Wikipedia:Teahouse

Shantavira, 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.)

User page looks clapped

How do I make my user page align properly? Seemplez | Chat 09:39, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm assuming you want all your userboxes above each other, on the left? The problem is that userboxes are kinda floaty and sometimes do weird things. A possible solution is to add {{-}} after each UBX. I've taken the liberty of trying it out in my sandbox, is that what you want? Feel free to copy that code back to your own user page. rchard2scout (talk) 10:39, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

@Rchard2scout: Thank you so much! I'll use that tip in future, hope you enjoy your barnstar!

Article about IMAG GmbH

Hi, I would like to translate the article about IMAG GmbH in the German Wikipedia into English. However, my draft has been declined, saying that it didn't have enough content for an own article. Do you have any tipps what to do? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muc user 2 (talk • contribs) 11:07, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

The general answer is to discuss it with the declining reviewer (in this case Robert McClenon) on their user talk page. But I would have declined it for a different reason: the failure to establish that the subject is notable. Specifically, there is not one single substantial independent reference: five of them appear to be published by IMAG, and no. 5 doesn't mention IMAG.

People sometimes assume that an article which is in one Wikipedia will automatically be accepted (in translation) in another; but this is not the case. First, different Wikipedias are independent programmes, which have different rules and criteria. Secondly, there are many articles in Enwiki which would not be accepted if they were submitted now, as our standards have risen over the years; and I presume that the same may be true of other Wikipedias.

If you haven't already read Translation, I recommend it; but my personal advice is to treat it as creating a new article, but drawing on the original for some of the content. Another point (which you can also find mentioned on that page) is that while Wikipedia's licensing arrangements allow material to be freely copied and reused for any purpose, the one required step is to attribute the source. Copying within Wikipedia, or translating from one to another, is an example of just such reuse, and must be attributed. --ColinFine (talk) 11:51, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I forgot to ping you, Muc user 2, or indeed to welcome you to the Teahouse. Sorry! --ColinFine (talk) 11:52, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with everything that ColinFine wrote just above, Muc user 2. Creating a new article, even one based on a translation of an article from a different Wikipedia project, is one of the harder tasks an editor can face. Below are some steps which, when followed, often lead to sucess. They are aimed more at creation from nothing, but most of them will still apply. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 11:57, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

• First, review our guideline on notability, our policy on Verifiability, and our specific guideline on the notability of businesses. Consider whether your subject clearly meets the standards listed there.
• Second, read how to create Your First Article and referencing for beginners and again consider if you want to go ahead.
• Third, If you have any connection or affiliation with the subject, disclose it in accordance with our guideline on Conflict of interest. If you have been or expect to be paid for making edits, or are making them as part of your job, disclose this according to the strict rules of the Paid-contribution disclosure. This is absolutely required; omitting it can result in you being blocked from further editing.
• Fourth, gather sources. You want independent, professionally published, reliable sources with each discussing the subject in some detail. If you can't find several such sources, stop; an article will not be created! Sources do NOT need to be online, or in English, although it is helpful if at least some are. The "independent" part is vital. Wikipedia does not consider as independent sources such as press releases, or news stories based on press releases, or anything published by the subject itself or an affiliate of the subject. Strictly local coverage is also not preferred. Regional or national newspapers or magazines, books published by mainstream publishers (not self-published), or scholarly journals are usually good. So are online equivalents of these. (Additional sources may verify particular statements but not discuss the subject in detail. But those significant detailed sources are needed first.)
• Fifth, use the article wizard to create a draft under the articles for creation project. This is always a good idea for an inexperienced editor, but in the case of an editor with a conflict of interest it is essential.
• Sixth, use the sources gathered before (and other sources you may find along the way) to write the article. Cite all significant statements to sources. Do not express opinions or judgements, unless they are explicitly attributed to named people or entities, preferably in a direct quotation, and cited to a source. Do not use puffery or marketing-speak. Provide page numbers, dates, authors and titles for sources to the extent these are available. A title is always needed.
• Seventh, when (well perhaps if) your draft is declined, pay attention to the comments of the reviewer, and correct the draft and resubmit it. During this whole process, if you face any unresolvable editing hurdles, or cannot comprehend any editing issue, feel free to post a request here or at the help desk and ask the regulars. Repeat this until the draft passes review.

Congratulations, you have now created a valid Wikipedia article. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 11:57, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

In this case, the subject company is a subsidiary of Messe München, and we already have an article on Messe München. If you have additional information about the subsidiary, you can add it to the article on the parent company. When to create separate spinout articles about subsidiaries of companies, or branches, or colleges within a university, or offices within a government agency, is usually a matter of common sense rather than following a well-defined set of guidelines. As mentioned above, your draft has seven references, but 5 of them are IMAG's own, and corporate notability is based on what third parties say about a company, not what the company says about itself. Also, are you working for either IMAG or Messe? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:18, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I've just checked de:IMAG and I do think there's content and sources we can work with. De.wiki has a very different culture and en.wiki can be a shock for people who move between the two; it's much more normal to source articles about companies to their own publications on de.—S Marshall T/C 21:36, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Article about OnBuy

HI There - I'm very new to Wiki and only used it to update a couple of pages that I had knowledge in. I have lost a lot of faith in Wikipedia because I believe that some rouge editors are taking commercial incentives to close business pages. I previously was involved in updating the page OnBuy which was deleted because it was deemend not notable. How can I get this page restored? OnBuy is one of the fastest growing marketplaces in the UK and is very notable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by UKBizMan (talk • contribs) 08:21, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the invasion of Wikipedia by Rouge administrators. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:05, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

UKBizMan, You probably can't get that page restored. I just looked at some of the deleted versions of that page, and they seemed quite promotional in tone to me. I didn't verify the references used to check notability. If you seriously want to create a new page on this topic, I would advise that you follow the steps listed in the section just above. Do please note that "Notability" is used in a special way on Wikipedia. It does not mean "well known". Instead it means that a topic has been written about by multiple, Independent, published reliable sources, each of which covered the topic in some depth. There can be debates about what sources are reliable, and what is enough depth. But major newspapers and magazines are usualy reliable for this purpose. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 12:47, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes I realise that I was mostly copying things from press releases and not really detaching the promotional tone. It was may first go and I tried a few times. Seems my attempts to do my first page have backfired as now I have just been accused of being paid by said company. I think I'll give up! Some things are just not as easy as they seem. Now I feel bad that the company has no page at all and yet I feel they have done such a great job. I'm going to close my Wikipedia account - thank you for your message.

A) You can't "close" your Wikipedia account, but you can tag it as WP:RETIRED. B) you currently have two drafts submitted for review Draft:Tenzing and Draft:OnBuy. In my opinion, both likely to be declined, but if you don't stay, you will never know. David notMD (talk) 14:16, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I sit, corrected. An admin took notice of your request and deleted your User name/account. David notMD (talk) 18:49, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

@David notMD: You were right the first time. It isn't possible to delete an account. All the admin did was to delete the user's user page. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:01, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I would also suggest that starting your discussion with an unlikely accusatory conspiracy theory is no way to get help from your fellow volunteer editors. If you feel your subject is notable, make your case the way the various policies you've been show say you should, and tens of thousands of users have done millions of times. Find appropriate sources and cite them. Remove the promotional tone (that you acknowledge). That's really all there is to it. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 19:08, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Looking for specifics

Hi and thanks in advance for your help, I'm looking for specifics on the problems with this submission so I can correct it asap:

User:Ajobryan/sandbox

As you can see I'm new at this! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajobryan (talk • contribs) 12:57, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

In the feedback message on your draft, and on your user talk page, the words in blue are wikilinks to more detailed advice on the points raised in the review. I have also put a welcome message on your user talk page with further links for advice. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:12, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello Ajobryan and welcome to the Teahouse. Looking at the draft about Sally Helgesen in User:Ajobryan/sandbox, I note that the cited sources are:

1. Her personal web site's home page;
2. Her linkedin page;
3. A page from her publisher about one of her books;
4. A page from her personal web site;
5. Another page from her personal web site;
6. Yet Another page from her personal web site;
7. A page with bios from a conference where she spoke. Such bios are usually provided by the speaker;
8. A page which shows that she is a member of a large organization, but says nothign else about her; and
9. A page with a bio from a professional speaker's provider, in effect advertising her services

None of these are independent, published, reliable sources that discuss her in depth. Indeed none are independent. All are from her eor bisniss affiliates, or are just reproducing content from her. Several independent reliable sources that discuss her in some depth are needed for a valid article. Without such sources, nothing can be done. That is a very specific issue. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 13:35, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Watchlist

Hey I'm fairly new here, I was wondering how I can change the items in my Watchlist I haven't watched yet to be in bold? This is possible in the Dutch Wikipedia, but I can't seem to figure it out here. Help would be appreciated. Cheers! Aquatic Ambiance (talk) 13:49, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Gadgets tab in Preferences: Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:05, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

David Biddulph, finally found it. Thanks Aquatic Ambiance (talk) 15:19, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Article for deletion oops

I made an oopsie doing an article for deletion discussion. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stephen_Akintayo Is this something that'll be caught and fixed by people who patrol AfD? Sorry, and thank you in advance for your help. --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 14:42, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, DiamondRemley39, and welcome to the Teahouse. What were you trying to do on that page, please? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:33, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

DES, I was trying to follow the instructions for listing an article for deletion. I think I copied and pasted the wrong thing on the wrong page. --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 15:45, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Looks like it was fixed by Ymblanter. shoy (reactions) 17:48, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

The AFD looks okay now. The article looks like promo,but that is what AFD is for. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:43, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Question on Notability

There was an Earthquake in Lilbourn, Missouri a few weeks ago. About 8% of the town reported feeling this earthquake. (National Earthquake Center) I feel as if that is notable enough to be added into the history of the town. Anyone agree? I added the earthquake and it was removed 2 weeks later by Cristiano Tomás with the reason being: "not notable". Please give me feedback and advice on this. -Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elijahandskip (talk • contribs) 14:52, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Strictly speaking notability is relavant to the question of whether a topic should have its own articel, not to what should go in an existing article about a notable topic. That said, not every event that happens in a place belongs in a Wikipedia article about the place. If the quyake wqas felt but did not damagfe, that might not be relevant enough to include. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:19, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Earthquakes are very common. There are about 100,000 earthquakes every year that can be felt without instrumentation, so if only 8% of the population felt something and no damage was caused it sounds as though it would not be worthy of inclusion in the article unless the event was covered by multiple reliable news sources, in which case you should cite those sources.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:29, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I posted an article over an earthquake in California. 65,000+ people have reported it and the national Earthquake Center issues a tsunami warning. It was deleted for not being notable enough. HOW is an earthquake effecting Thousands near San Francisco not notable??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elijahandskip (talk • contribs) 18:22, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Elijahandskip Your draft was not deleted; it was declined. It still exists. Please review the notability criteria to learn more about what makes a subject notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article. 331dot (talk) 18:27, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry. Thought I put declined not deleted. My next question is since it cannot have its own page, should the earthquake since the origin of the earthquake was in Pleasant Hill? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elijahandskip (talk • contribs) 18:39, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Elijahandskip If you have a source for the earthquake, you might be able to include it at List of earthquakes in 2019. 331dot (talk) 18:44, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

There are so many earthquakes in California, felt by so many people, we seem to only create articles for the serious (~ mag 6+) damage-causing event clusters, like the 2019 Ridgecrest earthquakes. All the others go in the list articles, since there is rarely much to say about them other than they happened. We have a baseball farm team called the Quakes. There have been six mag 2.5+, including one 4.5, in the last 24 hours in CA/NV.[1] —[AlanM1(talk)]— 19:46, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Hacker help

My name is Scottie Charlton and for the past 6 months I have had someone on my emails, phones, Facebook, google hangouts, etc... I can’t get rid of this person, they have destroyed over 16 cell phones, numerous google accounts, 2facebook accounts, several social media accounts. It seems like every time I join something they follow right behind me and destroy it. My cell phones have overlays, plugins, root pa app, and several other apps I can not delete. The person rewrites every cell phone I get so when I go to a page it’s not the page I thought it would be.ive tried switching cell providers, phone numbers, and google accounts, nothing works. They are still on my phone. Like I said over 16 cell phones destroyed. Can I please get some help from someone, I’ve contacted local police, google, yahoo, etc.. no one has a answer. Lost.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scott charlton2171 (talk • contribs) 14:52, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

This isn't really something Wikipedia can provide assistance with. Praxidicae (talk) 15:40, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Scott charlton2171 This isn't really what this page or Wikipedia is for, but I would say it seems extremely unlikely that someone would continually hack and reprogram your cell phones and continually "destroy" your social media accounts. All cell phones have apps that cannot be removed, this is not a defect or hacking of your phone. It sounds to me that you might need to sit down with a representative of your cell phone provider and have them educate you on the use of your phone. 331dot (talk) 18:33, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I am trying to add a fact that bears relation to an already mentioned fact in the established article (see subject line above). I am a witness to this fact and would like to include it in the Wikipedia article about CIRCUS MAXIMUS (The Wind, etc. etc.)

“In contrast to the two “Christmas Concerts” performed by CIRCUS MAXIMUS during December of 1967 the performance by CM in the same month at New York’s CAFÉ WHA? was outstanding. They were the featured band that night. Opening bands on that bill were THE HELLO PEOPLE (Phillips International recording artists) and DREAMLAND CHOO CHOO who were making their NYC debut that night. Circus Maximus were well received and performed at least one encore."

