-known encyclopedia on the internet. --Vigilante Girl (talk) 23:29, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Please sign your posts, like this one. People are expected to be civil, and rudeness has no place here. You can ignore those being rude, warn them later, and in severe instances, report them at WP:AIV. --LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 23:26, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I apologize for not signing. I tend to forget. Thank you for the advice, I will do so. :) --Vigilante Girl (talk) 23:30, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Vigilante Girl. You freely chose a clearly controversial username, and you chose to write a mildly confrontational userpage, and you chose to involve yourself in highly controversial topic areas like the Kiev/Kyiv naming controversy, apparently without studying the extensive previous discussions about this issue. So, I am not sure who you are accusing of rudeness, but did you really expect to be greeted with flowers? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:33, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Vigilante Girl, I'm sorry to hear that you have encountered problems with some editors. Unfortunately, considering the number of people who volunteer on Wikipedia, I suppose it is inevitable that some would be unprofessional and/or impolite. On the other hand, I won't name names, but I think back to two editors whose encouragement kept me working on here when I all but gave up soon after I started. They patiently explained how to navigate difficulties that had frustrated me almost to the point of quitting. As a result, I am now in my fifth year of contributing in my small way to this work-in-progress encyclopedia. I have also found many useful comments in the Teahouse and Help pages that have aided my work. Please don't let some bad experiences turn you away from Wikipedia. Eddie Blick (talk) 01:38, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

The only rudeness I noticed on Talk:Kiev came from Vigilante Girl. I advise editing in good faith, sans emotion.--Quisqualis (talk) 04:05, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

@Vigilante Girl: Like you, I see no reason for rudeness when engaging with other editors here. Sometimes "tone of voice" is extremely hard to discern in another editor's post, and we all need to assume good faith, and not over-react. I fear that this diff of yours rather rather undermines your concerns and only serves to escalate issues. I'd have hoped you'd have seen that raising an issue that had been raised and dismissed many times before without showing any intent to read and understand those past discussions is almost inevitably going to elicit the firm but nevertheless polite response that you received. If you can meet what you perceive as rudeness with politeness of your own, you will be playing your part in keeping our editing environment 'safe and pleasant' for everyone. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 08:17, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

@Quisqualis:I do edit in good faith, and I was no ruder than the person being rude to me. --Vigilante Girl (talk) 09:49, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

@Cullen328:You are a perfect example of a horribly rude and condescending attitude. My username is not controversial and my userpage is not meant to be confrontational. I wanted to stop vandals like the guy who vandalized the Sea Otter page. Also, I'd rather not be greeted with rudeness. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers --Vigilante Girl (talk) 09:49, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

The word "vigilante" has the connotation of acting outside the law and may easily be seen as signifying a lack of respect for rules, regulations, and proper procedure. An impression that you seemed to confirm with the statement "why should I check edits from the past" when it was pointed out to you that this had already been discussed and decided against (many times, including one quite recent discussion). Your seeming unfamiliarity with move procedures ("And what do you mean by "non-formal requests"? Is my language somehow not formal enough for you?") also shows, at the very least, a lack of knowledge of the rules. --Khajidha (talk) 12:05, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

And it can also mean a server of justice who isn't law enforcement. Also, me not knowing stuff doesn't give anyone the right to be rude to me. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers --Vigilante Girl (talk) 15:34, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

And vigilantism is generally held to be illegal and vigilantes are looked upon as criminals. The term is not one that inspires confidence. And, as several others have mentioned, no one has been rude to you. Your user page injunction that "there's no need to explain to me what Wikipedia is. ", on the other hand, comes off as rather dismissive and shows an unwillingness to learn. An unwillingness that you continue to display here. Not to mention the fact that if you really know what you're doing, then you don't really fall under the category of newcomer and your constant quoting of "don't bite the newcomers" (with no evidence of any actual "biting") is inappropriate. You can't have it both ways.--Khajidha (talk) 15:46, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

So what? Vigilantes can also be heroes who help people. And yes they have been rude to me. And what I meant by that was no need to explain that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and all that. I'm not being anymore dismissive than you are. You and them are being rude to me and I will NOT stand for it. If Wikipedia really is filled with rude, condescending people, then I'll just quit. I will NOT accept your hypocritical hierarchy and I will NOT be bullied by people who always get off scot-free. I have enough crap to deal with in my life, I don't need more. --Vigilante Girl (talk) 18:18, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I you have experienced "so many" rude people here, I am very sorry. I've been around since 2008, logged in, and as an IP even before that. I cannot fairly say thet I think there are "so many" rude people. But there are indeed some. Nobody is supposed to get away with it. The ones who do are well-connected with others of the same ilk who will defend them no matter what they do. Consensus rules with no regard to justice, i.e. if a majority of such people hate you for some reason, you're in big trouble. Some even swoop in from other language projects, just to argue some pet peeve of theirs, in groups akin to packs of wolves. Others who get away with being rude are such sarcastically skilfull and hard-to-handle bullies that hardly anyone has the energy or guts to stand up to them. There are very few rude people here, in my opinion. The ones there are should always be reported when evidence of rudeness is crystal clear. More of them should get blocked than traditionally are. We all deserve an inspiring working envoronment. Best wishes, --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:09, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, "so many" was a hyperbole. Thank you for your advice and info. --Vigilante Girl (talk) 15:36, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Vigilante Girl I don't know if this parable will help, but fwiw, here ya go:

A traveler came upon an old farmer hoeing in his field beside the road. Eager to rest his feet, the wanderer hailed the countryman, who seemed happy enough to straighten his back and talk for a moment.

“What sort of people live in the next town?” asked the stranger.

“What were the people like where you’ve come from?” replied the farmer, answering the question with another question.

“They were a bad lot. Troublemakers all, and lazy too. The most selfish people in the world, and not a one of them to be trusted. I’m happy to be leaving the scoundrels.”

“Is that so?” replied the old farmer. “Well, I’m afraid that you’ll find the same sort in the next town.

Disappointed, the traveler trudged on his way, and the farmer returned to his work.

Some time later another stranger, coming from the same direction, hailed the farmer, and they stopped to talk. “What sort of people live in the next town?” he asked.

“What were the people like where you’ve come from?” replied the farmer once again.

“They were the best people in the world. Hard working, honest, and friendly. I’m sorry to be leaving them.”

“Fear not,” said the farmer. “You’ll find the same sort in the next town.”

Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 17:41, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Though I certainly recognize good intentions in this story, I cannot support a thought that looks like an excuse for unacceptable behavior, the excuse being that well-behaved people also exist. Good people should be encouraged and thanked. Incorrigibly bad ("rude, condescending people") should be blocked. No exceptions. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:00, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I think you missed the entire point of the story. It isn't excusing unacceptable behavior at all. It is stating that your own nature/behavior is a major factor in how you perceive the behavior of others/how others behave towards you. If a person is a jerk, they will often find the world around them to be full of jerks. --Khajidha (talk) 13:52, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I share your feelings and experiences. I've come to believe that all of the references to "community" in Wikipedia were put there by a handful of optimistic users who have probably long since left or been run off by attackers. I have not had a single pleasant interaction with another contributor over two years and many have actually been hostile. I had silly dreams of collaboration and group learning which have all been replaced with a general fear, similar to a person who won't answer their phone or front door. Every user I have spoken to sternly believes that THEY ARE WIKIPEDIA and I am a homeless man with a sharpie marker and a slice of cardboard. A great recent example: someone dug into challenging something I put some work into. They wrote pages and pages of ranting fussiness about every possible lack and weakness in my article, tags and more tags. They even went on to hassle the five or so people to approved and defended the piece and called all of them idiots. I corrected and improved every detail they mentioned, and they just kept cutting me down. I considered that they probably spent at least 5 hours complaining and never edited one character. Great community. So, I actually asked them directly and honestly: you spent many hours lecturing and soapboxing, why couldn't you take 5 seconds to fix something? What are you contributing here exactly? pages more of angry defensiveness and a big "It's not my responsibility". Sweet. I looked into my friend in hopes of discovering he was a 13 year old in treatment...only to find a top 1,000 editor with awards and history galore. This IS Wikipedia folks. So I read through some of his recent work, and guess what? I found several things which needed correcting right away...even some heavy bias in political matters and living bios. So I took my friends example and I "alerted him to the issues" and tagged the pages (but didn't touch a word). Dude lost his freaking mind and almost made me feel unsafe for a couple days. How dare I? .....and then he fixed the problems, lol.

I stay here because I love to write and research and I'm looking forward to library card privileges after 500 edits. Wikipedia community? thats rich. Luke Kindred (talk) 22:32, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Geez, overly dramatic much? If you and VigilanteGirl find the environment here so hostile, I have to wonder how you function in society. --Khajidha (talk) 18:39, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

That is a welcoming and encouraging response. I am certain that they can handle it especially of their exercise in WP is to not let it become accepted to them as personal. Why encountering attitude? Look at the world. What has been done to avoid "X" and then after the fact we find out that "X" was not avoided. It takes a lot of training to always be pleasant and sometimes people intentionally or unintentionally let it out. No one has yet figured just how to unbite the apple that Eve gave Adam. Another example just because of it being more recent, communism, just like any other system supposedly was to solve a prior fault then we find out that the fault was not avoided but just surpassed. With every additional layer there is not some avoidance of inconvenience and disappointment but just another means of exhibiting. Oh, the internet--the whole life blood of what is intended WP, uses an impersonal, anonymous means of reacting to others that provides only as a means of damage someone's mind rather than physical being. It is like the use of a nuclear bomb with a nearby black hole; potential to destroy and not leave a mess to clean up until we find out what happens to stuff in a black hole. Can a Utopia really exist without there being a puppet master?2605:E000:9149:8300:193B:3F53:BB51:A254 (talk) 20:40, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Just want to point out an error. (Can't figure out editing.)

Is this where I'm supposed to write?

I happened, in looking up an anatomical term, to peruse a Wiki article called "Anatomical Terms of Location". I noticed a minor error and wanted to correct it, but I am from the 1950s (b.'46) and only have a PhD, so I can't understand the editing instructions. Learning computerese continues to be gruelling (Canadian spelling) and I have other things to do, so I thought maybe I could just point out what I believe to be an error in the hope that some computer-/Wiki-literate person could correct it.

In the second illustration in this article a 4-legged animal is referred to as a "quadriped", and although I was certain it should have been "quadruped", I did my due diligence or whatever you call it and consulted numerous dictionaries of high repute: this endeavour supported my strong suspicion that there is no such word as "quadriped". Thass all, folks. Thanks for whatever you can do to correct this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zephyroob (talk • contribs) 03:19, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Zephyroob. You can be WP:BOLD and correct the error yourself. You can also be WP:CAUTIOUS and point out the error on the article's talk page and see what others think. You don't need to be an WP:EXPERT in order to edit the article, but you should at least make sure to leave an edit summary explaining why you made the change if you do decide to be BOLD. This will let others know why you're making the change. If, by chance, another editor disagrees with the change and WP:REVERTs it, just follow Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and discuss things on the article talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:10, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Zephyroob, and welcome to the Teahouse. The error is in the illustration, not in the text. Latin is a different language, but the only example I can find of the spelling to which you object is in an ancient document where it might be a misprint. Wikitionary does have an entry for wikt:quadripedal, perhaps because a few modern authors mis-use the word, but it seems to be a very marginal variant. We need to contact the uploader of the image, or change it ourselves. Thank you for pointing out the error. Dbfirs 07:18, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

... later note ... The illustration was from a text book by Tom (LT) who is a prolific expert editor here and who has kindly contributed the illustrations from his own book. Thus I was hesitant to make any changes, and I hope I haven't offended him by uploading a temporary modification of the image. I am quite happy if he deletes my version and updates to the modern standard spelling himself. Dbfirs 07:58, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for the wonderful compliments! I just want to clarify @Dbfirs, I haven't written any books and therefore would be happy whatever happens here :). --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:42, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Did you not upload the pictures from a text book claiming own work? Perhaps the text book is an old one and out of copyright? That would explain the strange spelling. Dbfirs 06:38, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't know how Tom (L.T.) got brought into this. I don't see his name as a contributor to that image. It is from an OpenStax text book and is quite new. But any source can have occasional typos. --Khajidha (talk) 18:37, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree that's what it says now. I'm baffled! Anyway, all's well now. Dbfirs 06:18, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello

Thank you for inviting me to the the teahouse. What can i do to help wikipedia?

Thanks for wanting to help, you can do whatever piques your interest! There are articles that need updating, typos that need fixing, just about anything you can think of. Start by checking out the tutorial and online interactive learning game at WP:TUTORIAL and WP:ADVENTURE. If you have any questions, come on back and ask away. RudolfRed (talk) 19:49, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi! Aside from what User talk:RudolfRed posted above, I also suggest that you do some minor changes or copyediting first. That is how I started. Back then, I was not yet familiar with the interface, format, style, and referencing requirements, among others. Doing small changes will not only allow you to start improving articles with less chance of making mistakes but also help you get a feel of how things are done. You can take a look at these pages needing copy edit. Good luck! Darwin Naz (talk) 11:40, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Sharing of facts available but not included

Preface:I am an incident investigator and HSE Systems Lead in the Oil & Gas Industry. As such, I spend considerable time and effort taking second (or third) looks at "disasters" (not always the word we use because of its pejorative connotations) in various industries - O&G and otherwise. Often we find that what happened and how it happened are not accurately reported in the media - which is where much of the citations in Wikipedia come from, especially with regard to industry disasters.

Question: Is discussing the facts discovered in these post-investigation reviews and how these should be cited best held on the talk page of an event's wiki? GrantAdamCole (talk) 21:27, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello, GrantAdamCole, and welcome to the Teahouse. Yes, an article's talk page is the best place to discuss this (please don't refer to an article as a "wiki": The whole of Wikipedia is one of the many thousands of wikis on the internet!). However, please have a look at the core principle of verifiability. Wikipedia is consciously and intentionally based on reliably published information: unpublished information has no place in it. Unfortunately this does sometimes mean that somebody knows that information in an article is inaccurate, but cannot get it changed because that's what the reliable sources say. In order to challenge such information, you would have to get the different information published by a reputable publisher - and even then, it would be up to a consensus of editors to decide how to handle the disagreement between sources. Often the best you could do would be for the article to say that sources A, B, and C say XYZ while source D says PQR. --ColinFine (talk) 21:42, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Howdy ColinFine, You shared some specific information with me. I found it most helpful. You have my gratitude. I read and re-read verifiability and reliable source. I think that these articles - apologies for using the common vernacular of wiki initially - answered my question in full. Your last sentence regarding compare/contrast was also a salient and useful piece of information. I shall trudge onto the breach armed with these tidbits. --GrantAdamCole (talk) 13:18, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi GrantAdamCole. It's not really Wikipedia's purpose to correct content reported by the media (see WP:RGW), but it can cover retractions or corrections made by media about events such as a "disaster". Wikipedia isn't really intended to be up-to-the minute like news which is why editors are generally encouraged to wait a bit until the dust somewhat settles before creating articles about certain things (see WP:RECENTISM). However, when something happens and there's a fair amount of significant coverage about it, some editors want to get it on Wikipedia asap. This isn't necessarily a bad thing per se because a Wikipedia article is always pretty much a work-in-progress and issues generally get sorted out when there are a number of editors working on a "hot topic". It's also likely that new information will be made available after much more time has passed which can be used to "correct" things originally added. Basically, it's going to depend upon whether you're going to be able to provide reliable secondary sources in support of the changes you wish to make that are not WP:UNDUE. If you're simple going to rely on your personal knowledge of events or what "official" investigative reports have to say, then you're probably going to have a bit of hard time per WP:NOR,WP:PRIMARY and WP:VNT. Finally, even if the "real" cause of a "disaster" was subsequently reported upon by reliable sources at a later date, removal of the older "incorrect" content might not be as preferred as tweaking it in some way to which not only incorporates the new content but also shows that mistakes in determining the cause were initially made. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:00, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Howdy Marchjuly, perhaps I was not clear in expressing intent. There is very little that is up-to-the-minute about the information our investigations and investigation reviews reveal. We are normally conducting these 5-7 years after a fact. For example, Captain Francesco Schettino of the Costa Concordia is thought to have left 300 passengers on board the vessel when he pre-maturely departed it. This is a verifiably inaccurate statement for many reasons. When Schettino departed the Costa Concordia, he was the only person left on the starboard evacuation deck (verified by CCTV video of the evac deck) and he only departed the vessel because the last lifeboat which had been overloaded with ~300 passengers was stuck between the Costa Concordia - which had listed 55 degrees to starboard by that time - and the lifeboat davits. Schettino identified these hazards and notified the Italian Coast Guard that he was leaving the Concordia b/c there were 300 passengers stuck in a lifeboat that was in danger of being crushed by the Concordia. This fact is why he only got one year in prison for abandoning ship before all passengers were evac'd. After this occurred, Italian Coast Guard and Army helicopters only recorded removing 87 more passengers from the port evac deck, to include the first mate and engineer who were on the port side evacuating personnel on the Schettino's orders. The intention is to obtain the proper citation information for the documents and videos that contain this information. The question was if the talk page of an article the proper place to discuss theses issues and present citations before editing the article and figuratively pissing in the Wheaties of the editors who worked hard to enter the information currently in an article. --GrantAdamCole (talk) 13:18, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

If the findings of any subsequent investigation were things covered by secondary reliable sources, then it should be OK to update the relevant article's to reflect such information. Whether that means that older information should be removed, however, isn't so clear and it might be possible to incorporate both the old and new. However, if you simply want to update the information based upon primary sources such as investigative reports or other documentation, even official stuff, then care probably needs to be taken. Editors are not really supposed to be adding their own interpretations to sources cited in the article and presenting such content in Wikipedia's voice per WP:NOR and WP:SYS; moreover, primary sources can be somewhat tricky to use, particularly when it involves claims about living persons per WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:BLPSPS. Even what you posted above about the ship's captain might seem a bit suspect per WP:BLP unless it's what secondary reliable sources are reporting. For reference, WP:BLP applies to all Wikipedia pages, including talk pages and noticeboads. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:50, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Strange link(s)

While researching Teck Resources (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Teck_Resources&diff=next&oldid=914472351), I found a strange link - footnote 11, which I undid

Out of curiosity, I looked at some of the other links and found one that has apparently been there since 2007. Footnote 16 link leads to an escort service webpage.

"Red Dog top toxic polluter". Siku News. 2007-03-31. Retrieved 2007-12-31 goes to http://www.sikunews.com/?artid=2873&catid=3

I am an occasional editor at best and I don't know what to do with this. Should I delete the link? Siku News doesn't keep article for that length of time.

Should I leave it alone - do nothing? Does not seem like a good option.

My personal preference is to let somebody more experienced deal with it. Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SilvrHairDevil (talk • contribs) 16:41, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Working on it ... —[AlanM1(talk)]— 17:30, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Here's what I did: Special:Diff/917189339. The first change (the Globe and Mail cite about the merger) was correct – I just expanded the original some. The second change just had the "wrong" title (it actually came from the last heading on the page). The last change was weird – probably a bug at the Sun's site – redirecting to a totally different article. That happened unintentionally when Scatterjoel expanded the cite in June. I updated it to use the archive.org snapshot from 2012. I'm changing the inconsistent dates next... —[AlanM1(talk)]— 18:00, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

@SilvrHairDevil: I spent some time rescuing some more cites from archives and updated the infobox from the 2018 annual report, which I cited. A couple of the sources are dead and there was no archive snapshot, so new sources should be found. The article text could use some updating from the annual report and progress on things like the pollution lawsuit. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 17:33, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Looking for editor, for Draft:Gerard Reinmuth

I am looking to have a page restored, however the administrator has requested that he would only do so, if i had an external editor edit the page. I was hoping someone here would be able to help. The admin wrote:

I will no longer restore autobiographies. If any editor without a conflict of interest wants to work on it, I will restore it to draft.
—  DGG ( talk 00:11, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Gerard Reinmuth (talk) 04:47, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

@Gerard Reinmuth: welcome to the Teahouse. Non-admins cannot view deleted content. Please help us appreciate why someone here might wish to help you create a Wikipedia page about yourself. Just base your anwers and independent sources on the criteria explained in this notability guideline.Nick Moyes (talk) 07:27, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Nick Moyes, I would be looking at creating and article based on the Creative professionals category of people with notability. In particular under the categories noted: 1. The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. 2. The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums

I have published several books on architecture and the practice (Terroir) architects that I founded with my partner has designed a number of significant buildings. I also teach and a notable Australian university, as well as conducted major speaking events.

I was recently told that I should have a Wikipedia page detailing these contributions to the architectural profession. After trying to create my own page I was told that I should have an external editor review the content, after seeing the tea house welcome message, I thought I would try here for assistance.