Hello I am trying to add this historical fact to the existing copy on the band, CIRCUS MAXIMUS (with Bob Bruno and Jerry Jeff Walker, et al), as it bears relation to prior existing comments. I was there as an avid NYC music club goer of that era. I was witness to that gig and what happened there that night. I am both a musician and a retired professor of philosophy and ethics at Central Connecticut State University in New Britain, CT. It seems someone deleted my short but salient comment requesting "citation". This brings me to my question: How does one verify something that happened over 50 years ago and may not be a matter of public record or no longer is able to be a matter of documentation but none the less did occur? If we deem to discourage events that for all intent and purpose are likely and feasible just because they may not be a matter of public record we also discourage little known but informative facts that may "breathe life" into these historical documents. In my blurb above I give acceptance to the previous copy regarding Circus Maximus' "less than well received" "Christmas Concerts" but I offer a contrasting report of a juxtaposed gig at the Cafe Wha?. Is this so incredulous?

thank you, Rocktoids — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocktoids (talk • contribs) 15:04, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Rocktoids, and welcome to the Teahouse. I am afraid that Wikipedia does not accept unpublished first-person accounts as reliable sources, from anyone. If an event is not a matter of public record, Wikipedia cannot report on it. If newspapers at the tiem, or reliable books or articles at some later time reported this event, we might include it if it seemed relevant to our article -- not every event in the hispoty of the world, or even of a particular band, is relevant. If you wrote up your first-person account of the event, and managed to get it published by a reliable source -- not on a personal web page or in a blog or on a fansite -- then that write up could be cited as a source. Otherwise, it simply is not a usable source for Wikipedia, and without a source, the fact may be challanged and removed from the article. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:28, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

See our verifibility policy for details. See also the essay Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:36, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

oh, and please sign your posts on discussion pages (not in articles) with four tildes(~~~~). The wiki software will convert this to your default or custom signature, with a timestamp. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:28, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Changing the title of a wikipedia article page.

I had created a page on "Sealdah-Muzaffarpur Fast Passenger". Now, I want to change the page title to "Sealdah-Sitamarhi Express", keeping its original contents intact. How can i do so??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.15.242.63 (talk) 17:23, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I moved the page to the new title for you. If you register, and gain autoconfirmed status, you'll be able to use the move tool to move pages. --MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 17:30, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Info I post and edit is true and interesting on wiki

Info I make or edit is true , and not false like uk Christmas number ones is pre Christmas actually as there announced on radio before Christmas Day mainly and never count the first day sales of Christmas the 25th December even broadcast on Christmas Day on radio which has only happen just a few and rare is up to Christmas Eve only and physical singles in uk I edit and that one keep removed is true from official chart pages like Louisa forever young got #1 on physical in uk for a few weeks and not registered which is misleading — Preceding unsigned comment added by Town3bay (talk • contribs) 17:31, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Town3bay and welcome to the Teahouse. You seem to be engaged in an edit war at List of UK Singles Chart Christmas number ones. Please read WP:BRD, and discuss your changes on the talk page of the article. Dbfirs 18:03, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Sources under subscription

Hello Teahouse! I'm writing an article about the painter Ursula McCannell and I found a great reference - The Times UK but the text is under subscription only. Can I still use it and if so how? (i don't have a subscription) Thank you in advance --Less Unless (talk) 18:13, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Less Unless Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. See WP:PAYWALL; there is no requirement that a source be easy or free to obtain, or that it be online at all. It needs to only be publicly accessible. However, you will need to read the source to make sure it says what you think it says. 331dot (talk) 18:35, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

@Less Unless: You can go to WP:RX and ask for someone with access to look it up for you. RudolfRed (talk) 18:47, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

331dot,RudolfRed Thank you for the information, I'll read the policy and will definitely use the exchange/request project!Less Unless (talk) 19:21, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Less Unless. You could, of course, pay the Times to gain access. You could go to a library that has a subscription and read a physical copy. Source in Wikipedia do not need a url or to be available online. Or you might be able mto find another edsitor who has access and would be willing to provide you with a copy. As it happens, i have a digital subscription to the Times of London, specifically for Wikipedia editing, and am willing to provide such article to other editors, within reason, by email. See my user page. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:52, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Note that if you use citation templates, there is a parameter to indicate that an online source is behind a paywall. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:52, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} Thank you! I've read your user page, but I haven't found the guidelines on how to ask you for help. I'm sorry, I'm new here and sometimes I don't quite understand what to do. If you can help me with this one article, I'll be grateful. Please tell me what should I do. Thank you. Less Unless (talk) 19:21, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I am happy to help you. i will access the times site and download the article text if I can. If I can do so, i will email it to you -- I see you have 'email this user active. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:45, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Less Unless It may take a little time, i will let you know when i have sent it or been unable to find it. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:51, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} Thank you very much! No rush at all, when you have time.

PS - got it! Thank you! so fast! Less Unless (talk) 19:55, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Two usernames

Hello

Guess I have created two usernames with two devices. Seems I have created second username with a typo error of the first.

Is that concern?

Thanks

Abandon one and only use the other, and you will be fine. RudolfRed (talk) 18:59, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse, Nomintr. Pick one username to use in the future, and abandon use of the other account. You may wish to leave a note on the other account's user page explaining the error and referring people to your current account. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:00, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

My article got declined

Is there anywhere I can find a draft of my article that got declined so that I can edit out the issues and resubmit? I cannot find this?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shuszczo (talk • contribs) 18:56, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Shuszczo Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm sorry, but since the draft was deleted as a copyright infringement, it cannot be restored. I would note that it appears to me that you are attempting to write about yourself; this is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. Please review the autobiography policy. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources say about article subjects that meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability(in this case, the more specific definition of a notable person). Because of this, Wikipedia is not interested in what someone wants to say about themselves. In order for you to be successful in writing about yourself, you would need to forget everything you know about yourself and only write based on the content of independent sources. In my experience, most people cannot do that. 331dot (talk) 19:01, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

How should I easily access a user's contributions page?

When I warn someone who vandalized a page using Twinkle, I often want to go from the talk page to the user's contributions page to see if they have done any other vandalism. How can I do this without having to edit the URL? Is there a button that I can click that I'm missing? Merlin04 (talk) 21:54, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Merlin04, Bienvenido a la casa de te. On the left pane, on a user talk page, there is a link called User contributions that you can click on that will take you directly to that page. Interstellarity (talk) 21:59, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

How to improve declined draft to help get it approved?

Our page Draft:Talent Africa has been declined. Although the reviewer was kind enough to direct me to this page to ask experienced editors to please lend me a hand in improving my draft to get it republished for review and hopefully approved. We do believe the page is worthy of an article as it's about existing content with adequate proof like any other television show on Wikipedia. Could someone kindly advise how we can improve our draft to make it better and more likely to be approved. It would be highly appreciated. Creatorsforum (talk) 21:56, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Creatorsforum, Bienvenido a la casa de te. Although I can't quite help you with your question, I would like to point out that accounts are only to be used by a single individual. The reason why I'm pointing this out is because you use the first person plural when referring to yourselves. Please make sure that you read this for more info on this. Interstellarity (talk) 22:07, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Creatorsforum Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Please review the conflict of interest policy and the paid editing policy, as you have some mandatory declarations to make, one of which is required by Wikipedia's Terms of Use. I've also posted information about your username on your user talk page. You will also need to select a single individual to exclusively operate this account(you use "we").

As noted by those who looked at your draft, it is very poorly sourced and promotional in nature. Wikipedia is interested only in what independent reliable sources state about article subjects that meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability. Independent reliable sources does not include press releases, routine announcements, staff interviews, the production's website, or any other primary source. Wikipedia is not interested in what an article subject wants to say about itself, only in what others say. In order for you to be successful in writing about your program, you need to forget everything you know about it and only write based on independent sources that have chosen on their own to give significant coverage about your program. This is usually difficult for people in your position to do.

Please understand that not every television program merits an article on Wikipedia; it depends on the sources- and most of those other articles were written by independent editors who took note of a subject and chose to write about it. 331dot (talk) 22:10, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello Creatorsforum. Of the 5 cited sources currently in the draft, three are from the TalantAfric production itself, and one seems to be based on a press release, leaving exactly one independent source. This is not nearly enough to support an article or establish notability.

Beyond that, the draft is written in a rather promotional manner. Such phrases as on this amazing platform called TALENT AFRICA, massive 6 Day Event, comes to a star-struck conclusion, take home the big prizes, and take home the big prizes are not the language of an encyclopedia. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:06, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

A good, citable source.

Are informational YouTube videos (or video media in general) sources that I am able to cite? If so, what must I include? — Preceding unsigned comment added by J4keFr0mStatef (talk • contribs) 00:34, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, J4keFr0mStatef and welcome to the teahouse. For YouTube in particular, that depends. YouTube isn't really a single source it is more like a publisher, or even a library. It includes videos created by many different people and entities. Most are not reliable sources. Some are, for example, some are officially released by various news organizations, and are just as reliable as if they were on those organizations' own web sites. The question is really, who created any given Youtube video? Is that person or entity reliable? A subsidiary question is, was the video posted by, or with the permission of, the creator or copyright holder. Wikipedia does not normally link to copyright infringing pages, so videos posted without proper permission should not be used as sources.

As to video in general, this is like asking if sources in print can be cited. Yes if they are published and reliable. The template {{Cite AV media}} can be used to cite such sources. The time when the relevant content occures more or less corresponds to the pag eor page range for a book citation. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:46, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@J4keFr0mStatef: It is more of a burden on readers and editors to verify video/audio sources because they are not searchable, and have to be consumed in real time, so take longer to review. The text version of a video that takes twenty minutes to watch can be searched in seconds and read/skimmed in just a few minutes. That can have various undesirable effects, since many are concerned with getting the most value out of the amount of time they contribute to the project. If there is an online, text source for what you are citing, please do try to use that. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 02:36, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Making my own Wikipedia page

How can I make my own Wikipedia page guys please tell me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilburger20 (talk • contribs) 00:43, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Lilburger20 and welcome to the Teahouse. That depends on what you mean by my own Wikipedia page. If you mean a user page to identify you asa a wikipedia editor, see WP:USER for a list of dos and don'ts, but you can put any of a wide variety of things on such a page. (look at some pages of experienced editors for suggestions.) If you mean creating an article abiut some topic, please read Wikipedia's Golden Rule, Notability, and Your First Article creating a new article is one of the harder tasks here, and it is best to start by working on existing articles for a while first.

However, if you mean an article about yourself, I advise that you drop the idea. See our guideline on autobiography and Our guideline on conflict of interest for some of the reasons why. Autobiographical writing is strongly discouraged. See also all the links above about new articles in general.

Again welcome, and I hope you find some editing task which is both enjoyable and productive. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:53, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Creating a Wikipedia Page

Hello there I am a new user and I was wondering how hard it would be to create a Wikipedia page. How long would this take, would I have to be a registered scholar with proof of having a degree in a particular area — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beetlejuice Porter (talk • contribs) 02:05, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@Beetlejuice Porter: Welcome, and thanks for wanting to contribute. You can read WP:YFA about how to create an article and create a draft for review. No proof of credentials required, because you will be citing reliable, published sources. Creating a new article is not an easy task for new users. I suggest you start by working to improve existing articles instead, to gain some Wikipedia experience first. RudolfRed (talk) 02:15, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Submitting for artist

I am a branding consultant for a media agency and am trying to create a wiki page for an artist. She has a very strong digital footprint to warrant a wiki entry and it will also allow us to build the base towards social media verification platforms. She has over a million authentic followers and recognized on youtube as well.How do I submit a draft for consideration? I am unsure of the parameters around Wiki membership and the level of information I can submit for consideration, — Preceding unsigned comment added by GiaKay81 (talk • contribs) 22:40, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

First of all,GiaKay81 as a "branding consultant" you must promptly disclose your affiliations in accordance with WP:PAID. This is absolutely required, failure to do so can lead to your begin blocked from editing permenantly.

Secondly, a 'digital footprint" does not equate to a Wikipedia article for an articel to exist, the subject must be notable. This means that there must be multiple independant published reliable sources that discuss the subject in depth. The number of followers, fans, or views an artist may have is irrelevant. Nor is Wikipedia in the least intersted in allowing you to build the base towards social media verification platforms. Any article must be able to demonstrate notability, as Wikipedia uses that term, or it will be promptly deleted. See earlier questions here at the Teahouse for ways in which articles may be created and what articles must at a minimum include. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:30, 16 October 2019 (UTC) @GiaKay81: DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:32, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! I am an intern- hence the lack of knowledge so not paid yet but in the future! I would like to be able to understand how this is done so to contribute info accurately as well. My first project is this undertaking so I am a student if you will but long term goals is to understand the framework of how things are done here. I have done research and gathered all the content around this person; I just am not familiar with the step by step process so that was the guidance I was hoping for. Thank you for all the details. Definitely doing this on the up and up and appreciate the educative opportunity you're giving me with adding more details to this process and experience. Ultimately the submission will be reviewed for the purposes of all wikipedia guidelines but I was being transparent as a newcomer of how the nature of what brought me to the forum. I will review the earlier questions per your suggestion as well. Apologies for the background information. I was being transparent but have no intentions of misrepresenting anyone or anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GiaKay81 (talk • contribs) 03:59, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi GiaKay81. Two things: (1) please sign your talk page posts as explained in Wikipedia:Signatures#How to sign your posts, and (2) "paid editing" doesn't always mean receiving monetary payment, it could mean other things as explained WP:PAID#Meaning of "employer, client, and affiliation". I also suggest you take a look at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest or Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide for some information on conflict of interest editing as well as Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia's law of unintended consequences and Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing for some more things about Wikipedia that you or the artist you want to create an article about may not know. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:20, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the links! I'm learning! Will review and have already seen some previus posts now for help in understanding the guidelines even more. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GiaKay81 (talk • contribs) 05:10, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, GiaKay81. Basically, trying to use Wikipedia to promote anybody or anything is a fundamental mismatch with Wikipedia's aims and purposes, and you are likely to have a difficult and frustrating time doing it. And if you succeed in creating an article, it could still backfire on your client. I urge you to put your promotional efforts somewhere else - and, if you are inspired by helping us create a neutral repository of knowledge, contribute to Wikipedia on other topics. --ColinFine (talk) 08:55, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

You are still not signing. Type four of ~ at the end of your comments. I agree WP:PAID still applies to your situation. What the artist says about herself (website, social media, interviews, Youtube, etc.) does not count as Wikipedia's idea of reliable sources for referencing. Same for press releases by the media agency. David notMD (talk) 10:33, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@GiaKay81: What you are apparently (by your statements) here for is not compatible with Wikipedia's purpose. Please do read and understand WP:NOT. Wikipedia is simply not the place to promote someone's "brand" or make them appear higher in searches. Articles are written here because the subject is notable enough to have been written about by multiple, independent, high-quality sources. Then, an unprompted and unrelated Wikipedia editor takes on the task of assembling the sources and distilling them into an article, for the purpose of improving the encyclopedia. There are lots of social media, promotional, and blog sites out there you can use to promote your clients – Wikipedia is simply not one of them. If your employers, clients, or others have suggested otherwise, they do both you and Wikipedia a dis-service. I'm sorry if this seems harsh, but thank you for understanding. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 23:10, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

What do we do

What do you do here at Teahouse? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TextTitan (talk • contribs) 04:35, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

TextTitan Hello and welcome. The Teahouse is a place for new users to ask questions about using Wikipedia. Do you have a question? 331dot (talk) 07:15, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

How to edit a template?