I look forward to your response Gerard Reinmuth (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:15, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

@Gerard Reinmuth: Thanks. That was considerably more general than I was intending! But I've since wandered off and found out who you are. As advised on your user page, you must declare your WP:PAID connection with your company (Directors and CEOs get paid, and are not exempt). Like you, I have written books, worked at notable institutions, been on TV, radio and newspapers innumerable times and spoken at a number of notable events, but I remain unimportant and non-notable in Wikipedia's eyes (but try telling my mother that!). I was hoping you might provide specific links to independent sources that have written about you in detail, or major architectural awards etc you might have achieved. It's possible you might meet our WP:NPROF guidelines, but I would advise you to collate all those sources and post a request for another editor to write about you and post them at Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/People in business. If people really are notable, another editor will surely want to take the credit for creating an article about them. Helping them assess your notability (in Wikipedia's eyes) is invaluable there, though there can be a very long wait for the less notable subjects to emerge as full articles. Do read WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY for an understanding why people are discouraged from writing about themselves. I see you already have a LinkedIn page, so I wont insult you by suggesting you go there too. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:35, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry Nick Moyes wasnt sure how much detail to list on this page. I have now followed your advise and list on the Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/People in business Hopefully someone will find it interesting enough to write about. Thank you for your assistance.Gerard Reinmuth (talk) 02:30, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Ajax draft

Ajax draft — Preceding unsigned comment added by REDMAN 2019 (talk • contribs) 10:41, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Herllo, REDMAN 2019, welcome to the Teahouse. Do you have a question about editing Wikipedia that we can help with? (Please sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes like this: ~~~~.) Nick Moyes (talk) 10:44, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi all. I'm sorry to ask this but. could somebody please review my draft? it is the 1971-72 AFC Ajax season and it has been "pending" for nearly 11 weeks I know that some have been waiting longer but I would really appreciate it if someone reviewed it.

REDMAN 2019 (talk) 11:51, 23 September 2019 (GMT)

I notice that, since the draft was declined for lack of sources, you have added just one source (worldfootball.net). I don't know whether this will be considered adequate, but it might be a good idea to add other WP:Reliable sources before the draft come to its second review. Dbfirs 11:00, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll do that REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:07, 23 September 2019 (GMT)

Thanks for the info Dbfirs I have added several sources and another reference. hopefully the draft will be accepted this time! REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:24, 23 September 2019 (GMT)

I'm not a reveiwer, but I hope your draft will be accepted this time. As I expect you know, there is a long backlog of drafts awaiting review, and any volunteer looking at a draft once declined for lack of references will look for good references that have been added since the last review. Dbfirs 11:35, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

AfC review says eight weeks, but almost a third have been awaiting a review longer than that, a few as much as five months. David notMD (talk) 15:15, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

You still have time to read WP:Referencing for beginners, and to make all the references in-line. Should "Retiard" be "retired"? It doesn't say in the reference. You might change "there" to "their" in a couple of places. Reveiwers might decline a badly-written article. Dbfirs 18:44, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I need help

Hello guys, I need help develop one article. I'm trying update all the information in Loukas Yorkas article and every time I make an edit is undone or reverted. Theere many wrong links etc things on the article and some have to delete or update to the right one. At first I move the article to Loukas Yorkas from Loukas Giorkas because this is the correct name and I want to delete Loukas Giorkas article. Can you help me?Theodorosyiorkas (talk) 15:14, 23 September 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theodorosyiorkas (talk • contribs)

@Theodorosyiorkas: Because you have stated that you are a relative of Loukas Yorkas [1], you have a conflict of interest and should not edit the article directly. Please don't repeatedly re-add the material to the article after you've been told that it's inappropriate. Such behaviour is called edit warring; it is considered disruptive and can lead to sanctions. Instead, please suggest edits on the article talk page (Talk:Loukas Yorkas) and back them up with links to reliable sources.

The content of an article is not owned or controlled by the article's subject or anyone else who represents them. Wikipedia is not interested in what a person wants to say about themselves or how they wish to be portrayed. Article content is a neutrally worded, paraphrased summary of what independent writers have chosen to publish about them. If there is disagreement about content, a discussion should be started on the article's talk page, where you and other editors should try to arrive at a consensus. If that fails, there are other mechanisms available to resolve disputes. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:06, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Any search on Loukas Giorkas is now redirected to Loukas Yorkas. David notMD (talk) 20:01, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Editor Only Information

How can I give information to editors only with this coding (I don't know the exact so here's the known one to me) -

I also need a page to be semi-protected so help me in that too.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaryangupta23 (talk • contribs) 16:58, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't really understand your first question, but a page is protected only where absolutely necessary - there would have to be a significant amount of disruption to warrant protection. I can't say if it is appropriate without seeing the article in question, but if you think it is then you can ask for page protection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 17:11, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

(ec)Aaryangupta23, see MOS:COMMENT for details on editor-only comments. Follow instructions at WP:RFPP to request protection for a page. Cheers!
P.S. I edited your post to make it fully visible, hope you don't mind. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 17:16, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

• Aaryangupta23 If you wish to amend or clarify your question, please ask a follow up question in this same section instead of removing your question and its reply. Questions are kept for the benefit of all, including other new users who might have the same question. Regarding your first question, there is no way to communicate with 'editors only'; any user of Wikipedia can see any question or comment. 331dot (talk) 08:06, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Protection on Page

I need a page to be semi-protected so help me in that. The page is regularly experiencing vandalism and want that to be protected.

Page Name - Doraemon in India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaryangupta23 (talk • contribs) 07:57, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Two replies to your original question explained that the place to request protection is Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Is there something about those replies which you don't understand? It isn't obvious that there has been regular vandalism at Doraemon in India so you would need to give evidence. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:10, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Replies are understandable...Thank You! Aaryangupta23 (talk) 08:47, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Appropriate way to warn user replacing sourced content with original research?

User:Notfakenews63 has three times now replaced referenced content in article Air Ambulance Northern Ireland with original research. What is an appropriate template to place on a user's talk page to warn about such behaviour? It sort of is vandalism, but I'm not experienced enough to know. Advise here for me and perhaps additional advice placed on that user's talk page might be useful. Thanks in advance. --2A00:23C6:FA02:EC00:F84A:9707:1890:C775 (talk) 17:01, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I would start with {{subst:uw-unsourced1}}, moving up the numbers if it continues. (the full list is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace) ~~ OxonAlex - talk 17:04, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you --2A00:23C6:FA02:EC00:F84A:9707:1890:C775 (talk) 17:06, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

The templates {{Uw-nor1}}, {{Uw-nor2}}, {{Uw-nor3}} and {{Uw-nor4}} are specific to this situation too. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 18:21, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Inappropriate Categories?

I've started to notice many pages with categories which are suspicious. I could not find any official statements about the appropriateness of categorization. Do we not care? Several instances where categories are essentially stating things about a person or subject which are:

• Not contained in the article text
• not supported by article sources
• introduce non-neutral, biased, and controversial elements to an article

Essentially people are using categories to label articles in a dishonest or manipulative manner - unsupported by the text. Could someone please direct me to guiding policy here? Or let me off the hook and I'll just try to ignore the cats. Thanks!

(This is simultaneously posted the the support desk (and was vandalized-yay))--Luke Kindred (talk) 17:31, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

The short summary is at Wikipedia:Categorization dos and don'ts. You've described Don't add pages to non-neutral or unverifiable categories, so I'd remove them in the circumstances. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 17:38, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks so much! This is exactly what I was missing and now I see that I have a pile of mis-categorization to clean up woohoo (I like work) --Luke Kindred (talk) 23:38, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

A Study in Afrikaans about Opera Librettos

I am busy with a study (it is written in Afrikaans) about the phenomena of intertextuality and intermediality as illustrated in the opera librettos and a few important arias. I was wondering if you would be interested. Dr Anna-Marie le Roux, Windhoek — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.182.79.173 (talk) 17:33, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello Dr Anna-Marie le Roux! It's not clear what you mean; interested in what exactly? This is a place for new editors to seek help with problems they come across while trying to edit Wikipedia. Are you interested in adding results of the study to any of our articles? Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 18:08, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi 41.182.79.173 and welcome to the Teahouse. You might like to read WP:Original research for guidance. When you have published your study in a WP:Reliable source it might make a good source. Dbfirs 19:02, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Pay taxes

    Hello, I am a 68 years old. In 2008 I became 100% Disabled. I get 100% rating from VA. Do I need to pay any Taxes at all if not working? I do get SS each month. Thank you  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:7280:10:27D0:45FB:71A1:567E:CD40 (talk) 17:46, 23 September 2019 (UTC) 

This is the Wikipedia Encyclopedia help desk. We can't answer questions about your taxes. RudolfRed (talk) 17:57, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello! Folks at the reference desk are good with finding answers to questions like yours. Just follow the link and post your question there. Someone might help you move this very question to there, if you'd like. Regards! Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 18:06, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Walewijn ( Walewyn ) van der Veen

Hi could someone have a look at the article I have created? Walewijn ( Walewyn ) van der Veen. It was declined and I wonder if some of you have a few suggestions. I have in the meantime made a few changes.

Thanks!

Gabby 20:05, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Draft:Walewijn van der Veen.   Maproom (talk) 21:27, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

AccessDate

If I visit an old external link on a page, is it better to leave the |accessdate= alone in the citation so we can see how long it's been there, or should I update it to show that it's still valid? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canute (talk • contribs) 2019-09-23T21:39:04 (UTC)

Hello, Canute. Good question. I would say: if you are willing to take the time to check that the link still works and still verifies the information for which it is cited, then it is well worth updating the accessdate. If you are not willing to make that check, then leave it. If the link is valid, but no longer verifies the information, then see LINKROT for what to do. --ColinFine (talk) 21:03, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Is there any reason the vandalism warning tag should have a level one setting?

Vandals, by definition know what they are doing is wrong and having a 'kid-glove' warning level just seems sort of pointless. HalfShadow 20:58, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

@HalfShadow: Level 1 warning is usually for new editors, for "unconstructive" edits, to help get them on the right path. You don't need to start at level 1. See Wikipedia:Vandalism#How_to_respond_to_vandalism for options for responding. RudolfRed (talk) 21:10, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

@RudolfRed: Oh no, I always start with level two, it just seems under the circumstances a level one warning is just ... there. I can't think of anyone who ever uses it. Even the bots don't. HalfShadow 21:16, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Hey HalfShadow. I mostly use level one warnings for...well...users who are fairly obviously children, and I mean that literally. Inserting "Hi Wikipedia!" into an article probably deserves a level one. They're probably kids, and they're probably just testing to see if they can really edit. We don't really want to scare them away. We actually kindof want them to stay and figure out how to contribute productively, but we don't want them to keep doing what they're doing. GMG^talk 23:47, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

@HalfShadow: I agree with GreenMeansGo and I, for one, always start with a level 1 warning for the same reason. Put simply: that's where they should normally start. So add me to your list of people you might think of who do use Level 1 warnings! And you should probably also add Clue Bot NG, too, to your list. Just look at its last 500 edits - 200 of of which were Level 1 warnings! So your statement about bots was quite wrong. As I generally feel no need to be unnecessarily obnoxious to other people from the off, I normally only start with a level two warning if an editor is particularly nasty or clearly offensive and has involved some thought and intent in their vandalism, or made multiple successive bad edits in a short space of time. Most vandals are just silly children or immature teenagers, maybe testing out whether they can change stuff about their school or hated football team. Us acting like storm-troopers towards them right from the start seems unnecessarily harsh and genuinely offputting, and may just serve to encourage them more in their bad ways. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:14, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Help - protecting a page

Hello, I am looking for assistance in protecting a page. I represent a Grammy Award-winning singer-songwriter who has recently passed away in a fatal car accident. His family would like to protect his page from future edits for people outside his family. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jojo Pada (talk • contribs) 22:11, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

@Jojo Pada: You need to declare your conflict of interest, which I will leave further instructions on on your user talk page. Sorry for your loss, but individuals do not own articles here, the community does. It is not "his" page, it is the community's page about him.