There is a discussion over at Portal talk:Australia regarding the Transclude random excerpt template. This template will make updating and maintaining portals much easier, but currently the only way to figure out which articles have been transcluded is to edit the page, and there needs to be a way to view all of the articles that have been transcluded without needing to edit the source. The best way to do this? Edit the template. I know Lua is needed, but I'm not sure where to go to make this improvement to the template, and so even though I consider myself an experienced editor, I figured this would be the best place to ask for help. SportingFlyer T·C 05:37, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@SportingFlyer: Try Template talk:Transclude random excerpt (which is a redirect to Module talk:Excerpt) or WP:VPT. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 23:14, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

IWG plc updating page for accuracy and completeness

Hello!

I am updating the IWG plc Wikipedia page as part of my ongoing work with the company. I'm suggesting edits through the IWG:Talk to remove dead links, add recent information and improve the overall structure of the page.

A template message has appeared at the top of the page, which is indeed accurate and says: A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. (October 2019)

The reason why I've dropped by the Teahouse for support is that it is unclear to me what a "cleanup" means. I would need some clear examples where the IWG plc Wikipedia page appears to not have a neutral point of view. Would anyone be able to support by taking a look at the page and offering some guidance? I will then remove or revise any content that does not appear to be from a neutral PoV.

Thank you in advance. --KatherineBusby2019 (talk) 06:01, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi KatherineBusby2019. Since you've also asked about this at Talk:IWG_plc, I leave it up to someone who has perhaps been working on cleaning up the article to clarify, but here's some general comments on some other COI related stuff.

1. Please make sure you properly follow WP:COIPAYDISCLOSE. There are various ways to do so, but pay particular attention to the part of that section which states :

   You are expected to maintain a clearly visible list on your user page of your paid contributions. If you advertise paid editing through any external website, you must provide links on your user-page to all such accounts.

2. When you make an edit request, it's best to use Template:Request edit as explained in Wikipedia:Edit requests. This will add the article to category of other pending edit requests and make it easier for others to first know you requesting an edit and next to try and help you.
3. Please don't try and request a complete re-write of an article all at once. It's best to keep requests simple and to the point. All Wikipedians are WP:VOLUNTEERs and this includes those answering edit requests. If your request is too dense or attempts to change too much at once, the chance of it being passed over and left for someone else to deal with greatly increases. Expecting someone to read through a wall of text to find out what has been changed is really expecting a lot. It's much better to simply say "Change A to B" or "Add this to Section A", etc. See Wikipedia:Simple conflict of interest edit request for a little more on this.
4. Please don't format your requests as if you were directly adding the content to the article yourself. The Wikipedia software has no idea that you're posting a request so it will format on the article's talk page as if it were different sections on the page. This is another reason why it's better to requests bits and pieces at a time because your request will be disjointed and might be mistaken for different unsigned random posts made by others when it's really all part of your same request. If you want to add a new section to the article, then simply say how you think the section should be named and then what content should go in it; you don't really need to format it as it will look in the article. As long as you explain things in your request, the person answering the request can format things accordingly if they approve the request and add the content to the article. For citations, on the other hand, it can make things easier when they are properly formatted, but it's not necessary to do so. As long as you provide the relevant link or other information per WP:CITEHOW, things should be OK. If you're going to format your citations, however, make sure you follow WP:CITEVAR in doing so. It also helps to add Template:Reflist-talk to your request so that any formatted citations don't get displayed at the bottom of the talk page by default.

Regarding dead links, they are simply removed because they are dead as explained in WP:DEADREF or WP:ELDEAD. In many cases, archived versions of a dead link can be found and the citation maintained. Simply put, dead links still may have value as a source and only are gotten rid when they are inappropriate for some other reason.

Finally, just so you don't think I'm a sour puss, I do commend you on trying to adhere to relevant COI/Paid editing policies and guidelines. There are many COI/PAID editors who don't make the effort that you're making, and it's so much easier to try and help those who do. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:18, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Marchjuly. Thanks a lot for your support. I'll follow the guidelines you've shared and request further bite-sized changes today. KatherineBusby2019 (talk) 06:00, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Pinging Dormskirk, who has shown recent interest in the article. Maproom (talk) 07:29, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I am comfortable that the article currently does present a neutral view, but given that it has been edited by an editor with a close connection to the company, other editors may take a different view. One editor previously labelled it with an "advert" tag. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 07:26, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Dormskirk This is appreciated, thank you. Although I am an editor at the company, my aim is to make the page complete and accurate. KatherineBusby2019 (talk) 06:00, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Vipula Wanigasekera

Dear Teahouse

Editing has been done for the page. Please assist by stating any further action needed

Pasan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vipula wanigasekara (talk • contribs) 06:27, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Before you put any more work into improving the article, have you evidence that Vipula Wanigasekera is notable, in the sense in Wikipedia uses that word? I've checked the first few references, and found nothing there to establish his notability. If you believe that there are references there to independent sources that discuss him (rather than based on statements by him, or mere mentions of him), which are they? Maproom (talk) 07:42, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Vipula Wanigasekera has been declined twice. David notMD (talk) 10:36, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Vipula wanigasekara. In addition to the comments you received about the draft, you also should read Wikipedia:Username policy because your choice of username may also be a problem. Wikipedia does allow individuals to use their real names as their usernames as explained in WP:REALNAME, but you shouldn't be using "Vipula wanigasekara" as yours if your name is not really "Vipula Wanigasekera". Many new editors mistakenly assume that in order to create an article about a specific person, they should create an account with the same name. It's a common mistake that can be fixed by simply requesting a username change as explained at Wikipedia:Changing username.

Now, if by chance your real name is "Vipula wanigasekara", but you're not the same person you're trying to create an article about and you still want to create such an article, you might want to still consider changing your username so as to avoid any unnecessary confusion. Sometimes such accounts are still soft blocked as precaution against damaging impersonation.

Finally, if your real name is "Vipula wanigasekara" and you are trying to create an article about yourself, I suggest you read Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing because you might be misunderstanding the purpose of Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:37, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Nigerian Chieftaincy

Hello.

I just wrote my first Wikipedia article and I've uploaded it, but I can't for the life of me figure out how to alter the title to read "Nigerian Chieftaincy" and not "User: O.ominirabluejack/@Nigerian Chieftaincy". I would very much appreciate it if you could tell me how to do that or if you could do it for me. Thanks in advance.

Also, my article still needs to be worked on quite a bit outside of that. I've added a reference, and I will add more momentarily, but I'd very much like it if somebody out there was interested in co-editing with me. Shared credit for the final product is on the table. Any takers?

Yours sincerely,

O.

O.ominirabluejack (talk) 06:35, 16 October 2019 (UTC)O.ominirabluejack.

O.ominirabluejack Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You've edited a subpage of your userpage, which is why the title appears that way. It needs to be moved into the main encyclopedia to formally be a part of it, but it is not ready yet, as it only has one source. It's fine to work on it where it is and doesn't need to be moved until it is ready. Articles need multiple independent reliable sources to support their content. When you have made improvements, you can submit the draft for review using Articles for Creation. 331dot (talk) 07:09, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

There is no "credit" for creating articles, and very definitely, there is never a "final product". With few exceptions, all articles can be edited by all editors.

Ah, I see... Well, thank you for the clarification. I suppose that what I should have said is that I'm open to collaboration in the development stage. No credit given or offered... Got it.

331dot, thank you very much. I'm still bumbling my way along here, and it's a comfort to know that I'm doing so in my own little corner that's well out of everybody else's way.

O.ominirabluejack (talk) 14:57, 16 October 2019 (UTC) O.ominirabluejack.

Hello, O.ominirabluejack. I made a small edit to your draft, formatting the one reference you have inserted. There is quite a bit of information already in the draft, but no sources are listed. Where did the information come from? It all needs to be sourced. I am willing to help, within limits. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:36, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, DESiegel.

That's awfully kind of you. I'd love for you to help. The truth is that I'm kind of playing by ear here.

As to the information, it's largely my own. It is indirectly derived from a variety of sources, however... The pre-colonial stuff owes much to The History of the Yorubas by Prince Samuel Johnson, for example. I'm reading it now, and I heartily recommend it. Examples of Nigerian kings and chiefs not being succeeded by their own sons would include King Adeyinka Oyekan (who was succeeded by King Rilwan Akiolu) and Chief M.K.O. Abiola (who was succeeded by Chief Gani Adams). Furthermore, examples of Nigerian slaves becoming kings or chiefs include King Jaja of Opobo and Chief Oshodi Tapa.

The colonial stuff draws inspiration from everything from the Punitive Expedition and the Banishment of King Jaja to the Abeokuta Women's Revolt. There would probably be a great deal of websites to cite here.

Lastly, the post-colonial stuff comes from my knowledge of the biographies of Dr. Azikiwe, Chief Awolowo and Sir Ahmadu. Finding corroboration for my assertions concerning them should be easy enough: just about everybody in Nigeria knows that Sir Ahmadu was a Sokoto chief (Sardauna of Sokoto), Dr. Azikiwe a hereditary chief of Onitsha (Owelle of Onitsha), and Chief Awolowo the holder of the non-hereditary paramount chieftaincy of the Yoruba people (Asiwaju of Yorubaland).

The references to Chief Obasanjo and Alhaji Yaradua have been substantiated by the BBC article that you so kindly formatted.

And that's just about it. The list of titleholders links to other Wikipedia articles. As for the opening paragraph, its second sentence can be inferred from the fact that the chieftaincy has been a part of communities that are at least a millennium old. Nevertheless, I'll personally attempt to find a reference for it that will satisfy my Wiki brethren. If I'm unable to do so, I'll edit it accordingly.

Thanks again for the help. It's greatly appreciated.

Yours sincerely,

O.

O.ominirabluejack (talk) 16:48, 16 October 2019 (UTC)O.ominirabluejack.

O.ominirabluejack That may be a bit of a problem. You see, information derived from unsourced personal knowledge, or "I can't recall where I learned that" is not suitable for a Wikipedia articel unless a reliable source can be found and cited, as per WP:V (except for obvious things, as per Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue). But It is a problem that can be handled. I will defer further comment to th4e talk page of the draft. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:34, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

An edit to the wiki page: 27 ClUB

Hello, I recently discovered someone who should be included in the 27 CLUB. They will be an extremely integral member! The page seems to be locked or I can't find the edit button?

Please let me know how to proceed.

Best,

Berzorker — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berzorker (talk • contribs) 06:45, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Berzorker Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. As you note, the page is protected from editing by new and unregistered users, due to continuous violations of the Biographies of Living Persons policy. Any edits to that page need to be well sourced to independent reliable sources. If you have a source for your proposed change, you should make an edit request(click for instructions) on the article talk page. 331dot (talk) 07:13, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of page

Want to ask why my page was deleted from Wikipedia Louis Whyte Jonah (talk) 07:39, 16 October 2019 (UTC)Louis Whyte Jonah

Your user page was deleted because, as it says on your talk page, "the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals". A user page is intended for you to write about your activities on Wikipedia –what you have done here, what you intend to do here, your views on what editing needs to be done and how it should be done, etc. Maproom (talk) 07:49, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Louis Whyte Jonah (edit conflict) Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. As noted on your user talk page, you edited your user page, which is not article space. It is a place for you to introduce yourself to the Wikipedia community in the context of your Wikipedia editing or use. It is not a place to write an article about yourself. For that matter, writing an article about yourself is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia, please read the autobiography policy. Wikipedia is interested in what independent reliable sources say about article subjects, not in what the subject wants to say about itself. In order for you to be successful in writing about yourself, you would need to forget everything you know about yourself and only write based on what independent sources have chosen to say about you. The vast majority of people cannot do that.

If you just want to do something like post your resume or tell the world about yourself, you should use social media. 331dot (talk) 07:50, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

writing an artical

Hey, I am new here as a Wikipedia editor I just sign up so how should I start or write my first article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samsaraswat (talk • contribs) 07:39, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Samsaraswat Hello and welcome to the Teahouse, and thanks for wanting to contribute. I would caution you that successfully creating a new article is the hardest task on Wikipedia. New users who dive right in without a good understanding of the process often end up disappointed and with hurt feelings as work they spent hours on is mercilessly edited and deleted by others. I want you to have a good experience here and not have bad feelings. Because of this, I would strongly advise you to first build up some experience and Wikipedia knowledge by editing existing articles in areas that interest you, to get a feel for how Wikipedia operates and what is being looked for in articles. Many users start small by making edits to correct spelling at first, then gradually move up to more substantive edits and finally article creation. New users that do that are much more successful. It's also good to use the new user tutorial.

However, if you still want to attempt to create a new article, you should definitely read Your First Article, in addition to using the tutorial. You can then use Articles for Creation to create and submit a draft for review before it is formally placed in the encyclopedia. In this way, you will get feedback before it is in the encyclopedia, instead of afterwards when it will be treated more critically. Good luck. 331dot (talk) 07:45, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Recent edits to Sita page

Recently, multiple IPs and users (including a reentry blocked sock) have been removing sourced content, to push a certain WP :POV on Sita page. The recently blocked sock seems to reappear and edit again using IP address and also new users making their first edit and so on. The blocked sock had also used uncivilized language in edit summary. What should I do? Can anyone please help. Thanks. —Jakichandan (talk) 07:43, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

You could request page protection, which can be done at WP:RFPP. However, this is much simpler in the case of unambiguous vandalism. If all of the IP addresses and/or new users are unambiguously block-evading socks then it should be straightforward to have them blocked and it may be that an admin will also be willing to apply protection if it is frequent and ongoing. Otherwise, given that it appears to be essentially a content dispute, you may first need to get a clear consensus that the POV being added on the page should not be added, and you can then point to this consensus when requesting page protection. Regarding the uncivilised language, this can be reported at WP:ANI but unless it is especially egregious or frequent, it may not result in any immediate action other than a warning. Hug^syrup 08:22, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Help regarding a music-related article

Hello guys, can someone help me make this page verifiable and let me know if it's good enough? > URL=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:TNO_(DJs) Reneeshdonga (talk) 09:58, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@Reneeshdonga: - I'm afraid it's not good enough, as it's been declined and you haven't made any changes to it since then. There is guidance in the notice at the top about how to make it verifiable: essentially you need to find high quality sources: independent, in reliable publications, that discuss the subject in depth. Many musicians, especially young ones who only released their first recording two years ago, simply will not have enough material written about them to meet Wikipedia's standards for notability, so it may well be that there is nothing you can do right now to make that article notable. You may simply have to wait until more reliable publications have written about TNO. Hug^syrup 14:41, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Biographic article was declined for insufficient references.

Hello everyone! An article I've written was recently declined and the message I got referred me to here, if I have any questions about how to fix things. For some context: I'm to write an article here on wikipedia about my professor of roman law. (I'm her assistant.) I've already successfully done so in german, my native language. I translated the article to english myself, as I'm bilingual, not really changing anything. The article was pending for a while and I just saw now that it was declined for the reason: "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia."

I take this to mean that the article lacks independet sources on the subjectmatter. I admit, the only reference in the article is a reference to a book she co-published. However I don't believe there are any other references I could add, since she doesn't have a biography written about her. I linked her info-pages from the universities she works in under "Weblinks". Perhaps I should move those to "References"? I'm not sure how I could change the article so it fits the criteria better. The exact same version in german was accepted rather quickly, which surprises me even more. I also worked on a chinese version with some colleagues from China and I know they had some issues at first as well but those seme to have been cleared. Any help or suggestion is very welcome. I don't know if anyone here can read the articles, but just in case you can: Her name is Iole Fargnoli. You should find at least the chinese and german articles about her. Thank you for your time. VonWerdt (talk) 11:21, 16 October 2019 (UTC)VonWerdt — Preceding unsigned comment added by VonWerdt (talk • contribs) 10:48, 16 October 2019 (UTC) VonWerdt (talk) 11:19, 16 October 2019 (UTC)VonWerdt

Courtesy: draft is at Draft:Iole Fargnoli. And to VonWerdt, please 'sign' your comments by typing four of ~ at the end. David notMD (talk) 11:09, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@VonWerdt:. Welcome to The Teahouse. You've raised a few different points so I'm going to quickly address them in bullets - sorry if this comes off as brusque, I'm just trying to be clear.

• If you are writing about someone who you work for/with, you have a WP:COI. Please ensure you have read the guidelines on editing with a COI.
• If the only reference in the article is a book that she co-published, then this is not sufficient. It is a primary source, and is not independent, so it is essentially worthless as a reference.
• Should you move the info-pages to references? No - information pages on university websites etc are primary sources as well as not being independent, so are not suitable references. I suggest reading our guidance on reliable sources to help you understand the kind of sources you need to add.
• How you need to change the article is that you need to find, and add, several independent, reliable sources that discuss your professor in detail. If such sources do not exist then I am afraid she simply isn't ready for an article at this time.
• The fact that the article was accepted on Chinese and German wikipedias is not really relevant as they are different entities and have different standards. Although honestly I'm surprised and a bit shocked that those Wikipedias accepted an article with only the author's own book as a reference. Do those articles have more references? If you have high quality references in Chinese or German then you can add them here as references don't have to be in English.

I hope this helps. Hug^syrup 14:49, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

submission

Hi, I created an article on the musician Danny Briottet a long time ago, but it doesn't appear to have been published. I made some changes as suggested but still not published. I based the format of my subbmission on those on comparable musicians such as Alex Patterson and Andrew Weatherall, so I don't really see why there should be a problem. I am disappointed as I would like to contribute more to wikipedia. Could someone please let me know if and when my work will be published? Thank you, Gene — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gene.java (talk • contribs) 11:40, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Gene.java and welcome to the Teahouse. There is a blue button at the top of your sandbox article for you to resubmit the draft, but don't do it yet because the article is not ready. You need to read WP:Referencing for beginners and convert all your references to in-line, showing which statement each supports. Dbfirs 12:18, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Gene.java, the draft at User:Gene.java/sandbox has not been submitted to Articles for Creation for review. To do this, there is a "Submit your draft for review!" button at the bottom of the template at the top of the page. This will place the draft into the queue for reviewing, then moving to the encyclopedia.

At the moment, I would recomend changing the references to use <ref> tags - see Wikipedia:Tutorial/Citing sources for how to do this. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 12:23, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Gene.java , I can help you with the reference formatting. just tell me if you need help.Less Unless (talk) 19:02, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Resubmitted Article (Draft): Shuaibu Isa Lau

Hello, please I just wanted to know the status of my resubmitted draft (article). Here's the link; https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Shuaibu_Isa_Lau — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moshswacide (talk • contribs) 12:06, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello Moshswacide, your submission is in the queue to be reviewed. As the queue currently stands at around 3,500 articles, and reviewers don't review in any particuar order, it can be several months for an article to be reviewed. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 12:18, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Can list of notable authors be added to publishers page on Wikipedia?

Dear Teahouse representatives,

I wanted to ask about the case where I have a COI. As a person with COI I was strongly adviced not to edit the page directly (even if I state the COI), but to use the Talk page.

The issue is - the info I try to discuss on talk page is ignored. Here is an example: The only thing we want to is to have the same rights to add the same info as the others. In this case, we wanted to ad list of notable authors, just as other pages have added, please see an example here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_A._Knopf

Can you please advice what can we can do in cases when administrators are ignoring questions asked on the Talk page whether or not to add the list of notable authors? Have we missed some restrictions that deny an option to ad list of notable authors on the page? If that is the case does it mean such info should be removed from other pages as well?

Best regards, FYI 2020 (talk) 13:45, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi FYI 2020 and welcome to the Teahouse. I cannot find the requested edits that you are referring to. This is your only edit to Wikipedia using the above user name. Do you have another account? In general, names should be added only if they already have a Wikipedia article, then the name can be linked. Please let us know some examples where editors have ignored your request. It is not only administrators, but any independent editor who can make the changes for you. Who are the "we" that you refer to above? Dbfirs 14:36, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@Dbfirs: I am sorry for the confusion. I haven't made yet any edits yet. I am speaking about this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:OmniScriptum , please scroll till the end - the last request made by VarisGrin is to have any explanation on why we cannot add the list of notable authors. Are there any guidelines we (me, and VarisGrin) are missing? Any edits we try to do are seen as promotional. Is there anything we can do that improves the page? Any suggestions will be appreciated. Thank you.FYI 2020 (talk) 08:35, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Missing draft

Hi, How do I retrieve a draft that I did on my sandbox? I click submit the ML6484 (talk) 14:00, 16 October 2019 (UTC)draft for review and this morning I could not retrieve it nor find it. It is for my group project and I do not have another version or copy of it anywhere else. I am getting frustrated because it means I would have to start all over again.

Hi ML6484 and welcome to the Teahouse. Your sandbox has only ever had a couple of edits on October 7th, but is your draft at User:ML6484/citing sources? Dbfirs 14:29, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I used my group's sandbox draft section. On my page, our instructor assigned our group the article for review and editing. Under the members' usernames, there is a sandbox draft that I clicked last night and did my draft and clicked submit the draft for review. It is under Gaffneybrenna9/Ulcerativecolitis.ML6484 (talk) 14:36, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

That's odd. I cannot find that page or even that user. Perhaps someone else can find it for you. Dbfirs 14:42, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, ML6484, and welcome to the Teahouse. Your contributions to Wikipedia can be found at Special:Contributions/ML6484. You do not have any deleted contributions. Your personal sandbox is at User:ML6484/sandbox, but there is not much in it. The only edits to it were by you, and are shown here. I don't see any edits by you to a group sandbox page. There is no page like "Gaffneybrenna9/Ulcerativecolitis" that I can find. Is it possible that you had an edit conflict on the group page and the save never completed? I don't see any links to a group sandbox on the course page, which is at Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/DeSales University/Advanced Pathophysiology (Fall 2019) DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:10, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

The group's user is gaffneybrennan9/Ulcerativecolitis. I did it on the group sandbox draft section last night and I clicked submit draft for review.ML6484 (talk) 15:39, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

ML6484, the only user page is at User:Gaffneybrennan9/citing sources. StarryGrandma (talk) 15:50, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Can you guide me as to where should I do my draft for our group project in Ulcerative colitis? I tried applying what I have learned from our online training and I am not able to work it on my own. I have more than 5 articles at hand. I just don't want to lose my draft and start all over again. I even looked up on my browser history last night but it leads me nowhere.ML6484 (talk) 16:03, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@ML6484: There is a User:Gaffneybrennan9 with 'n' before '9'. Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/DeSales University/Advanced Pathophysiology (Fall 2019) says you, Gaffneybrennan9 and two others were "assigned" the article Ulcerative colitis. You are also listed in a box at top of Talk:Ulcerative colitis. All saved edits by the four users are at Special:Contributions/ML6484, Special:Contributions/Gaffneybrennan9, Special:Contributions/Vsiemion, Special:Contributions/Tdownie53. None of you have saved an edit in the last week, apart from your edits today. I don't know whether your course has special expectations about where to make a draft. A common place is the Sandbox link at top of any page. For you it is User:ML6484/sandbox. The three others can edit their own sandbox or your group can agree on one of the four sandboxes for shared work. You can edit the sandbox of other users but should usually only do it with their permission. Click Contributions at the top right of any page to see your saved edits. If you tried to save but don't see it there then it wasn't saved. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:21, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

ML6484, I suggest you try again at User:Gaffneybrennan9/Ulcerativecolitis. Be sure to click the Publish changes button twice to save. Try some test edits in User:ML6484/sandbox first to be comfortable that things are saving properly. In any case putting in a bit at a time and saving between small edits is often a good way to work. Good luck. StarryGrandma (talk) 16:27, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I just did try to retype on my sandbox and my draft is posted. I did the same thing last night, the in question missing draft, although I don't think I click publish twice or maybe none at all.ML6484 (talk) 16:39, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Published work removed.

I have recently made an article based on the overcomplification of the common nursery rhyme 'Johny Johny Yes Papa', and posted it on the 'internet memes' section of the rhymes page, as I have seen many memes based on the overcomplification of the same. It was there for one week before being removed, and I removed no notification for it except an invite link for the teahouse, and i'm currently using it to clarify my doubt. Thanks in advance! Drapal — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrapalDragon (talk • contribs) 15:48, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, DrapalDragon, and welcome to the Teahouse. I think Orenburg1 was wrong to call your edit to Johny Johny Yes Papa "vandalism", as it appears to have been in good faith - though your edits to Nae Nae clearly were vandalism. Orenburg1 was right to remove the edit because it was unreferenced: Wikipedia is not interested in what you (or I, or any other random person on the Internet) thinks or knows: it is only interested in what has already been written about in reliable published sources. Moreover, your claim that this is a derivative of the meme is original research, and also not allowed in Wikipedia. Finally, if it is an original work, as you say, it certainly does not belong. This is an encyclopaedia, not a collection of random thoughts.

Another point: reapplying an edit which another editor has reverted is called edit warring and is regarded as disruptive. Please don't do it again: see BRD for how to proceed. --ColinFine (talk) 16:45, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

And another point: your draft Draft:Jonathan( The fancy version of the rhyme) consists of a poem you wrote - an overcomplification of 'Johny, Johny Yes Papa'. It will never be accepted as an article. David notMD (talk) 21:06, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

How to do superscripts

I wish to provide a superscript to a date - in this case something like 1653 with a superscript 4.