Also, our conflict of interest guidelines rather require that the page be edited by people outside his family (and employment). Ian.thomson (talk) 22:16, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

@Jojo Pada: We are sorry to learn of your loss. Media coverage of the death of notable people obviously attracts a lot of newspaper coverage, as in the recent case of LaShawn Daniels, who I suspect you may well be referring to. That reporting is often then used by editors here to add content to Wikipedia. Now, if it appears that malicious and unsubstantiated/unverifiable content has been added to an article about such a person, then it is OK for anyone - including you - to delete it immediately, per our policy about biographies of living or recently deceased persons. But only if it is clearly maliciously false and not supported by any reliable, published source (such as quality news outlets or books/magazines). Plain and simple censorship by anyone connected with that person just because they don't like seeing a well-cited story emerging in the press is not acceptable, I'm afraid, as has been suggested above.

However, you may be assured that many people monitor these pages and swiftly remove obviously false or bad faith edits. If they don't, then please come back and tell us. We even have a special place to report issues relating to articles about living and recently deceased persons (see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard), should there be an issue that can't be simply resolved. More commonly, we do temporarily protect articles if they come under sustained vandalism by multiple people, though we never do this preemptively, or if only one user is causing problems. Then we simply block them from editing completely! We do have other mechanisms I won't bore you with. I hope this gives you and their family, some reassurance that Wikipedians here take very seriously any interference with articles, especially of living or recently deceased persons, and always want to protect their interests if unsubstantiated content is inserted without good cause.

It might be worth me taking the opportunity to mention that there is potentially an opportunity for a friend, family member or, indeed, business colleague to upload a photograph of that person, should their article not have a photo of them already. It would need to be a photo that they, as photographer, personally own the rights to, and are wiling and able to freely release into the public domain, but this can sometimes be one way that someone close to a deceased person with a page about them on Wikipedia can help provide a suitable image which may forever be a part of that independent memorial to their legacy of achievements. We can offer advice on how that is best done, should you ever require assistance. I do hope I have not spoken insensitively on this matter. Kind regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:22, 23 September 2019 (UTC)  

Purple prose

On my Edit pages, much of the type has turned purple. How do I turn it back to the way it was before? BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 00:00, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi BeenAroundAWhile. I replied at Wikipedia:Help desk#Weird purple type. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:07, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

How can I get the status of an article I published?

After publishing an article about Cassie Premo Steele today I noticed that the article appears to be live on Wikipedia. However, I did not receive a notice saying that the article was being reviewed by editors. Can you provide information on the status of the article? Thank you. ITLRosanna (talk) 00:47, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Cassie Premo Steele is one of over 5000 articles awaiting review by WP:NPP, which means that it is currently NOINDEXed and not visible in search engines such as Google, but it is indeed a live article in Wikipedia. --David Biddulph (talk) 01:23, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Interesting - I had a completely different answer! I tried to say: Welcome to the Teahouse, ITLRosanna. If you visit Cassie premio steele, you will see that you placed a deletion request on the article. At the time of this reply, it has not yet been deleted, but may be very soon. At a quick glance, it looks like you did not submit it to Articles for Creation, but created it directly into mainspace. As you've requested deletion as the sole editor of the new page, it won't get anyone reviewing it, or 'new page patrolling' it. But you should get a notification when it has been deleted. I then realised you'd made two articles with very similar names! I'm glad David beat me to a reply. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:27, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Unsure of how to request protection for a page (Anti-Iranian Sentiment) which make be under attack by one or more vandals

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

---

Greetings, while I have exercised good faith to the best of my abilities, it appears that the Anti-Iranian sentiment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) page is under attack. User User talk:UCaetano engaged in Edit-Warring by removing a revision that brought back a controversial and well-documented (across several mediums) fact that DC_Comics 's well known Batman: A Death in the Family story arc involved a plot point where the Joker_(character) gasses the UN Assembly on behalf of Iran, as its ambassador. Various sources have stated that this was done during peak strain between the US and Iran. It led to the creation of the fictional nation-state Qurac as a replacement for Iran in future prints. This fact (undeniable as comic prints of it have been scanned, DC staff interviewed, etc) was in earlier versions of "Anti-Iranian Sentiment". User AntiRacistZwei (who brought this to my attention) had brought back the information and clarified various tid-bits in the article. Soon after, UCaetano began an edit war and accused AntiRacistZwei of "Weasel talk" (eventhough the given sources were already a part of the article), and after several edits (including my own to fix grammar), accused myself of "Edit-Warring". I initially had chosen to engage peacefully and to de-escalate, explaining my relation to Anti-Racist-Zwei and our aim to clean up/verify the article. The user ignored the message and soon after, undid the entire edit. I once again looked at UCaetano's page to contact them, however, I noticed something alarming on their Talk page and it appears that this individual has vandalized other pages then threatened to report users for "Edit-Warring". [[[User talk:Tim.thelion]] brought this up with UCaetano on May 2018 on their talk page, which resulted in UCaetano claiming that UCaetano had reported Tim and that Tim the Lion should avoid "edit warring", eventhough UCaetano was being questioned by Tim on possibly-hostile Re-visionary behavior (IE, Vandalism). Having said that, it is alarming that this user would edit a page that is centered around discrimination against an entire Population. I am unable to install Twinkle as I do not have Java on my computer, however, I have done my best to place a protection request on the page. Please assist me if possible on finding a way to seek protection for the page, if I have not done an adequate job (or let me know of a proper method outside of Twinkle). Thank you for your time, in advance. Rodianreader (talk) 02:27, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Rodianreader and welcome to the Teahouse. Since you seem quite new to Wikipedia editing (perhaps you're not but your account is only a couple of days old), the best thing to do when you are faced with a content dispute is to typically try and resolve it through talk page discussion per Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Immediately labeling other editors as WP:VANDALs is not always productive as explained in WP:USTHEM.

The next thing is that page protection is only applied when there is some serious disruption going on and only typically after attempts to resolve the matter in other ways have been tried and proved to be unsuccessful. Only an administrator can protect a page and a request to do so needs to be made at WP:RPP; you don't make requests like you tried to do here. Whether there enough disruption to warrant page protection is something that the administrator reviewing your request will determine, but with none those involved currently trying to resolve things through discussion on the article's talk page, there's a good chance the request will be declined (at least in my opinion). -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:59, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your insight! This was attempted, however, the User began making threats towards Anti-Racist-Zwei and falsely accused myself of Edit-Warring (I had fixed some grammatical placements). Unsure of how to move forward other than to request assistance. Rodianreader (talk) 03:03, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Rodianreader. The proper place to discuss the content dispute is Talk:Anti-Iranian sentiment where no conversation has taken place since May. Please be aware that political hostility against the Iranian regime is very different from ethnic hatred against Iranian/Persian people, many of whom oppose that regime. That distinction must be kept clear. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:10, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Being part Persian, I do my best to avoid biases. And while I am aware of the distinction, I myself have experienced many painful instances of discrimination as well as physical beatings by (shall I say) racist individuals. The post-Bush propaganda has not helped. I will however, point out, that DC Comics as well as the 300 film(s) have not helped as in my experience, it has fueled psychological dislike towards my secondary ethnic group (and on a personal level, myself). As an academic, however, I must point out instances (such as the ones AntiRacistZwei brought up) where Iranians are targeted and made fun of. An example was Saddam's usage of the word yellow. I have relatives in Iran who are of asian-Iranian descent and I am aware (through study) of discrimination by other ethnic groups in the region (not necessarily Iranians, but other tribes, etc). While I am keeping this short, I will say: It does not help that there are those who censor these things for political gain. It hurts people and it creates academic blackouts (removal of information). Rodianreader (talk) 03:15, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Please read through WP:RGW because Wikipedia is not really the place to resolve this sort of matter. I also suggest you read WP:BOOMERANG, WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:OUTING now that you started a discussion about this at WP:ANI. —- Marchjuly (talk) 03:27, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Rodianreader, Wikipedia is not an advocacy website and it never will be. The neutral point of view is a core content policy. Following that policy is mandatory. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:33, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Cullen, as mentioned, I clearly stated that I avoid personal biases, though I have experienced the very dangers of misinforming a population about an ethnic group. My complaint is that UCaetano erased entire segments of the article including clarifications and grammatical fixes. When asked why, he escalated. Lastly, I've done my best to verify and re-check sources on the article. Would you please visit the page and verify my claims? Surely, you will notice why I'm concerned and/or alarmed. Thanks Rodianreader (talk) 03:41, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Rodianreader, what I notice is that you are not discussing this matter at Talk:Anti-Iranian sentiment, which is the proper place to discuss the content dispute. Why are you unwilling to discuss this issue in the proper place? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:36, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Both Antiracistzwei and Rodianreader have been blocked for sock-puppeting. UCaetano (talk) 15:49, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

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

I can't figure out how to add a reference and keep getting the error that <ref> has too many names

This is the page where I've been trying to edit a birth date: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland_Clark_Davis#Personal_history Roland Clark Davis, according to the City of Cambridge Registered Births was born on 30 Dec, not 20 Dec. This is the reference "Massachusetts Births, 1841-1915," database with images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:FXHJ-3BT : 10 March 2018), Robert Clark Davis, 30 Dec 1902, Cambridge, Massachusetts; citing reference ID #p345 ln1376, Massachusetts Archives, Boston; FHL microfilm 2,057,388. Whatever I'm doing, I'm doing it wrong. I've read the directions, and just don't understand what I'm doing wrong. Thank you for any help you might be able to give. 47.151.179.232 (talk) 03:42, 24 September 2019 (UTC)Tricia

I have fixed the message for now. see what has changed. The error was that it must be <ref name="someName">content</ref>, not <ref name="someName" content</ref>. I've filed the ref with the content you gave Above. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 05:47, 24 September 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victor Schmidt mobil (talk • contribs) 05:43, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Edit war and sabotage of articles

How do I report and edit war and the sabataging of articles? Specifically Managed Intensive Rotational Grazing— Preceding unsigned comment added by Redddbaron (talk • contribs) 05:19, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Redddbaron. There appears to be a disagreement over content, etc. at Managed intensive rotational grazing, but there also appears to be some editors discussing this on the article's talk page; so, I'm not sure what happening would be considered "edit warring" or "sabotage" per se. Perhaps further discussion will resolve things. If things get really out of hand then you can file a report at WP:AN3, but I don't think doing so now will lead to anything other than administrator basically telling the same as what I posted above. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:05, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Correction of page about All Aboard, John Denver's last page

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Aboard!_(John_Denver_album)

Apologies for not creating an account - looking at all the talk here means that I don't think I have any hope of editing a page succesfully.

On the page in question several references ar mad, but none of them show the track listing as it appears in the article. Track 1 should be Jenny Dreamed Of Trains. The listed track 1 is actually track two, and all others move down one. The final (15th) track is Jessie Dreamed Of Trains (and is a bonus track.) This can be verified at the Discogs reference , the Amazon link . The World cat link has the first 14 correct but misses track 15. Regards 203.219.44.129 (talk) 05:38, 24 September 2019 (UTC)PeterB

References

There can be multiple editions of an album, with variation in which songs appear and in what order. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 09:37, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Editta Braun ‎

Hi, my article Draft:Editta Braun has been declined. How can I prove the notability of a living artist? I added many sources (press articles, texts in books) and I could add much more, but I am not sure what is necessary Lagardet (talk) 10:08, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Lagardet, the draft was declined because of the quality of the sources cited, not the quantity. Please DO NOT add "much more". Try to find a few good independent articles that discuss the subject, add those, and consider removing many of the sources which Theroadislong considered inadequate. (I can't tell you why they were considered inadequate, I know very little German.) Maproom (talk) 13:30, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Maproom. This helps.Lagardet (talk) 19:20, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

clarification

am new to wikipedia and i have been hearing about wikipedia monuments but has no idea as to what it is. there is also one of them which is wikipedia commons. can someone please explain to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fibrinogen Gh (talk • contribs) 10:20, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Fibrinogen Gh and welcome to the Teahouse. You might like to read Wikipedia:Wiki Loves Monuments and Wikipedia:Wikimedia Commons. Ask again here if these links don't answer your questions. Dbfirs 10:51, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Re Paul kelly afl player for sydney swans,

Paul Kelly (Australian rules footballer)

In the general text his place of birth is recorded as wagga wagga, however in his summary box his place of birth is recoprded as west wyalong — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katiejack57delly (talk • contribs) 10:24, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Katiejack57delly. Good spot! West Wyalong was added in 2011, without any citation, in this edit. Wagga wagga had been cited as his birthplace since the beginning. Assuming these two place are completely different, I suggest you remove the location given in the infobox and replace it with Wagga Wagga, and give a brief explanatory edit summary why you're doing that. But it's first probably well worth doing a bit of online research to look for other biographical sources to help you determine correct information. If in doubt, just leave your concerns on the article's Talk page for other editors to address. Hoping this helps, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:51, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

How to add references to information provided by me

How I can add references to paragraph written by me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kundan Ravindra Dhayade (talk • contribs) 10:35, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Kundan Ravindra Dhayade and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm glad you recognise the importance of adding references to support all content that you might add. We have what is meant to be a helpful page for beginners called Help:Referencing for beginners (or shortcut: WP:REFBEGIN). I find this a little confusingly written, so you may wish to read these notes of mine about how to use the 'Cite' button in the editing tool you're using. You add the reference right after the factual statement you've added (i.e. 'inline), and these citations almost magically appear in the References section at the bottom of the page. You don't actually add the references to the bottom of the page. Let us know how you get on. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:43, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

New to Wikipedia - Need help

The only thing I've used Wikipedia for is to edit things.

I now need to enter citations and change the photograph but I really don't have a clue as every time I try the help part, it sends me all over the place and then it's not a need.

Is there an easier guide on how to attach citations and photographs? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slapper1 (talk • contribs) 12:42, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Allow me: User:Yunshui/References for beginners, User:Yunshui/Images for beginners. Simplified versions of the simplified versions... Yunshui ^雲_水 12:45, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Thornhill, Dumfries page.

Hi, having read the info on the above page I can't agree with some of it, Thornhill goes back a lot further than 1717 for a start and New Dalgarnock was situated up at Townhead Street which is known as the Auld Toon, not on the A76. All this information and more is in the book, Thornhill and it's worthies, by Joseph Laing Waugh, [1913]. How do I go about editing the page to correct the misinformation?

Cheers, Tam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Totebal (talk • contribs) 13:26, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Tam. You're welcome to go right ahead and edit the article Thornhill, Dumfries and Galloway directly, especially if you've got a published source for the information you want to add. (Look at Referencing for beginners to see how to add the references). But if you're unsure, posting a suggestion on the talk page Talk:Thornhill, Dumfries and Galloway would be a good start. --ColinFine (talk) 13:42, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia page update assistance / 2018 data updates for info box

May I get someone's help in updating the information box for Interactive Brokers?

Here is the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interactive_Brokers

The 2018 statistics have not been added.

As I work for the company - and to be honest am not 100% familiar with Wikipedia regulations and formatting - I am requesting 3rd party assistance as the updates I made directly were reverted.

These are the 6 info box updates:

1) Revenue $1.9 billion (2018)

Source: 2019 10-K p. 35 https://investors.interactivebrokers.com/en/index.php

2) Operating income $1.2 billion (2018)

Source: Website: https://investors.interactivebrokers.com/en/index.php?f=2334

3) Net income $1.1 billion (2018)

Source 2018 10-K p.35 https://investors.interactivebrokers.com/en/index.php?f=2244

4) Total assets $60.5 billion (2018)

Source: 2018 10-K p.36 https://investors.interactivebrokers.com/en/index.php?f=2244

5) Total equity $7.2 billion (2018)

Source: Press Release 1/22/19 4Q 2018 results: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20190122005875/en/Interactive-Brokers-Group-Announces-4Q2018-Results

6) Number of employees 1,413 (2018)

Source: 2018 10-K: https://investors.interactivebrokers.com/en/index.php?f=2244

Thank you very much for your assistance. Kalenholliday (talk) 14:16, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done @Kalenholliday: Actually it was all in the 2018 10K, which I cited with the more specific link that goes directly to the document. I did the same for the 2017 10K. This allows readers to go directly to the source without having to navigate through menus as well as making successful archival (at archive.org) more likely. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 16:32, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

• • Kalenholliday. Two things. One, as you are an employee of the subject of the article and you are making edits as a part of your job, you are a WP:PAID editor and are required to make certain declarations about that. This needs to be taken care of immediately. Second, every source you've provided is based on press releases from the company. You need truly secondary sources. John from Idegon (talk) 23:08, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Page

Why can’t I edit Janhvi Kapoor Page? It has prevented for vandalism and I would like to know when will it be open for other editors as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poddiya (talk • contribs) 14:19, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

@Poddiya:, The page is protected to prevent vandalism. You can edit it when the protection expires. I consider adding it to your watchlist and you will know when the page gets unprotected. LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 14:40, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Alternatively, Poddiya, you can make an edit request on the article's talk page Talk:Janhvi Kapoor. --ColinFine (talk) 15:09, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

A question on formatting.

OK, I recently saw a list of names in the article for Redding, California, and it was set up in a format I could not understand why it appeared as it did, especially why the second line looks darkened. I pasted the list below, and am just wondering what makes it look so. Thanks for the help. "

• Leo Perez

      • Principal

• Heath Bunton - Assistant Principal
• Shane Kikut - Assistant Principal
• Scott Tyler - Activities Director
• Brian McIntire - Athletic Director
• Travis Bassham - Attendance

" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mulstev (talk • contribs) 16:12, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

It was actually in this article Shasta High School and I have fixed it, you were using the wrong symbol for the list a"•" instead of a "*". Theroadislong (talk) 16:42, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Gronk Oz and Graham87

Sir,

Thank you for your invitation. Just to let you know that on the controversial Telfer mine & Jean-Paul Turcaud 's pages, I have provided to Messrs Gronk Oz & Graham87 a most thorough & comprehensive answer.

In such, I pointed that such Wikipedia articles were biaised by wilfull & successful attempts to delude the Free Encyclopedia & derogatory presentation on a page called: Jean-Paul Turcaud ( my name) which was badly documented and a deliberate character ' assassination indeed. Completely brushing aside the outmost Geology acumen of said Turcaud in bringing the whole Great Sandy Desert to life for the good of 1000s.

I wish a proper review of such documents could take place, both for the sake of fairness and the respect of the Truth.

I gave in my recent mails all due references & noted respectable people in WA to call upon.

Yours sincerely
Jean-Paul Turcaud
Exploration geologist
Australia mining ⚒ Pioneer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Basalt3711 (talk • contribs) 16:57, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Courtesy links: Telfer Mine, Jean-Paul Turcaud. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 18:33, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

The reverts of you additions to Telfer Mine and Telfer, Western Australia by Graham87 had nothing to do with his knowledge of the topic, nor any attempt to suppress what you hold to be the truth of the matter. Rather, any content added to these articles must be in Wikipedia format and citations be reliable sources. For you and many, many other editors, the fact that truth without verifiability will not be allowed is a severe disappointment. There may well be people in WA who would confirm your position on this topic, but that counts for nothing. If you can provide published documents, do so. P.S. All Gronk Oz did was explain to you what happened. David notMD (talk) 19:32, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Article Ratings

Most articles have ratings. Stub, A, B, C start etc. but this one - a fairly major one has unknown - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corrosion_engineering . I assume because this was done so long ago before the ratings system came in on Wikipedia. Anyway, I am generally curious. I assume it is not a big deal - or is it one that does need rating? GRALISTAIR (talk) 17:08, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Hey GRALISTAIR, welcome to the Teahouse. The ratings and tagging system is supported by various Wikiprojects that use the system in various ways. For some Wikiprojects, like the Military History project, the rating system is heavily used and is important to the project. Other wikiprojects don't place as much of an emphasis on the actual ratings. All articles should at least have a Wikiproject tag, with or without a rating. You are correct that many articles were created before the current tag system, meaning that they haven't been tagged yet. I've added the Wikiproject Engineering tag to the article's talk page. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 17:27, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Update to a Wikipedia Page

Hello,

I work for an ad agency, and one of our clients has asked us to update their Wikipedia Page. We have all of the content approved and we are ready to update the page. Can someone please tell me how to do it?

Here is the page that needs the update:

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

Thank you!

Sheree Martin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shereemartin2010 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

@Shereemartin2010: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Before you do anything else, you must review and comply with the conflict of interest policy and the paid editing policy; the latter is a Terms of Use requirement and not optional. I would give you a short answer to your question in that you should not attempt to 'update' the article(not just 'page') yourself. You can, however, make a formal edit request on the article talk page, detailing the changes you feel are needed.