Attempting to look this up does not get me anywhereCatchsinger (talk) 16:49, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Hey, Catchsinger, welcome back to the Teahouse! You can do superscripts using the following code: <sup>...</sup>. So for your example, you would type 1653<sup>4</sup> into the editing area, which will look like 1653⁴ when it's saved. Hope this helps! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:00, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@Catchsinger: I don't know why you want a superscript to a date but the most common reason is to make a reference. If that is your goal then the code is completely different. See Help:Referencing for beginners. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:29, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you writkeeper: I should have experimented. Primehunter, no, I have the hang of references, but RISM has a system of referring to musical works which requires things just like 1653⁴ . THanks to both anyway — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catchsinger (talk • contribs) 18:36, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

New to this

Hello all! I think I'm going to start doing Wikipedia as a part-time hobby now, trying to help out this community here and there. I don't trust myself to start full lists or articles quite yet, so any tips where I should start? I've been looking at cleanup opportunities and feel like that might be a starting point. I might be wrong though, so it's why I'm asking. Thanks in advance! Thaonepuppyguy (talk) 17:32, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello Thaonepuppyguy and welcome! I'm also quite new but I started in clean up projects and it was helpful to me. I also added info to the subjects I'm familiar with thus learning the editing basics. I would recommend you the Wikipedia Adventure - that was a good intro. Less Unless (talk) 19:08, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

can you pls tell that

how should i can write about my website oyetechy and what are the most common and necessary points that i should remember while writing about this?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Millersara (talk • contribs) 18:09, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello Millersara, and welcome to the Teahouse. If you mean that you want to create a WP-article about your blog, don't. More at WP:Conflict of interest. If you want to use your blog a source in WP-articles, don't. More at WP:SPS. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:25, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Can others help you edit before an article is published?

Title is the question. I am writing an article over the Philippine earthquake earlier today. I got enough a sharp paragraph down to get the page submitted so it would be out there while new reports of casualties and damage came in. It wasn’t declined, however, I was told to expand it more before it can be an article. Is there a way I can have a draft where others can help me edit it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elijahandskip (talk • contribs) 18:23, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@Elijahandskip: Please sign your posts with 4 tildes. Also, anyone can help. One thing about Wikipedia is collaboration. I’ll see what I can do to help. ;-). LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 19:34, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

One more thing, I saw a message someone left you on your talk page, and they say not every earthquake is notable. You need to make sure there is significant news about the earthquake that you are writing about. LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 19:38, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

One further thing, Elijahandskip. Wikipedia is not a news source, There is no deadline, and rushing to get an article written quickly will almost certainly result in a poorer article than taking the time. In the case of a very recent event, there is also a problem that nobody has a clue which features of the event will turn out to be the important and memorable ones; so an article created in a hurry is likely to contain a lot of matters than over time will be seen as unimportant (or even wrong), and it may miss entirely some matters which in the long term become important aspects of the event. Wikipedia is for the future more than for now. For a Wiki that covers unfolding events, see Wikinews. --ColinFine (talk) 20:47, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Official product images for phone

Recently an editor added an image for an article I created, the Samsung Galaxy M30s, which appear from the official product images as can be seen here and here and here. So, what is the copyright policy as it goes to official product images? The commons file states that the editor created the file. Is this a COI or how should I handle this? Taewangkorea (talk) 19:35, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Pinging editor @RhythmWiki: in good faith Taewangkorea (talk) 19:36, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I have downloaded the two images (front and back side of M30s) from here where it was published as fair use. But then I merged two images into one. Therefore I thought the copyright issue goes to me. RhythmWiki (talk) 19:48, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

So I was seeking others' thoughts on whether this is OK for use in an article as I am not sure. Taewangkorea (talk) 19:58, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@RhythmWiki and Taewangkorea: The page at https://www.samsung.com/in/microsite/galaxy-m/m30s/ does not provide any release or license, and the entire image is being used. This is a bit doubtful for fair use, but it might be acceptable. But to count as fair use the source must be clearly acknowledged. The merged images may not have enough originality for the editor to have any copyright at all, but at best it is a derivative work of the images downloaded from the Samsung site. As such, they are under the same copyright protection as the original images, and if a fair use claim is to be made, cannot be uploaded to commons and must have the source and fair use rationale properly documented. The image is tagged for speedy deletion at commons, and in my view properly so, although I am not a commons admin. I would delete this image from any and all Wikipedia articles promptly. Note that anyone who has access to this model of phone may take an original photo, which could be released freely and uploaded to commons. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:42, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the above assessment, and have proposed another upload by RhythmWiki for deletion as a blatant copyright violation. It is not accceptable to take another organisation's images and give away their rights to use it.Nick Moyes (talk) 21:57, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@DESiegel: I think Note that anyone who has access to this model of phone may take an original photo, which could be released freely and uploaded to commons. shouldn't be assumed to be automatic in that the design of the phone (i.e. it's appearance) may still be under copyright protection. While in some cases, the object being photographed may be considered utilitarian in shape, the artwork, labeling, etc. appearing on the object (e.g. the label on a bottle of beer) may still be protected by copyright. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:05, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@RhythmWiki: You should read c:Commons:Licensing because copyright doesn't transfer to you in this case. Finding photos online and downloading them to your computer is not a transfer of copyright. It's possible that you could use these photos to create a WP:Derivative work (also see c:Commons:Derivative works), but the original copyright of the photos you downloaded is still retained by the original copyright holder. So, in this case, there may be three copyrights in play: one for each of the original photos you downloaded and possibly one for your combination of them. The first two are for sure, but it seems highly unlikely that simply combining two copyrighted photos as you did would be considered sufficiently creative enough to generate a "new" copyright because basically all you did was reproduce someone else's work. It would be really no different in taking two pages from a book, placing them side by side, and then making a photo copy of them. However, even if by chance what you did was considered a derivative work eligible for it's own copyright, you still cannot upload such files to Commons without the permission of the original copyright holder of each element you used to make your derivative. My suggestion to you would be to tag this file and any other similar files you uploaded to Commons for speedy deletion using the template c:Template:SD as explained in c:Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion#G7 so that they will be deleted by a Commons administrator. You can do this as long as the file is not more than seven days old; older files need to be tagged with c:Template:Copyvio, c:Template:Dw no source since or be nominated for deletion via c:Commons:Deletion review. Any files of this nature are considered to be copyright violations, and can be tagged as such. For future reference, Commons doesn't accept any type of fair use content as explained in c:Commons:Fair use. It only accepts files which are 100% freely licensed or within the public domain. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:01, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for the advice. That is what I thought. I have also removed the image from an article in the Bengali Wikipedia. Taewangkorea (talk) 22:19, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Certain copyrighted images can be uploaded and used locally on English Wikipedia as explained in Wikipedia:Non-free content; each use of such an image, however, needs to satisfy Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. Generally, English Wikipedia does allow copyrighted images of products (e.g. a smartphone) to be uploaded and used for primary identification purposes at the top of articles about such products, but only as long as a freely licensed equivalent image cannot be found or created to serve essentially the same purpose. So, even though Commons can't keep the files discussed in this thread, it may be possible to re-upload them for local use on English Wikipedia as non-free content. There are many Wikipedias, however, besides English Wikipedia and not all of them allow non-free content to be used. Please check meta:Non-free content to determine whether Bengali Wikipedia does permit such content to be uploaded and used locally on it. If you don't find any information for Bengali Wikipedia on that page, you're going to need to ask for help on Bengali Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:21, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Taewangkorea, do you own this phone, or know someone who does? You can take your own photo of this phone, upload it to Commons, and then include your photo in the article. Mathglot (talk) 08:04, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

That's not necessarily the case and would depend upon on the type of picture and whether what is being photographed is subject to its own separate copyright protection. As I stated above, the shape of the phone is utilitarian enough but there may be copyrightable elements that appear on the phone or it's screen which need to be taken into account. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:57, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Are my edits immediately available to Wikipedia readers?

I've been editing Wikipedia for a while. To be honest, it's mainly because I like making/editing the summaries for movies and books. (The reason for why I created my account in the first place was because I often found them disappointing and wanted to edit them.) When I publish a change, it immediately goes through. Does it actually go through, though, or can I just see it on my account? I'd be annoyed if all this time I thought I was helping people understand plotlines and instead it was just silly me being overly pedantic for no reason. (Well, it probably is anyway, but at least I'd feel better about it.)

Thanks! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CandySaysRawr (talk • contribs) 20:31, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@CandySaysRawr: Yes, your edits are immediately visible. When you were not autoconfirmed, a measure to protect against unwanted accounts, it was a little bit different - some articles you may have edited, such as Carl Sagan, have no protection and acted the same for you as they do now. Others, say, December 25, have a special protection called pending changes protection, which means that new and unregistered editors' edits save, but special users (such as myself) must read the changes and approve them before they are visible. However, now you are autoconfirmed, so this does not affect you. Welcome to Wikipedia and happy editing! -A lad insane (Channel 2) 20:42, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! - candy — Preceding unsigned comment added by CandySaysRawr (talk • contribs) 06:13, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

How to request help improve an article.

I created a draft page so that I could draft improvements to and article that I should not be editing directly because of a conflict of interest. However, I would like to suggest improvements and then request that other editors consider making the changes. The original iteration of this article had a lot more content but because it was poorly written a fair amount of the content was removed before it could be accepted. I would like to offer some changes such as, adding some headings which only make sense if there is some addition content. I wanted to create a private space to work on this. The page I created to do this task is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LorriBrown/Draft_page has been tagged for deletion by User talk:SD0001. Can you enlighten me as to how best to go about doing this? Thank you in advance for your consideration! LorriBrown (talk) 20:34, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, LorriBrown, and welcome to the Teahouse. Your draft has not been deleted, but has been moved to a more suitable place, in your user space: User:LorriBrown/Draft page, where you can continue to work on it. When you are ready, you can suggest edits on the talk page Talk:Kent Tate, and explicitly link to your draft page. My personal advice would be not to work on the whole page, but to do it a section at a time. See Talk:Bradford Playhouse#Recent events in the Playhouse's history. for how I rewrote one section with a COI. --ColinFine (talk) 20:54, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

ColinFine Nice!! Thank you for the example. LorriBrown (talk) 21:13, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@LorriBrown: once you have drafted the changes you would like to make, then you can request to have the changes reviewed and implemented by making an edit request. To get to grips with edit requests, my advice would be to read Wikipedia:Simple conflict of interest edit request. Best wishes, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 21:17, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Creating articles for recording gaming results

Hello esteemed Wikipedia users!

Brand new user here, and I'm going to be totally up front and honest about the reason for my being here.

I am an eSports racer for F1 2019 on Xbox. I had, perhaps naively, intended to create a Wikipedia page replicating the information available on Formula One but for the league I race in instead.

Having read your policies and the like, it is clear to me that it was a very bad idea.

To this end, does anyone have any recommendations for a similar (preferably free) platform I could use for this purpose?

I eagerly await your advice. --A Ric Ton1ght (talk) 21:58, 16 October 2019 (UTC) (call me Adrian).

A Ric Ton1ght, This is not something that we help with. We help new editors learn the ropes necessary to be successful contributors. Try asking on Quora. Interstellarity (talk) 22:18, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

This page lists alternatives to Wikipedia that may permit what you are seeking. 331dot (talk) 15:05, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Name Change on Product

Can someone help me change the name of this plane to eFlyer 4 rather than Sun Flyer 4? Article: Bye Aerospace Sun Flyer 4

//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bye_Aerospace_Sun_Flyer_4

I work for Bye Aerospace and we renamed the plane. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.0.83.126 (talk) 21:58, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I have moved the page. However, you state that you work for that company. This means you have a conflict of interest with that company. You must disclose this on your user page. Please avoid editing the article directly and make edit requests on the talk page of the article using the {{request edit}} template. I have posted on your talk page with more info on your COI. Interstellarity (talk) 22:22, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

How do you become a editor/admin

Good evening Wikipedia! I'm wondering how do you become an editor, or administrator in Wikipedia? Gumshoe97 (talk) 21:59, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@Gumshoe97: Welcome to Wikipedia. Every user, including you, is an editor. Becoming an administrator requires a history of being a good editor with a strong track record on Wikipedia with knowledge of the various policies. Administrators have only a few additional tools not available to everyone else, and it is mostly so they can clean up messes. See WP:ADMIN. RudolfRed (talk) 22:10, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! Gumshoe97 (talk) 23:15, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Badges

I've heard there were badges in Wikipedia. How can I earn those? Porygon-Z (talk) 23:01, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@Porygon-Z474: Hola y bienvenidos a la casa de té. You have already earned some badges already on WP:TWA. Keep doing it and you will earn all 15 of them. Interstellarity (talk) 00:12, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

How do I earn them. Like what do I have to do to get them? Porygon-Z (talk) 00:14, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Porygon-Z474, Complete all the missions. I see you got some already on your user page. Use these missions to learn the basics on editing Wikipedia. Once you complete each mission, you will earn a badge that will be placed on your user page when your done. Does that help? Interstellarity (talk) 00:20, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Somewhat. What are the missions? Porygon-Z (talk) 00:22, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

When you launch WP:TWA, follow through with the prompts, after you do that, there will be a list of missions at the bottom of the screen, click on one of them to learn something from it. After you complete the mission, you will earn a badge. Does that help? Interstellarity (talk) 00:26, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I think so, Ill come back if I have more questions. Porygon-Z (talk) 00:39, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Wait I can't view pictures what do i do? Porygon-Z (talk) 00:47, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I am going to head to sleep now. I might help you tomorrow. Someone else will look into it for you if I'm offline. Interstellarity (talk) 00:54, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Ok well i'll see you around Porygon-Z (talk) 01:09, 17 October 2019 (UTC):

@Porygon-Z474: I'm not quite sure how to help you with your question above. I will ask another editor to answer it for you. Interstellarity (talk) 13:56, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

OK Well that's good Because I'm kinda not understanding this at all. Porygon-Z (talk) 15:14, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

• I was asked to come here, but I'm afraid I know little of badges. Sorry. 331dot (talk) 17:31, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

social studies for jss3 nigerian students . topic: population

what is population,population census ,meaning,importance and problems — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harry Soberekon (talk • contribs) 23:27, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Please do your own homework.
Welcome to the Teahouse. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misevaluation, but it is our policy here not to do others' homework, but merely to aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn how to solve such problems.
Please attempt to solve the problem yourself first. You can search Wikipedia or search the Web.
If you need help with a specific part of your homework, the Reference desk can help you grasp the concept. Do not ask knowledge questions here, just those about using Wikipedia. Interstellarity (talk) 00:16, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Questions about adding a bibliography to an article.