I would caution you, however, that the Wikipedia article about your client does not belong to your client, and your client has no more rights to it than any other editor. Though we welcome their input, the article will not reflect how the subject wants to describe themselves, but how they are described by independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 18:08, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Per what 331dot wrote, you must declare 'paid' on your user page. For the article in question, KeEvans, the creator did exactly that. You could copy/paste to your User page. With that done, the next step is to create a new section on the article's talk page. There specifically describe what you want to change and what you want to change it to. Other editors will review and either implement the change, or not. David notMD (talk) 19:42, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

References

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramrxrx3 (talk • contribs) 20:05, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

The teahouse is not the place for a draft article, so I have collapsed its display. If you want to submit User:Ramrxrx3/sandbox for AFC review, the way to do it is to add {{subst:submit}} to the top of the draft. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:14, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Follow-up to Article blocked

Hello,

I wish to put my draft article back in the sandbox so I can modify it because it is not ready for publication, please can you help me

Many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by PatmanSA1 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't need moving back to your sandbox. You can edit it at Draft:Richard Phelps Gough for as long as you need to before you submit it for AFC review. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:52, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

@PatmanSA1: Your draft will be safe there, and would only be liable to be deleted were you to abandon it completely and not edit it for 6 months. Stale drafts do then get deleted. But I must say, as a first draft for a new editor, it's looking really good. I'm assuming you're working off microfiche records of the newspapers? Is there any chance of you including page numbers in each of the citations? The key thing I feel you'll need to do is to tease out evidence to show how he meets our notable people criteria, rather than it being a well-researched biography of a non-notable sea captain. I'm sure you can do it (though why you started work on it on French Wikipedia, I really don't understand) But when it is ready to go into 'mainspace' I would really like to encourage you to consider submitting it for our Did You Know...? slot on the main page of Wikipedia. It's a great way to showcase brand new articles like this, and you would have seven days from the time it goes into mainspace to submit it for DYK. It can be a bit of a nightmare to understand the rules at first, but it's rewarding to see great articles being showcased. I could imagine a hook along the lines of: "Did you know...that Captain Richard Phelps Gough became a sailor at 14 and went round Cape Horn at least ten times during his 50 year career at sea?" Good luck with it. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:30, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

One of the things you'll need to do is to remove the large number of misplaced external links from the article text. --David Biddulph (talk) 22:58, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Good point about the external links. The article WP:In-line citations explains how to format your citations using citation templates, so that they appear in an orderly fashion at the end of your article.--Quisqualis (talk) 02:39, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

How do you create a wikipedia page?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob Bubbles (talk • contribs) 22:06, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

@Bob Bubbles:Here's the info you need Help:Your first article. (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)} 22:36, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi, Bob Bubbles. Welcome to Wikipedia. Creating a new article on Wikipedia is one of the hardest tasks any editor can achieve here. It's often well worth newcomers spending quite some time doing simple editing first, so that you slowly get a feel for how things work, and how references are deployed. Every new topic has to be 'Notable' according to Wikipedia's own standards. So you'd first of all gather together all the independent, detailed and [[WP:RS|Reliable sources] that you can find, and use them as the basis of writing a new page, completely in your own words without any copy/pasting of copyrighted text. I can point you towards The Wikipedia Adventure for a fun tour of the basics of editing, plus Help:Your first article and Wikipedia:Tutorial for the basics guidance you'll need. We could drown you in guidance pages and polciy documents, but those should see you on your way. Creating a 'Draft' article and then submitting it for review when it's ready is the best way to go, and avoids the disappointment of having your work summarily deleted if it fails to meet our editing criteria. We're here to help with difficulties in editing should you need us. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:40, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Bob Bubbles. I noticed that Nick Moyes forgot to add a bracket, so here's the link to the guide about reliable sources if you're interested in checking it out. Clovermoss (talk) 01:33, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand

I don't understand — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.95.230.129 (talk) 04:35, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi IP 72.95.230.129. Is there something about Wikipedia or Wikipedia editing that you don't understand? If there is and you can be more specific, then perhaps someone can try to help you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:01, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Follow-up to how to create a disambiguation page for my page

I want ot publish my page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Laksanmd

but dont know how to do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laksanmd (talk • contribs) 08:04, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Laksanmd Your draft (which is on your userpage and would probably be better suited for your sandbox) contains no reliable sources to support its content, and almost no prose. As such, it is a long way from being suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. It is also an autobiography, which is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia(though not completely forbidden). I would suggest that you read Your First Article and use the new user tutorial to learn more about what new articles require and the process involved. You can then submit a draft for review and feedback using Articles for Creation. Successfully creating a new article is the hardest task on Wikipedia, even more so when attempting to write about yourself. 331dot (talk) 08:14, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Your page at User:Laksanmd does not satisfy the requirements to be a WP:user page; it does satisfy the requirement for speedy deletion as an attempt to use Wikipedia as a web host. If it were intended to be an article, it would fail there too, as a 5 year old would not satisfy the notability requirements at WP:NSPORT. WP:Disambiguation doesn't come into it. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:16, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Not autobiography, as the subject of the article is five years old. More likely parent. Regardless, the content created on the User's User page, and should be Speedy deleted rather than moved to Sandbox or Draft space, as there is no reason to believe this meets Wikipedia's standards for notability. David notMD (talk) 08:34, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

@David notMD: - As you agree that it should be speedy deleted, could you explain why you removed the U5 tag and replaced it by an apparently invalid {{redirect}} hatnote? --David Biddulph (talk) 08:52, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Puzzled, because I don't remember doing anything like that. I did SD something today, but that is not showing up in my Contributions, so, puzzled. David notMD (talk) 13:30, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Template:Suman Pokhrel

In Template:Suman Pokhrel, the "songs" section(?) has audio clips of songs written by Suman Pokhrel. I guess Suman Pokhrel wrote the words, but does he have the right to give us perm to a final product of which his words are just an ingredient (without showing proof that he also holds the rights to the final product)? Or if he does, did anyone from Wikimedia actually verify that it was indeed him, before accepting the files? The second part of my question also applies to these, also linked from the template. Thanks! Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 10:51, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Usedtobecool. The first artwork I looked at, commons:File:Patience (धैर्य).jpg has a note saying that "Wikimedia has received an e-mail confirming that the copyright holder has approved publication under the terms mentioned on this page". I haven't looked at the song clips. --ColinFine (talk) 16:37, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Whats wrong with this

<misplaced draft redacted> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwaipayangreenreef (talk • contribs) 10:59, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

This isn't the place for a draft, so I've deleted it. All you needed to do was to link to Premjit Sen. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:05, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

editing Title

I'm wondering how you edit the spelling in the title. Article is about a person and the first name has letters inverted. "Ronald" should be "Roland". This can confuse anyone looking for this individual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmdk1955 (talk • contribs) 12:37, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

​To rename a page, it is moved from it's current name to a new one. As users require autoconfirmation (made 10 edits over 4 days) to move pages, I've had a search of sources that confirm you're correct, and moved the page for you. When you become autoconfirmed, there will be a move option to the left of edit source, view history, etc at the top left of the screen - this presents a form to move the page. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 13:05, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

best known for his sharp wit and sense of humor

Liance pointed out that my submission was rejected because it was not written in an encyclopedic tone. Specially, the statement"best known for his sharp wit and sense of humor" is problematic. This statement is a synthesis of newspaper articles about him and is well documented.

Without that characteristic (sharp wit and sense of humor)included, the article would not be an accurate portrayal of Dodge. Do you have any, suggestions?

Stephen M. Marson, Ph.D. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:8948:9D00:1944:CDD8:5C1:EFA5 (talk) 12:48, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

The only entry showing for the 2606 IP address is this question to Teahouse. Did you perhaps create a draft while signed in to your account? David notMD (talk) 13:33, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

After some searching, appears draft in question is at User:Smarson/sandbox. I cleaned it up a bit. My own opinion is that Melvin Dodge does not achieve Wikipedia's definition of notability, and no amount of revisions to the draft will bring it closer to acceptance. See WP:N. And in direct answer to your question, fixing what one reviewer gave as a reason to decline a draft does not mean that the next reviewer will not have other reasons. David notMD (talk) 13:40, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

New Wiki Page

I want to add a new page for a model but i don't know how to create the page. Can you please suggest me how to do it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poddiya (talk • contribs) 13:05, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

​You are advised to read Your First Article. Creating a new article entirely from scratch is one of the more difficult tasks on Wikipedia, especially for new users. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 13:09, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I created main article but now I want to know how to add sub articles under that like “personal life” and “ Filmography”?

As the article is currently unsourced, I have moved it to Draft:Tanasha Hatharasingha. Every claim in the article must be supported by a reliable source - especially when the article is about a living person. Once the article has had sources added, you are advised to submit it through the Articles for Creation process (see template at top of the draft).

To answer your question, to add subheadings, use == heading name == . In your example you would place == Personal Life == at the top of the Personal life section.

~~ OxonAlex - talk 14:33, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

how can someone write his full information on Wikipedia

how can someone put their full information on Wikipedia including since they were born up to date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.234.246.230 (talk) 14:29, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I assume you wish to make a Wikipedia article about yourself, however you should not unless you meet the requirements of WP:N ArkayusMako (talk) 14:34, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

@ArkayusMako: What you forgot to say is that even if the subject is notable he should not write an autobiography. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:36, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes sorry ArkayusMako (talk) 14:37, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

How to upload pictures

Hi how I can upload a pic to wiki for a game article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edward Rookie (talk • contribs) 15:19, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Use the File Upload Wizard to upload only to Wikipedia, or go to the fine partner of Wikipedia, Wikimedia Commons and follow the instructions there to upload it for use across all Wikis owned by WikiMedia. Hope this helps! Maccore Henni _{Mii! Pictochat Mii!} 15:40, 25 September 2019 (UTC) (Oh, and I'm just a bystander on Teahouse. The real hosts can be found at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Hosts.)

I'm not an official host either, but would just point out that uploading direct to Wikipedia is usually just for WP:Fair use images (rather strict criteria, see Wikipedia:Non-free content). If you are the photographer, then you can release the image under an appropriate licence to Commons by following Commons:First steps/Uploading files. One complication is that your own photograph of copyright material might still be protected by copyright. Perhaps an expert host can advise further if you tell us what the pic is of. Dbfirs 16:26, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Edward Rookie. Uploading images is often difficult because of the fraught rules of copyright. If you are talking about a "game article" (perhaps Assassin's Creed Syndicate? but it doesn't make any difference which article), then it is likely that the image you want to upload is a screenshot, or perhaps cover art, like the existing image. In those cases, even if it is your photo, it is not your copyright (unless you are the artist who created the artwork, or own the copyright under a contract with that artist). In principle it is possible for the copyright holder to license the artwork for use in Wikipedia, but since that would require licensing it in such a way that anybody may reuse or alter it for any purpose, commercial or not, it seems unlikely the copyright owner would agree to that.

The only alternative is to upload it to Wikipedia (not Commons) a non-free media. This may be done only if the use meets all the terms in the non-free content criteria. The existing cover art was uploaded by this method. --ColinFine (talk) 16:48, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

@ColinFine Thank you for the reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edward Rookie (talk • contribs) 18:12, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Should I add essay box to User:Mac_Henni/Infinity_Day_Foundation

The page was created by me and was reviewed 24 September 2019 by @DBigXray, who enjoyed the content. I also linked it to WP:LOVE#See also in the See also section. It more reflects my personal beliefs, and am also wondering what template to use if I must. Thanks, Maccore Henni _{Mii! Pictochat Mii!} 15:34, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

No, Mac Henni, I'm afraid that what you should do with that page is to remove it from Wikipedia. Since it is nothing to do with Wikipedia, and doesn't fall in the allowable purposes for a User page, it shouldn't be here. Please see NOTWEBHOST. You can ask for it to be deleted by pasting {{db-user}} at the top. --ColinFine (talk) 16:53, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Mac Henni, I have deleted that page because it is not about Wikipedia. I am sorry but Wikipedia is not a web host. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:50, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Are my sources too "hidden" as inline citations? + 2nd Q.

Hello, friends,

I'm navigating my first submission (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:1MedTech1/sandbox) about an author, academic and entrepreneur and have two questions.

1 -- I included several citations (TV profiles, news releases from various organizations that awarded the subject high-profile prizes, links to books he has published) and wonder if, because these did not appear in footnotes, they hurt the article's chances of acceptance.

2 -- Also, because the subject is a renowned expert in his field, I included a long list of academic citations simply to prove my claim that he has published more than 170 peer-reviewed papers, dozens of book chapters and the like. Is it preferable to make the claims without providing evidence, since adding the bibliography draws attention to the number of self-referencing citations?

Many thanks for your thoughts and expertise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1MedTech1 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Understand the purpose of footnotes: so that others can directly review what the article asserts. The more direct people can get to your sources the better that others can move further in that area of knowledge. If you want to thwart knowledge, cite that you found it in book "X". Who in their right mind is going to read through a whole book to verify what someone said. There use to be a time when that type of "footnote" was acceptable. But we all do not have the time to use up our time to verify what it took so much time to establish. And quantity does not automatically make someone significant for WP. WP is not what People magazine fulfills. WP is not a Who's Who of "X". An extensive list of writings doers not maker a person notable according to WP standards. Work realized through and supported only by self promotion is suspect.

Now understand that WP is not merely to post that Person "X" exists and they have done "X" work and accomplishments. WP wants people of significance to be shown by how others view that person's value to the world. A person can do great things but those great things have to be substantiated as great by others otherwise someone can explore and write on a subject that is very narrow and nothing beyond that work results from that work. WP sets that inclusion in WP is based on universally credible sources saying that the work is significant. Someone can make and understand what makes a great meatloaf but if all that the story is the person has created a great meatloaf is not enough for inclusion in WP. But if others (organizations, etc) say what others of stature have said that this meatloaf changed the world in these additional ways then it might be then this article just might be more qualified to be included in WP than if it did not encompass this.2605:E000:9149:8300:5122:9DB4:82AC:5FE2 (talk) 18:42, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @1MedTech1: You put a lot of time into this, but there are numerous formatting and syntax issues. More importantly, you should have first focused on identifying media coverage of Dr. Davidson. I can only find this [[2]], which might be a press release. Based on media coverage, he fails notability WP:GNG. Alternatively, there are also academic notability guidelines that you should read: Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)#Criteria. I'm not an academic, but it seems the best chance you have is to show that he has had a big impact in his field, not just that he has written and published numerous papers. I'm pinging another editor DGG, who has a lot of experience studying how much someone's work has been cited by others in their field, as a measure of notability. (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)} 18:44, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I deleted all mention of his publications except books. Wikipedia's concept of notability is based on what people have published about the person, not what the person has written. Obviously, exceptions - authors get books listed, musicians get albums listed, actors get movies listed, but articles on academics do not list their journal articles. David notMD (talk) 21:02, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Not exactly--if notability is under the usual provision of WP:PROF for influence in their field, for academics and other researchers in the humanities and related fields, books are what matter; for scientific researchers, it is peer-reviewed periodical article-- books in these fields are usually but not always secondary.

In this particular instance, his primary notability is as a biomedical researcher, and this depends on his peer-reviewed articles. The usual way of handling this is to not include all his articles, but his 4 or 5 most cited, together with the citation numbers from Google Scholar of Scopus or WoS. In biomedicine, the usual level (not necessarily my personal level, but the usual consensus at AfD) is at least 1 but preferably 2 or more articles in major journals with 100 or more citations to each. For notability under this procedure of WP:Prof, it is not necessary to have secondary sources for notability , just RS that the criteria are met (which is best shown by the publication & citation data from GS etc) , and RS for the basic biographic data (the university site is a sufficiently RS for that). He has written books--the books are in the nature of major textbooks in his field, and books in his field for a lay audience. They would probably be enough to show him notable under WP:PROF as a writer of major textbooks, and possible under WP:AUTHOR for his works for his general audience. To show either, appropriate citations to secondary sources for those points are needed, but should be easy enough. Andthere is one key facor, which is by itself a qualification under WP:PROF--editor in chief of a major journal. He also has other activities, to some extent he might conceivably be notable as a public figure, or as an entrepreneur. These require the usual RS for notability. But even if he is not notable for this, they could still be acceptable content.

The problems with the article that probably attracted attention are some of those characteristic of COI articles. (1) The inclusion of minor maters such as minor awards and charities. (2) A somewhat personal writing style. (3) the inclusion of his commercial enterprise. In the past, it has sometimes been the case that the impetus for an article is the start of a commercial enterprise.

It does need rewriting to match our style.

There is a question to what extent we should as volunteers rewrite articles on notable people written by coi editors, especially paid editors. (There's a rather strong feeling, which I share, on being reluctant to do work for which other people are being paid. Since I in the past did sometimes get paid for writing elsewhere, I feel this all the more strongly. I work here as a volunteer, with the intent of helping other volunteers. ) It's of course open to any one individual editor here to choose to do this or not. Myself, I will do this in two cases (a)to the extent I can, subjects in my primary fields of interest that I think unquestionably notable--especially subfields that I think are under-covered, such as academics in the humanities. (b) Sometimes, any other article that really fills a serious gap in our coverage where I have the necessary competence. But I will not do it if the coi editor is uncooperative, and especially if they insist on including promotional material. And I will almost never do it for an undeclared paid editor who refuses to fully declare.

For this particular article, I shall first, move it to draft space; second, accept it, and third , fix it.

Thee have been far too many notable WP:PROF bios declined at AfC because they do not meet the GNG. WP:PROF does not depend on the GNG. It's one of our few rational criteria--criteria that have some direct relationship to the real world meaning of "notability" . At WP:AfD, people who understand will defend them, but at AfC they are insufficiently visible DGG ( talk ) 00:11, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Friends, thank you for your thoughtful responses.

To the editor who kindly offered to improve the draft: You'll find some citations hidden in live URLs within the copy. I will be glad to assist in moving these to numbered footnotes if that would help.

It's valuable to learn that citation of a published paper by at least 100 other papers can help validate a researcher's standing in the field. (The number of citations for the subject's top five articles ranges from 3898 to 915.)

Also, please note that the charities mentioned are not minor ones. In particular, the one founded by the subject grew to the largest free clinic in California.

Thank you, everyone, for your feedback and help. I am very grateful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1MedTech1 (talk • contribs) 02:55, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

literature

what's the story of Jane Eyre and in what way does it influence your knowledge of the human, socio,political and economic status in the mid 19th century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.112.23.99 (talk) 20:14, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

We don't answer homework questions. He have the article on Jane Eyre, and if you have a general question about literature, you can ask it at WP:RDH RudolfRed (talk) 20:23, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi 105.112.23.99, and welcome to the Teahouse! This project does focus on helping new editors with editing Wikipedia, so if you have any future questions like this, the reference desk is a valuable resource to check out. A question like yours would likely be categorized under humanities, since Jane Eyre is a work of fiction. There are guidelines to keep in mind when asking a question there, but it's still a great place to visit if you're unsure of where to find the information you're looking for. Clovermoss (talk) 21:40, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Hey Guys!

What should I do here! I've made some edits involving grammar fixes. What's next?--Maybequad404 (talk) 21:35, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

@Maybequad404: Thanks for volunteering. They could use some help to get rid of the September copy editing backlog. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Guild_of_Copy_Editors/Backlog_elimination_drives/September_2019. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:37, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Maybequad404 and welcome to the Teahouse! To add to Timtempleton's suggestion, I'd reccomend checking out the community portal, as there are many different ways you can help out, depending on what you wish to do. If you're interested in correcting typos, I'd recommend checking out the typo team, as there a lot of small fixes across articles that could be fixed by someone like you! Clovermoss (talk) 21:59, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

hi

is great wolf lodge a yes or no for el paso texas!!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.60.113.3 (talk) 22:20, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

@184.60.113.3: What do you mean exactly? The Teahouse is a place to ask questions about editing Wikipedia. --LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 22:26, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I mean like is great wolf lodge planned for el paso texas because I saw it in consideration and it had been like that for 2 years — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.60.113.3 (talk) 18:41, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Are you referring to the Great Wolf Resorts article, where El Paso is mentioned as a location under consideration? I could try to do research on it myself, but anyone (including you) can update the information in any Wikipedia article. That's one of the reasons I think Wikipedia is so cool - information can be updated much faster than a paper encyclopedia. I'd reccomend checking out this guide to reliable sources, as it's an important part of making sure articles have verifiable and accurate information. Clovermoss (talk) 22:55, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

yes I see it under consideration for el paso's great wolf lodge — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.60.113.3 (talk) 00:36, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

The most recent news coverage I could find (from 2019) is this: https://www.elpasotimes.com/story/news/2019/01/18/texas-tax-rebates-in-doubt-for-great-wolf-el-paso-resort-project/2594937002/, which might be useful in improving the article. Does this answer your question? If there's any other questions you have about editing Wikipedia, I'll try my best to help. Clovermoss (talk) 01:12, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Attention Span article draft

Hello,

I created an updated draft of an article in August for Attention Span Media. It is shorter and does not read as an advertisement. I can not find where that draft is, or if anyone has commented/offered further suggestions. Appreciate any help as I learn my way around and look forward to also helping others as I go.

Thank you,

Hello-Mary-H (talk) 22:30, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

@Hello-Mary-H: I was able to find your draft. To make it easier to find, put it on your watchlist.It looks good to me. You can submit it, but be aware that it might take time. In the meantime, I suggest improving it while waiting. --LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 22:36, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

@LPS and MLP Fan: how exactly can I find the draft? I don't see it. Any advice appreciated, and I will move it to my watchlist and keep improving it. Thank you. Hello-Mary-H (talk) 22:41, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

@Hello-Mary-H: Here is the direct link: Draft:Attention Span Media. Also, I don't have an official way you can refer to me as other than my actual username, so you might want to fix that. --LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 22:47, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

@LPS and MLP Fan: Thank you, I fixed your username. I had made changes to that draft to make it much shorter than the initial one submitted. I thought I asked for help with that second draft in the teahouse but it looks like perhaps not. I will get to work. Thanks so much! Hello-Mary-H (talk) 22:50, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

The draft is not acceptable. Remove references that are to the Attention Span website. Ditto press releases. Remove all the expository content crammed into the references - the ref list is not a place to put content. David notMD (talk) 02:38, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Where to start?