I would like to add a bibliography to an article but first would like to find out the best way to go about doing that. I get confused as to which style to use for the entries (i.e., MLA, APA or Chicago etc.), what should or should not be included, and whether or not there should be a citation to accompany the entries. Any advice would be greatly appreciated! Thanks, LorriBrown (talk) 23:54, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@LorriBrown: Check out Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lists_of_works#Publications_(Works,_Bibliography). Interstellarity (talk) 00:22, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

what is the criteria for addition to the Wikipedia "List of Transgender People"

i was the founder of the Deaf Club: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Deaf_Club and i am, the last west coast punk rock impresario and most importantly (to me) a trans person. i eschew celebrity, but in this decade and at seventy three, its important to be visible to your readership as a public trans person. how can i be added to the list? thxs in advance. daphne hanrahan

also, Bambi Lake isn't on the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.149.240.85 (talk) 01:26, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

For anyone to be included on a list of people, they must be notable and have their own article. LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 01:30, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

{ping|{My Little Pony|71.149.240.85|71.149.240.85}}I am not so sure about that. What you are referring to is BLUE linked names to people who have articles. However without creating an internal link, if a person has significant coverage, which can be cited,then I believe they can be mentioned, just not linked, e.g. Bambi Lake(citation 1, 2) provided these are significant coverages and not just twitter handles, mentions, blogs and the like. There are well known, borderline famous, people who just haven't yet arrived at the point where they have significant mentions in reliable sources, yet nether the less they are notable, at leastlocally.Oldperson (talk) 01:42, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

The most basic common selection criteria is that the person already have an existing Wikipedia article written about them. This is often why reference is made to WP:WTAF when discussing such lists; however, in some cases depending on the nature of the list, it is also sometimes acceptable to add entries for for individuals without existing articles, but for who it's reasonable to expect that a Wikipedia article can be written. In the latter case, a citation is almost always going to be necessary to demonstrate has received significant coverage to be Wikipedia notable. It kind of depends upon the type of list and the consensus agreed to upon the list's talk page, but the important thing is to ensure that the list is a list of "Wikipedia notable individuals" and not just a place for WP:Namechecking. Nobody has a right to have their name added to such a list, and disagreements need to be resolved through WP:DR just like any other content dispute. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:03, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

It is essential that the person self-identity as transgender in a published reliable source, which must be cited as a reference, either in a biography of the person, or in the list. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:10, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Referencing a book and picture.

Hello can you please reference this book please. The book:

Title: Gunning for Greatness Author: Mesut Özil ISBN: 978-1-473-64995-8 LlewynYiming (talk) 07:34, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi LlewynYiming. I'm not sure what you mean by reference this book. Do you want to know how to format a citation for the book and then add it to an article? If that's the case, please take a look at Help:Referencing for beginners. You also seem to be working on Draft:Gunning For Greatness. Do you want some advice on how to create a Wikipedia article? In that case, please take a look at Help:Your first article and Wikipedia:Notability (books). -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Also, how do you add a picture to a Wikipedia page?— Preceding unsigned comment added by LlewynYiming (talk • contribs) 07:43, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

It depends upon what type of picture you want to add and which page you want to add it too, but you can find out some general information in Wikipedia:Image use policy. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:48, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

@LlewynYiming: Also, when I want to do something I don't know how to do, the easiest thing to do is to find a similar thing and see how it was done there. There are many thousands of articles on books – find one and edit it to see the source of the article and find what you need (taking care to just exit the page, not hit the Publish changes button). There is also extensive help available in the Help and Wikipedia namespaces, e.g. this search for "image". —[AlanM1(talk)]— 11:26, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

@LlewynYiming: I made an MLA citation using Citation Machine.

Thank You so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LlewynYiming (talk • contribs) 04:54, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

My article on Freshman Interest Groups

First I want to thank Angus Woof for his review. He made two points, one that the term Freshman Interest Groups is a neologism. I don't know how to demonstrate that it isn't since it has been in use for about 30 years and is a common program name at dozens of universities across the country, as well as the subject of numerous articles in research journals in the area of higher education.

My second question has to do with making the tone more encyclopedic. I'm not sure how to do that. I guess I thought I was being objective, but is there a difference between objective and encyclopedic? I would love to have someone explain that to me. Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KToke69 (talk • contribs) 07:53, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

KToke69 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. See this text for more information; you would need many more independent reliable sources to show that this term is in common use and discuss the term itself, not merely use it. If there is not wide discussion of the term, as the page I linked to states "Neologisms that are in wide use but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia." 331dot (talk) 07:58, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Looks like there are plenty. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 11:32, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Help correct the table

Hi! I was adding the technical stuff missing on the page Zaragoza but after my edit it's a mess, although it seemed I did everything correctly. Please can someone help change that and explain me what I did wrong for the future. Thank you! --Less Unless (talk) 09:57, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I seem to have fixed the problem, by adding a newline after each staff member. I've no idea why this worked. Maproom (talk) 10:10, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, i was shocked when I saw it). --Less Unless (talk) 10:22, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

The templates add table code which must be at the start of a line. The template-produced table end |} was displayed in the Álex Sosa cell in [2] instead of ending the table so the rest of the article became part of the table. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:30, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

PrimeHunter thank you!Less Unless (talk) 18:55, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

how to change page name

Hi - I work for a museum in Wales UK. We need to change the title at the top of our page to include the new Welsh name for the museum. I have managed to edit the rest of the page to include the Welsh version of our new name but cannot edit the title. How can I do this? Can you help? Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.49.165.125 (talk) 10:49, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Changing the title of an article requires a page move, which you can request at Requested Moves. You may also want to discuss it with other editors on the article talk page; Wikipedia does not necessarily use official or legal names as article titles. (see WP:COMMONNAME)

As a museum employee, you will need to review and comply with the conflict of interest and paid editing policies; the latter is a Terms of Use requirement and mandatory for paid editors. 331dot (talk) 11:07, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

The article name has been changed by another editor. If you intend to have any more edits to this article you should register an account and then declare on your User page that you have a PAID relation to the topic. That means that you should propose changes on the Talk page (change X to Y, or add Y) so that a not-connected editor can evaluate and either implement the changes or not. David notMD (talk) 15:50, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Made an edit with reliable sources but it was rejected

Hello,

I made an edit on a popular African musician page citing reliable sources. It was removed because the moderator believed that I didn't provide a reliable source. However, these reliable sources aren't from new media houses, they are very much POPULAR here in Africa. The confusing fact is, most of the approved references on the current musician page is from same media houses I cited. Why was mine not approved? e.g. There is a wiki article about "Musician A" referencing Forbes and was approved. A news broke out days ago about the "musician A" and Forbes picked it, the musician confirmed it on twitter and IG and I added it on wiki. So what could be wrong?

Another confusing thing here is the moderator wrote to me ". . . If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. . ." but when I went to his/her talk page to talk, I saw this " . . . If you came here because I reverted your unsourced change, cite your references in the article you edited; there is no use bringing them here. I turned off most notifications in my preferences, and therefore can't see pings, sorry."

Could it be that the moderator is not very much aware of these references? In fact, one of the references I cited is from a media house that has a wikipedia page. I took 1 week to carefully read what is accepted and what not on Wikipedia. I’m interested in writing articles about popular entrepreneurs within the African region and could see that most of these popular entrepreneurs aren’t well covered despite the fact that they’re popular here. Writersmagic (talk) 11:55, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

@Writersmagic: This first edit did fail to cite a reliable source. That was what the message was about.

The other edit, when you did cite the source, was undone as being promotional. Wikipedia doesn't say things like "heartthrob." The message you received was not about that but about the first edit.

Also, the more serious problem is that you copied text directly from the cited sources. Never do that. Summarize and paraphrase, never copy.

You might want to check out this guide I wrote that covers a variety of issues new users tend to face. It includes a section on how to write articles that won't be rejected or deleted, as well as a section on finding sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:57, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

How to cite something from the internet archive

I want to reference a book that's on the internet archive (https://archive.org/details/hussitewars00lt/page/n23). Do I have to have a special kind of citation, or can I just cite it as I would cite any other book?

Thanks!

-Aven13 —Preceding undated comment added 13:07, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

@Aven13: Just cite it as any other book! All that would be different is you can use the URL parameter of the citation template to link to the link you placed here. Sam Walton (talk) 13:10, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

@Aven13: Here's a handy online tool that I use frequently to generate MLA-style citations. 𝕎𝕚𝕜𝕚𝕎𝕒𝕣𝕣𝕚𝕠𝕣𝟡𝟡𝟙𝟡 (talk) 17:59, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Is Livefist a reliable source

Can I cite Livefist Defence in Wikipedia? It is primarily written by senior journalist Shiv Aroor of India Today, who can be credited with getting hold of the first footage of K4 SLBM... I am asking this since a user repeatedly reverted my edits in which I cited Livefist a few months ago(probably because I was a very new user back then)— Vaibhavafro ^💬 14:02, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

• The question you ask, about the reliability of a particular source, would be better asked at WP:RSN. From a quick search it's neither obviously bonkers nor a newspaper of record but I know little about the subject.

The question you implied is whether that revert was justified. I think it is. The edit summary was incorrect in saying "not RS" because the sentence is attributed to Arun Prakash, so an interview with that person is a reliable primary source for what the person said (as long as it is published somewhere where quotes are not fabricated). However, the ref text did not match what the article said. Compare the ref: And the final thought; would a brand new nuclear war-head required to face the rigours of an underwater launch, not require a “hot” test to prove its design? is a hypothetical ("if we got a new nuke we would have to test it in real conditions"); vs the Wikipedia text was (...) has said that a “brand new nuclear war-head” has been created for INS Arihant and her sister ships, which is designed to “face the rigours of an underwater launch” which is not hypothetical ("we got a new nuke ready for those conditions"). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:28, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

@Tigraan: I am surprised about how you could read my mind. The title of that article was "Arihant in perspective". If the Admiral mentions a "brand new warhead", he obviously meant it for Arihant.— Vaibhavafro ^💬 15:54, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

@Tigraan: But I agree. This is Wikipedia and we have to be careful about WP:OR.— Vaibhavafro ^💬 16:31, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Also WP:SYNTH. The source looks like it might be reliable, given that it is cited in other sources, but at least one of those was an article written by Aroor himself. I don't know the relationships between the various Indian media outlets, so it's hard to tell how much of it is independent of him (i.e. to see if other RSs regard him as reliable). Some of the headlines are more inflammatory in language than U.S. defense commentary sites, but that may not be unusual in India. Definitely discuss it at RSN, as it seems like a useful source if reliable. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 16:55, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Help required

Me and my team wrote and Article on one of our local Internet Celebrity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ishaqahmedwriter/sandbox

Wikipedia nominated it to be deleted as it promotes someone or a brand . However this was a neutral article. Kindly help me out — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ishaqahmedwriter (talk • contribs) 15:53, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

And....the Sandbox has been blanked by an Administrator. I had a glimpse of it before it vanished and agree that it was promotional and not adequately referenced. Much of the content had no references. Social media, blogs, facebook, etc. are not considered reliable sources for referencing. Numbers of followers does not convey notability in the Wikipedia sense of the word. It may just be WP:TOOSOON for this person to meet Wikipedia's requirements for notability. David notMD (talk) 16:07, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

First Submission Questions

My first submission to Wikipedia was on September 15, 2019. It was rejected same day for lack of internal citations. Re-submitted with internal citations, and nothing but total silence for 4 weeks. Is this a good sign? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AMGMUNSON (talk • contribs) 16:04, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I imagine that reviewers have left your resubmission aside because the referencing is thoroughly confused. You have one set of citations from the text of the article, but then another set of disjointed "references" after the reflist. If this second set are not being used to support the article text, perhaps you intended to remove them? You can continue to improve the draft while you wait for it to be reviewed. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:13, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for that input. AMGMUNSON — Preceding unsigned comment added by AMGMUNSON (talk • contribs) 16:43, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

@AMGMUNSON: also, drafts are reviewed in no particular order so it may take more than 2 months before it is reviewed. There is currently a backlog of over 3,400 submissions right now. Taewangkorea (talk) 17:19, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Question on talk pages

Hi, how to structure a statement on a talk page?--Bubblesorg (talk) 16:06, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

@Bubblesorg: To create a new statement on a talk page you use two equal signs (== TITLE ==) to create a title, then below that you write your things. Taewangkorea (talk) 16:15, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I know that, but how do you make a remark properly --Bubblesorg (talk) 16:18, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Disingenuous behavior. Bubblesorg has been a member for over a year, has made 500+ edits, including many on Talk pages, chided for copyright infringement, and blocked for a while for sockpuppetry. If there is a specific question, ask it, but do not waste peoples' time with vague statements. David notMD (talk) 16:28, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

No, I was asked by another editor to ask such questions, I guess you dont get what Im trying to ask, and thats Understadable. Also I have changed since then, thats why im asking right now. I will ask another time once I have got my thoughts organized --Bubblesorg (talk) 16:36, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

You ought to read WP:Talk page guidelines. One of the things for which you were criticised on your own user talk page was the indentation. I have corrected your message to use one more colon than the message to which you were replying. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:47, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

okay thank you--Bubblesorg (talk) 16:59, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Auto-confirmed tag

How can I get an auto-confirmed tag? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gokulh97 (talk • contribs) 16:19, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

The criteria for an account to be autoconfirmed are at WP:autoconfirmed. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:28, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

@Gokulh97: Basically says you have to have an account at least 4 days old and 10 edits. You have more than 10 edits so in a few days you will be autoconfirmed. Taewangkorea (talk) 17:17, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

What justifies removing the autobiographical tag?

I worked on a page with this tag, and I don't know if it is an autobiography--seems like legit description — Preceding unsigned comment added by Excitedfish (talk • contribs) 17:29, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Courtesy link Gabriel Filippelli. Problematic bio to say the least. Autobiography likely created by the subject, who also went on to replace citations in Phosphorite with references to his own papers. I added a note to the Phosphorite talk page. Extra experienced eyes needed. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:06, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

The tag could be removed if you were able to convince the article's editors that User:Gfilippe is not the subject of the article. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:12, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Correct article name?

Hello! I've just created an article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nabi_Tajima_(Q17686907) via clicking on a red link. It was the first article i've done this way (i submitted drafts for revisions before). My question would be - should i have removed the weird code after the name? I haven't even noticed it at first and now it's in the articles name. What does it stand for and how to get rid of it? Thank you in advance!--Less Unless (talk) 18:49, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

@Less Unless: Note: I have requested someone to move the title for you. I will let someone else answer this question. Interstellarity (talk) 19:42, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

@Less Unless: Q17686907 is an arbitrary database number for her at https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q17686907. It's called a Wikidata ID and should definitely not be in the page name at Wikipedia. Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red apparently use a system at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Number of links and some other pages where they look up women in Wikidata and add the Wikidata ID to make a red link if there already is a redirect at the normal name. In this case Nabi Tajima is currently a redirect to List of Japanese supercentenarians#Nabi Tajima. The article belongs at Nabi Tajima. See Wikipedia:Redirect#How to edit a redirect or convert it into an article, but don't change this example now. If you change a redirect to an article then you will not be registered as the creator of the page but the page history will still display your edit. A redirect can be made for several reasons. One of them is that there once was an article. Here an old article [3] was nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nabi Tajima (2nd nomination). It was decided to redirect her to the list so your article risks the same fate. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:20, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

PrimeHunter Thank you for the elaborate explanation. I should have checked if the article had been deleted first, my bad. I also thought that articles listed as red links within the projects do not necessarily have to undergo this sort of examination, but now I understand that it doesn't apply to all of the links, in fact to none. I've gained better understanding now, thank you! Less Unless (talk) 09:36, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Best approach to requesting unblock a second time (web host block)

Hi Teahouse! So, I was caught by a web host block. Oops #1. So, I double-checked that no VPN services were running and requested an unblock. Unfortunately, I was too hasty, not realizing that IP sometimes fail to renew automatically...so I reported the same, bad IP in my unblock request. Oops #2.

Now that I seem to have the problem solved and understand what happened, I’m wondering about the admin’s comment that I should “try again 24 hrs later”. Does this mean that it’s considered poor form to add the new request until 24 hrs has passed? Or, is it okay to add the unblock template at any time, and the 24 hr delay refers to a sort of suspension time before my request would be considered?

I read through the WP:GAPB and didn't see anything directly pertinent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irene Footjack (talk • contribs) 19:14, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Hola Irene Footjack y bienvenidos a la casa de té. If you can edit this page, then you are not blocked, so there is no need to do anything. Interstellarity (talk) 19:37, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Gracias, Interstellarity. Quite right; there appear to be no longer any blocks on my user account. I'm pleased, though somewhat confused as to what triggered that reversal, since the admin's response declining my request is still there on my talk page, and no other messages. Will that box go away at some point? Does it matter? Should I remove it? Irene Footjack (talk) 20:08, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Picture Change

I need to replace the photo associated with the page "Bye Aerospace eFlyer 2" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bye_Aerospace_eFlyer_2

Replace existing photo with the one in this article : https://chargedevs.com/newswire/%EF%BB%BFbye-aerospace-tests-eflyer-2-prototype-with-90-kw-siemens-motor/

Can someone update a photo on "Bye Aerospace eFlyer 2"? I work for Bye Aerospace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.0.83.126 (talk) 21:26, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

@107.0.83.126: First, since you claim to work for the company, you need to declare your conflict of interest. It is strongly discourage to edit your company's article if you have one. Also, images must be free due to legal reasons. See Wikipedia:Copyright for more info. --LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 21:34, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

You will also need to read the paid editing policy, compliance of which is mandatory. 331dot (talk) 21:37, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

upload functionality fail

I want to upload a picture. But upload tool doesn't start.

Any advice? — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|Cybernisse (talk) 23:24, 17 October 2019 (UTC)]] comment added by Cybernisse (talk • contribs) 22:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

You need to be autoconfirmed to upload pictures, if you are and it does not work, clear your browser cache and flush DNS --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 20:48, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Suspect advert page

I clicked by chance on San Román Clinic - I think this is just a "puff" piece and needs to be deleted - especially as the only person to edit it appears to be a sock puppet - not sure what to do about it, can someone please advise me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkohen (talk • contribs) 22:49, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

@Dkohen:. Ok, so what makes you think that Darthvader2 is a sockpuppet? You can report the user to WP:SPI but you will need to a) know which account you believe they are a sockpuppet of, and b) have some evidence of this.

As for the page... yes, it does look quite promotional but that doesn't necessarily mean it should be deleted, it may just need improvement. You could add a tag to it such as {{advert}}, and raise your concerns on the article talk page. Alternatively, if you really think it should be deleted, you can follow the instructions at WP:AFD to list it there. I'm not going to make an assessment of whether I agree, because too many of the sources are in Spanish and I just don't feel qualified to determine whether they are sufficient sources or not. Hug^syrup 10:37, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

@Dkohen: @Hugsyrup: Hello, thanks for the notification. This is a simple translation of the article in Spanish. San Román clinic is a prominent establishment in Alicante, with 40 years of experience, with repercussion in several European countries. I don't think the article is promotional, it simply mentions the history of the clinic and its founder and the procedures that are performed there. In addition, it cites several references that demonstrate its encyclopaedic relevance. If adjustments need to be made, I have no objection to making them. On the other hand, I'm a Wikipedia registered user since 2007. You can check my contributions here, which to date are almost 6000 creations. Most of my contributions are made on Wikipedia in Spanish, but I have already translated some articles in this English version. Darthvader2 (talk) 15:19, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

The accusation of sockpuppetry seems false, unless I'm missing something. But, about the page, I must say, that gallery? Why is that even there? The content itself is a bit of a "puff", but what makes the whole thing really look like an advert is that gallery. VdSV9•♫ 15:29, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

@VdSV9: No problem, I will remove the gallery and add a link to the gallery in Commons to prevent the page from having this promotional tone. Darthvader2 (talk) 16:05, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Copy file/picture from Wiki Article

I want to copy a file from one article to another. How is it done? Article is locked if that makes any difference.. — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|Cybernisse (talk) 23:23, 17 October 2019 (UTC)]] comment added by Cybernisse (talk • contribs) 23:16, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Cybernisse. Images (and other files) are not held in articles: they are held separately, either in Wikipedia or (usually) in Commons. Any number of articles can include them, just picking them up by name. What I suggest is that you edit (or View Source) the article which already has the image, and find where the picture in question is included; then just copy that inclusion (which will probably be of the form [[File:name of file|options]]) into the second article. If the second article is the one that is locked, you will need to suggest this on its talk page. --ColinFine (talk) 23:32, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

What to do to publish a draft updating an already existing entry?

Hello To work at my own pace on a polemic entry, I chose to write a userspace draft. I've made substantial changes, in fact way more than I intended! Before applying the changes to the main article, I would like to get some feedback. What would be the best way to do it? A RfC, a Wikipedia:Peer_review, or something else? I already posted the link on the talk page since I've started working on it about a week ago and no other editors chimed in, so I would like to use a more official form of community feedback request to increase the chances it's read. Thank you in advance --Signimu (talk) 01:24, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

PS: for those interested, it's this entry: Fad diet, and here's my draft: User:Signimu/Fad diet - and please feel free to edit --Signimu (talk) 01:26, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Signimu and welcome to the Teahosue. It is often not the best idea to do such an extensive rewrite of an article in one large edit. It would be better, in future, to do it one piece at a time in the article itself. But if you want feedback from those who know the topic, i would post to Talk:Fad diet, which seems somewhat active -- oh i see you have been posting there. You could also try to find a rlevant wikipeoject, althoguh many of those ar enot active any more. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:52, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you :-) Yes I agree but when an article is both a mess with low quality outdated sources AND polemic, starting from a blank slate seemed like a good idea Anyway if asking on the Wikiproject is OK then great, I'll do that, have a nice day! --Signimu (talk) 01:58, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

(Let me clarify also that I rewrote the article under WP:MEDRS, whereas it was not part of the Medicine WikiProject before, that's in fact the main reason why I decided to start off from scratch since it's a different kind of article ) --Signimu (talk) 02:09, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

The article in question dates back to 2003. Since then, hundreds of editors have made changes. In theory, this has led to a relatively good article. Rather than a radical replacement, I have two suggestions: 1) DO NOT SUBMIT YOUR DRAFT. Instead, do a section by section replacement in the existing article, each section change as a separate edit with an appropriate Edit summary. This will retain the history of the article and show your changes, and 2) The list of fad diets, to which it appears you do not intend to change much, could be split off to create a separate article (list articles exist), so that the remaining Fad diet article would be shorter, while having a link to the list article. David notMD (talk) 11:27, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Great idea, thank you very much! Yes ofc I didn't intend to submit without a proper review & consensus first I thought about adding section by section but wasn't sure it would be OK as I never saw that done before, but I can definitely apply changes section by section, maintaining refs consistency, one section per day to leave some time for other editors to review. I'll do that if I don't get any feedback at all after a few days --Signimu (talk) 13:52, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

And great suggestion for the list, we weren't sure what to do with another editor, we'll consider this option, thanks again! --Signimu (talk) 13:55, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

For articles I have raised to Good Article status I did section-by-section revisions and replacements, creating new sections at Talk for those articles if I thought needed. See Folate as recent example. You should be aware that there are a number of highly experienced editors who Watch articles related to nutrition/health, so don't be surprised to find that your edits are being further modified. P.S. The section you want to call Medically recommended nutrition is still utter crap. I advise deleting the content from Dr. Nestle and Katz, and instead replace with content from government or reputable non-gov't sources. David notMD (talk) 14:57, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Your great examples cleared up a lot of my questions Thanks also for the feedback, it's a leftover from the mainspace article, I will update! --Signimu (talk) 21:57, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Is religious censorship allowed on Wikipedia?

Hello, Two weeks ago I found out that the article about the mount Sinai revelation (where Moses received the ten commandments) presents this mythological event as real, actual history: the event is described exactly as the Bible says, without any mension that the factuality of the event is being questioned by leading researchers for at least 40 yesrs, and without framing the event as a story, myth or legend. Au contraire: there is a section specifying the exact day and year in which the event supposedly happened, which makes the article seem scientific and factual. First I tried to gently add only the words "myth" or "story" to the article, just to make it more encyclopedic, but these edits were erased by editors. Then I tried to add a sentence about modern researchers not accepting the biblical account word for word - that was erased too. So I brought references in the chat page to several influential academic researchers who support my claim, along with links to their articles, books and interviews - these were simply ignored by editors, who kept asking me for references while failing to bring any reference to support their own stand on the subject. Is wikipedia supposed to be censored because of religious reasons? How can I get the important fact about the Mt. Sinai revelation being considered a myth into the article, when the editors are reluctant to mention it because of religious or political reasons? Any help, tip or personal experience will be much appreciated. איתמראשפר (talk) 05:07, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

@איתמראשפר: Which article? Your username's only contribution here is the posting above. Thanks. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 05:12, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

@איתמראשפר: This is the English Wikipedia, and we have no say at all over what happens on the Hebrew Wikipedia, where the dispute you're referring to took place. You'd have to have a discussion there about their policies. ST47 (talk) 05:50, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Template:Re:AlanM1 it's an article in the Hebrew Wikipedia, here it is. There's no English version but I hope that any online translation service will suffice to show that it's purely religious with no scientific reference or a disclaimer about the article dealing with a myth rather than history.