I want to say that with many, many editors contributing to Wikipedia, it seems we have got all the information we know of - until somebody finds a new piece of verifiable information and adds it to Wikipedia. It always seems as though we have got all of the information we have on a particular subject, until a new editor adds information to the article. Also, with who-knows-how-many articles in Wikipedia, it's hard to know where to start. So, where do I start?

Also, thank you in advance. --Plankhouse0 (talk) 23:59, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

@Plankhouse0: Welcome to Wikipedia! I recommend that you start in any of these areas:

• WP:RCP - to help combat vandalism
• WikiProjects - to improve articles of your interest
• Articles for Creation - to help add new articles on Wikipedia

There is always something to do here. Hope this helps. --LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 00:28, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Plankhouse0, thanks for your interest in editing Wikipedia. Wikipedia is far, very far from having information about everything, and even in the articles that we do have, many are missing important information, or need significant copy-editing. As for where to start editing, the best way is to pick a subject that you're interested in and start looking for articles on that topic. Many topics have WikiProjects dedicated to them, such as WikiProject Sports. You can find a full directory of WikiProjects here. Some WikiProjects are more active than others, and some are totally abandoned, but at a minimum you'll be able to find a list of articles associated with that project there, so it can be a good starting point.

Alternatively, if you're interested in just doing minor edits to random articles, you can go to the community portal where you can find a list of articles that have been tagged for maintenance by other editors. This is a great way to start small and get a feel for editing on Wikipedia before jumping in and writing articles from scratch yourself, or other parts of Wikipedia like category-tagging, noticeboard discussions, and more.

Finally, if you're specifically interested in helping edit articles about subjects that Wikipedia doesn't have enough of, check out this essay on Wikipedia's biases (as well as WikiProject Countering Systemic Bias) and Women in Red, a project dedicated to increasing gender parity in Wikipedia's coverage. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:29, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

bot notifications ?

Hi, I've turned off bots for my watchlist, which works fine on my laptop and my tablet in desktop mode. But, but when I check the watchlist on my phone, it's cluttered with bot notifications. Is there any way to turn off bots on my phone as well, other than turning it to desktop mode? Nthanks, ,--Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 23:16, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

@Mr Serjeant Buzfuz: AFAIK no, and I would like to note that bots can disable the tagging of actions as B for specific actions. (That is used, for instance, when bots leave talkpage messages, because the use of the bot flag would stop notifications from being send). Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 09:47, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Mr Serjeant Buzfuz, to answer you properly, we'll need to know how you accessed your watchlist on your phone. I use my phone for almost all my edits. I do not use the app, and I request the desktop version on any pages I access, including my Watchlist. John from Idegon (talk) 18:29, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

New page

I have been trying to publish a new page without luck. Can anyone give me a link please? Info is as follows:

Col Bishop (photographer) Col Bishop (born 8th July 1962) is a former soldier and photographer from Burpengary, Queensland, Australia. Early years He was born in the UK and arrived in Australia in January 1977, when his father transferred to the Royal Australian Navy from the Royal Navy. He joined the Australian Army in December 1982 and was allocated the Infantry. He was posted to the 3rd Battalion, The Royal Australian Regiment in September 1982. He had numerous posting during his career and was medically discharged from the Army as a Warrant Officer in October 2008. Career He took up (digital) photography in 2008 after a break from (film) photography of 20 years. His main interest is of landscape, wildlife and architectural photography; but, also conducts wedding and event photography. He live north of Brisbane, Queensland. Notes External links CharlieBravoPhotography.com [3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Col Bishop (talk • contribs) 02:39, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Col Bishop. Based upon your choice of username and the person you're trying to create an article about, I would suggest that the first thing you do before you try anything else would be to read Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything, Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not because it sound like you might be misunderstanding what Wikipedia is about. Then, if you still decide that you want to create an article, please take a look at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Writing about yourself, family, friends and Wikipedia:Notability (people). Wikipedia generally only accepts articles written about subjects deemed to be Wikipedia notable and prefers that such articles be created/edit by persons who are unconnected to those subject in some kind of personal or professional way. From just what you've posted above, I would say that Col Bishop wouldn't be considered Wikipedia notable for an article to be written about him. Someday perhaps as explained in Wikipedia:Too soon, but not right at the moment. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:51, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Span calls

I get calls area code 597 with differents numbers, how to block calls from this code — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:56A:F25B:FE00:1558:1A61:517F:EA95 (talk) 03:42, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

This page is for asking questions about using Wikipedia. You will need to talk to your phone company about how to block calls. RudolfRed (talk) 06:07, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

But you might like to note that calls don't necessarily come from where they appear to come from. See our article Caller ID spoofing. --ColinFine (talk) 13:04, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I need advice (suitable place) for editing a template

I want to find a better place about whether doing some changes in Template:Aristocratic family trees. The talk page of it seldom has new discussions, so I want to seek a better place - is this Teahouse too general to get such advice? (I know English, but I don't know how to seek help in English wiki, other than editing articles...) - George6VI (talk) 06:46, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi George6VI. The best place to discuss a page is generally on it's corresponding talk page. It makes it easier for others to participate in the discussion and easier for other to find a record of the discussion later on if necessary. What you can do is start a discussion on the template's talk page and then use a template like Template:Please see to let others (for example relevant WikiProjects) know about the discussion. I've added two WikiProject banners to the talk page of that particular template which seem relevant, but some of the talk pages of articles where the template is being used most likely would be a good place to check for other WikiProjects. There's no way of knowing how much of a response you'll get, but it doesn't hurt to try.

Another possibility would be for you to just be WP:BOLD and change the template yourself; you just need to make sure that you don't accidentally damage the syntax or cause other problems when you do. Many templates are protected because they are used so widely and a single change/mistake can suddenly cause problems on lots of pages; this template, however, is not protected and can be edited. If, by chance, you create a problem by changing something, you can always go back and self-revert. At the same time, if you make a change that someone else reverts, you can then follow WP:BRD and discuss things on the template's talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:10, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

pakistan

How do you make your own wikepidia page about somthing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uthman Ishfaq (talk • contribs) 07:21, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Uthman Ishfaq and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is not a web host for storing your own page about something, but if you would like to create an article, then please read WP:Your first article. Wikipedia already has an article Guinea pig, and you will see that the content of the page is encyclopaedic, not a "how to" manual. Articles in Wikipedia need to be based on what has already been written in WP:Reliable sources. Dbfirs 08:13, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

RETIRED-ALS

I’m no longer editing, per notice on my page --GeeBee60 (talk) 09:25, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello, GeeBee60. Thank you for you message about retiring from Wikipedia editing. I visited your userpage, which forms a lovely summary of your life, interests and achievements here. I am sorry to learn of your declining health which has forced this situation upon you. It cannot be easy for you, in so many ways, and you have my best wishes. Since you joined us in 2013, you have made over 1,700 edits. So, whilst I can't really speak on behalf of anyone else, I would nevertheless like to offer a big 'thank you' from Wikipedia, its community of editors and all of its users around the world for your contributions that have helped this encyclopaedia continue to grow and become such an amazing, free resource of knowledge. With the kindest of regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 15:06, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

my first article - a bibliography

Hi!!

Nice to meet you (o: I am so happy to become a member of wikipedia! I am hoping to post an article which lists recent publications in the newer academic approach to communication called integrationism (integrational linguistics). There is already an article on integrationism on wiki (I did not author it). I have made a provisory list as a draft article but wondering if I can submit the draft before I enter more references, so that I can get feedback on the idea and layout of the draft? Would that be ok?

Integrationism is a scholarly approach to communication and language that has widespread consequences to diverse fields of inquiry. Integrationism centrally states that signs are not readymades, but are made in situations by living beings with a purpose. This entails fx that language and other cultural products of communication can not be regarded as codes, but as symptoms and possibly artifacts in a different process than hitherto thought. The claim has profound implications for fields such as linguistics, semiotics, philosophy, logic etc. For this reason it would be good to have a public bibliography as globally available as possible.

Kind regards, Charlotte Conrad — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlotteconrad (talk • contribs) 12:59, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Without references a draft would be certain to be declined if you were to submit it. If the "Sources" column in Draft:Integrationism - A Bibliography is intended to contain references, you need to read Help:Referencing for beginners. Although not an AFC reviewer myself, my suspicion is that even if properly referenced there might well be a question as to whether this should be a separate article or whether it would more reasonably be a section in the existing article. It would probably make sense to raise the question on the talk page of the existing article, and in your question you could point readers at your draft. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:09, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Changes to the Page Title of a large group of pages

There is a group of Wikipedia pages which really should be changed generically, both in the TITLE as well as the page CONTENT. How and to whom should I suggest this change (which is quite important within the subject matter) Seadog (talk) 15:21, 26 September 2019 (UTC)Seadog (editor)

Hi Seadog, welcome to the Teahouse. Which change to which pages? We need at least an example to guide you. It might be discussed at a relevant WikiProject, e.g. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:28, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks PrimeHunter. The relevant group of pages have the generic title: List of ship launches in xxxx [year]. The pages are indexed at Category:Lists of ship launches. Seadog (talk) 16:26, 26 September 2019 (UTC)Seadog

@Seadog: That certainly sounds like a matter for Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships. You could also make a giant Wikipedia:Requested moves where every page is tagged with a link to the discussion, but I suggest you first test the waters at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships. The page histories of recent lists show the main contributor is HenSti so you could also start at User talk:HenSti. If you don't then invite them to the discussion. Considering the number of pages, don't move any of them or make mass content changes without discussion. By the way, those lists need a common entry point in mainspace. With the current titles it would be List of ship launches or Lists of ship launches with one redirecting to the other. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:02, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Is my article/pagein the process of being reviewed

I submitted a page for review on 9.11.2019, and it's still coming up as Draft/Talk: Jeffery C. Becton. Would someone please give me an update, or guidance on how/when it might go live? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MSDRUID (talk • contribs) 16:08, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Jeffery C. Becton has not yet been submitted for review. When you are ready to submit it, you can use the button that says: "Submit your draft for review!". --David Biddulph (talk) 16:12, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

@MSDRUID: I strongly suggest you not submit the article yet. It needs to be fleshed out with more sourcing and the info should be separated into sections. Include links to the references if you have them. Once you are rejected, it will be harder to get it approved later. Take a look at WP:YOURFIRSTARTICLE and integrate info from these sources: [[4]] [[5]] [[6]] [[7]] [[8]] [[9]] [[10]] (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)} 17:28, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Also read Help:Referencing for beginners TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:29, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Need assistance uploading a licensed picture of Amy J Berg on her Wiki Page

Hello Wiki World,

I am a coding illiterate assistant who is trying to upload my boss Amy J Berg's picture on her wiki page. Can anyone help with this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:1405:C200:F40E:465C:6C8:3B73 (talk) 19:01, 26 September 2019 (UTC)