Template:Re:ST47 So if most Hebrew editors support this religious indoctrination of Wikipedia there's nothing anyone can do about it? I've been discussing this issue for two weeks already on the chat page, but it's not getting anywhere: the editors won't even agree to refer to the event as mythical or legendary! איתמראשפר (talk) 06:11, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

איתמראשפר, the only relationship between Hebrew Wikipedia and English Wikipedia is they have the same owner. Each Wikimedia website has its own policies and guidelines. We cannot offer advice or guidance about Hebrew Wikipedia. This forum is for English Wikipedia. John from Idegon (talk) 06:25, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

איתמראשפר, what John from Idegon said. I took a look at the discussion with g-translate (works surprisingly well in parts) and I sympathize. If this was en-wp, I would look at what the policies said, start a discussion or ask for more input at relevant noticeboards or wikiprojects, that may help but it seems your up against some reluctance. As a very long shot, you could try to get someone like [4] interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:11, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

If you're up for it, you could start a hebrew Historicity of the Bible. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:14, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Gråbergs Gråa Sång, for your effort and sympathy! I'll look up the policies of the Hebrew site and see if there's anything that can be done or anyone I can turn to. I did consider contacting the press about it, but only as a last resort as I don't want to embarrass Wikipedia in the news. Anyways, the journalist you pointed out seems like a great option so I might contact him. Thanks again! איתמראשפר (talk) 08:31, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

איתמראשפר, don't worry too much about that, WP is imperfect (comes from being made by people), and the media has noticed this, once or twice: Wikipedia:Press coverage 2019. Of course, the media has also sometimes noticed that all in all, WP is pretty great. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:55, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång It is great, isn't it? :) איתמראשפר (talk) 10:19, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I think so. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:39, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Isn't this resolution[5] implying that religious censorship is not accepted in all Wikipedia projects/languages? --Signimu (talk) 13:49, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't know Hebrew but based on Google Translate, I don't think איתמראשפר gives a completely fair description. The translation starts "Mount Sinai is a formative Biblical event", and the main description has heading "The description in the Bible" ("The course of events in the Bible" before איתמראשפר got involved). The English Wikipedia has many articles which describe a religious belief without going into ways it contradicts normal history and science, but we may repeat more times that it's according to the religion. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:29, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

For example, Marriage at Cana where Jesus turned water into wine according to the Gospel of John, does not mention that it contradicts modern chemistry and physics because it would require cold fusion to get carbon from hydrogen and oxygen. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:44, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Marriage at Cana is IMO well structured. "is the first miracle attributed to Jesus in the Gospel of John... Biblical account... Interpretation." That's how I want it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:28, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

translation Jp>Eng

I'm a translator from Japanese to English and would like to work on pages that I have some knowledge about. 航空宇宙軍史 I've translated (in the Mac app "Pages") the Japanese article about the hard-SF series by Kōshū Tani known as 航空宇宙軍史, (kō kū uchū gun shi) and pasted in the URLs for the links to the English articles about topics mentioned in the article, such as FTL travel. Next I would like to make the contents page link to the relevant sections within the page, but don't know how. The links in the original article are URLs starting with the URL for [the whole Japanese page], but I don't have a URL for [the whole English page] until I create that page. Is it possible to create the English page and keep it invisible until I've finished putting the links together?

If so, or even if not, please tell me what to do next.

I'm also open to suggestions on other pages that might be in need for translation J to E. The reverse is possible but only if a native Japanese editor is available to polish my efforts.

2) I'd assumed that the "Talk" button at the top of the page led to a place where people discuss the article concerned but it only leads to "User TalkːSimon Varnam" where I seem to be able to send messages to myselfǃ Will anybody else see what I put there and respond?

best wishes Simon Varnam

P.S. no rush SPV (talk) 05:43, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello Simon Varnamand welcome to the Teahouse. Several points:

• It is not possible to create a page but make it invisible, but you could create a page in the Draft namespace (that is a page whose name starts with "Draft:" ) such a page is not indexed by google or other search engines, and is not shown in the internal Wikipedia search unless drafts are explicitly asked for. Perhaps this would suit your needs.
• The automatically generated Table of Contents items automatically link to the relevant section contend, provided that proper section headers are used. There should be no need or reason to do fancy work with URLs.
• Please be aware that each language-edition of Wikipedia has its mown policies and standards for article inclusion. Here at the English-language Wikipedia, notability is very important, and it is essential that there be sufficient independent published reliable sources are cited to establish notability. I don't know if the policies in the Japanese-language Wikipedia are more or less strict, or just different.
• The talk page of any page is reached by the "talk" link displayed when that page is on display. For most pages, the corresponding talk page is for discussing improvements to the page. For articles, the talk page is very much the place to discuss how mto improve the article. for a main user page, the matching user talk page is for communication to the user, and responses by the user. See mine at User talk:DESiegel for an example. An article can't have an article talk page until after it has been created.

I hope that is all helpful. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 08:00, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

ːVery useful indeed. Thank you very much, DESiegel. I'll be back. Hopefully with something to show.SPV (talk) 06:53, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Cynthia Crane

I think an admin or experience editor needs to have a chat with the contributor who obviously is also the subject of the article Cynthia Crane. Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 17:53, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I have left a message on the editor's talk page, Maineartists. I note that you were argung for deletion at the AfD on this article 2 years ago, when it was kept. I will try some clean up on the article later today or tomorrow if I can find time. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:16, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, DESiegel. Yes, I did put the article up for AfD; but not because there was a COI. I honestly thought the BLP was not notable enough for WP. Guess I was wrong. However, that does not excuse the constant updating / editing by the subject themselves as though it were their own promotional resume. Maineartists (talk) 22:28, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I understand, Maineartists. Notability is always a bit of a judgement call, and we are not as consistent about it as might be wished. Notability in this case is perhaps not exactly clear cut. Strictly speaking, COI editing is not forbidden, nor grounds for blocking an editor, although it is discouraged. But dumping an unusable;e mass of external links is, indeed, not acceptable. It may be that some of those are links to what would be uiseful sources for the article, but not all of them are, and not in that format. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:38, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Need Feedback on my submission Draft:Chukwunonso Ezekwueche

Hi,

my Draft:Chukwunonso Ezekwueche got rejected the first time owing to being promotional, but the admin in question was helpful and pointed out the specific content that needed to be removed. I followed his instructions and removed a couple of sentences more that could be termed and promotional and have used some fresh references. What I have observed with these references is that most of them are Canadian or Nigerian in origin, so they are not exactly as renowned. However they do seem valid and independent in terms of covering various subjects, from what I found on exploring these further. I would be truly grateful if someone could find time to review the draft and suggest improvements, and also check out these country specific references. Thanks & regardsVinvibes 21:01, 19 October 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinvibes (talk • contribs)

Hello, Vinvibes, and welcome to the Teahouse. The draft as it now stands is not suitable to become an article. All the currently cited sources are interviews with the subject, except for one that is his degree thesis written by him. None are independent, and so none help to establish his notability. Please reread our guideline on notability and the one on notability in biographical articles. Wikipedia's Golden Rule is also worth reading, as is Your First Article. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

DESHi, thanks for responding, and yes most of these sources are interviews, and a couple are articles. So what do you suggest I do about this page? Can I leave it in the draft phase over the next one week till I find more independent sources? Regards, Vinvibes 09:38, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Vinvibes, yes you may wait for a time until you can find appropriate sources. Note that articles which seem to simply repeat information from a press release are not independent and will not count for notability. Neither will articles which primarily consist of quotes from the subject, even if they are not structured as formal interviews. Please understand that to establish notability there need to be several (usually at least three) independent published reliable sources, each of which discusses the subject in some depth. If those do not exist, no valid article can be created. Please follow those links and read the guideline pages for a full explanation of each term.

If a draft is left unchanged for 6 months, it can be deleted under G13, but a delay of a short time should not cause any problems. Better to get it right than get it fast. Note that this subject has previously had highly promotional edits, so reviewers or other editors may be more critical than they might otherwise be. If notability can be clearly demonstrated, however, that should mnot matter. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:37, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

DESHi, this I too realized that all of them revolve around more or less the same info, meaning either they are coming from the same source, or are copying each other. So I think searching for better sources is what I will do. The good part in all this is that at least I have learned to distinguish between sources in terms of reliability and authenticity, which I can use in future on this platform. Thanks for your help and will keep you posted in case I make further changes over the next one week or find any new reliable sources. Regards, Vinvibes 16:16, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Courtesy note: Vinvibes has just been asked if they would change the formatting of the signature so it includes a link back their userpages- no need for other editors to think they need to alert them, too. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:31, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi, done the needful, hoping its as it should be now, thanks & regards, Vinvibes (talk) 16:42, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

"Blanking" Articles

Hello all! I was curious to what the consequences were if I "blanked" Wikipedia articles continuously even after being warned. Please note that by "blanking" I am specifically talking about the action of deleting all contents of a Wikipedia article deliberately, intentionally and expeditiously regardless of rules and regulations or the actual article itself.

Kind regards and thank you for your time! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Procode200 (talk • contribs) 21:22, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Procode200. That would be considered and vandalism. The blanking would be promptly reverted. If a user persists in such conduct after warnings, that user may be (AND PROBABLY WOULD BE) blocked from editing, In addition, this annoys other users and hinders their efforts to use Wikipedia, and wastes the time of everyone involved. Please don't do this. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:36, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, do not delete any full article without posting to articles for deletion. Blanking an entire section is permitted, however only with a verifiable reason. HeartGlow30797 (talk) 22:38, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

HeartGlow30797, while you are correct that deletion should only happen though an approved process, blanking does not in fact delete an article. Any editor can revert blanking with a few clicks, and many will. True deletion requires an admin, and should be done only for good reason. Even then it can be reversed by the same or another admin. Blanking does, however, disrupt the project when it is done for no good reason. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:28, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

How to stop Huggle from showing me reverted edits

Hi, I'm kind of new to WP:Huggle, and I was wondering Is there any way to stop it from showing me edits that were already reverted? Thank you Dino245 (talk) 00:03, 20 October 2019 (UTC) ~

Hola Dino245. Although I'm a regular Huggle user, I can't quite answer your question. However, try asking at Wikipedia:Huggle/Feedback. Interstellarity (talk) 01:46, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Dino245 Hi, Huggle shows all "recent" edits made. The very top section "History Section" is the latest edit. You can see which edit has been reverted and by who/editor or not on the history section. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:08, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Jose Altuve

What does this mean? " in that span. In the 2019 World Series, Kurt Suzuki of the Washington Nationals, with the help of the rest of the team, made Altuve his child. " — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8804:2:BE00:6473:B79C:A972:BFEC (talk) 04:37, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

The article had been subjected to repeated vandalism this morning. This has been reverted since you looked at the article, which has now been protected. --David Biddulph (talk) 07:15, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

How to know whether an article has been reviewed

When I search google for “Solid Fuel Ducted Ramjet”, it shows results form Solid Fuel Ducted Ramjet.

But, I haven’t got a “reviewed” message for this article, and google only shows those articles which have been reviewed.— Vaibhavafro ^💬 09:15, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

For me, Google does not show that article. The page source for the article shows it tagged as NOINDEX, and Special:NewPagesFeed shows it as unreviewed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Biddulph (talk • contribs) 09:26, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Vaibhavafro. David is right. If you post the url of the Google search and the result you see at Google then maybe we can see what is happening. If I include a quote from the article then I get a result from en.wikibedia.ru. This is not Wikipedia but a cybersquatter who copied the article. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:04, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter:Google is literally showing the lead section, not only providing a link (like wikiBedia). Here you go.— Vaibhavafro ^💬 10:28, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I see no paragraph of text in that search, only a bunch of search hits which don't include Solid Fuel Ducted Ramjet. Google search hits often display very differently for different people, and it probably spots the Wikipedia article in your previous activity, so it shows that text to you. --bonadea contributions talk 10:33, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe.— Vaibhavafro ^💬 10:43, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

@Vaibhavafro: It's still strange if Google shows a page with noindex and quotes it. Does the search link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid_Fuel_Ducted_Ramjet for you? The only Wikipedia result for me is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramjet. Is it one of the normal search results or displayed in a box at the top or top right? Do you see the page if you specifically ask for it with [6]? I don't get results for that search. I guess you are in India so maybe you get an Indian Google server which doesn't behave normally. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:12, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: Yeah, it does link to that very article and is displayed in a box (just like any other article). Maybe this indicates some sort of spying by Google. (BTW that article just got reviewed an hour ago)— Vaibhavafro ^💬 16:27, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

@Vaibhavafro: Odd. The only results I see in boxes at your search is three YouTube videos at the top. Any chance you have a browser extension or feature which adds Wikipedia searches to Google results? I still don't see it at Google but it can take time before external search engines discover that noindex is removed. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:40, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: Nope. No browser extension. Wikipedia-box shows up on mobile as well as PC, even while logged out. (I think we will be pulled-up for making teahouse a forum)— Vaibhavafro ^💬 00:10, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't find information on the internet, only in physical format

Hello, I would like to know how to proceed to publish this article. I have searched a lot of information and I have only found it in physical format through specialized music magazines. 

Formerly there was a website where the history of this record label was explained, but unfortunately it is no longer available. I can't find any article on the internet, which makes reference to this record label (which is why I decided to make it fair by publishing an article about it on Wikipedia, so it wouldn't be forgotten) I would greatly appreciate any help you could offer me, because by not finding references on the internet, I don't know how to proceed. I have publications on paper that talk about it and explain the history, but they are not digitalized or published on the web (something normal because it is something old) thanks for your help. Mikelmurf (talk) 12:42, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello @Mikelmurf:. It's perfectly fine to cite sources that aren't online. See Help:Referencing for beginners for how to do it. – Joe (talk) 10:56, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

There is no requirement for sources to be online or be easy or free to access; they need to only be publicly accessible. (i.e. privately held documents unavailable to the public are not allowed). 331dot (talk) 11:50, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Mikelmurf. It is perfectly OK to cite a print publication, as Joe Roe and 331dot have told you. Please be sure to include the title of the publication, the date, and the page number(s). However, if there used to be a website where the history of this record label was explained it might be possible to find a copy of it on the Internet archive's "wayback machine". If so, the archived page(s) could also be cited. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 14:50, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

@Mikelmurf: Archive.org has this from a German company with just a few artists, if that's what you're looking for. Unfortunately, the background images of the page have been replaced by a domain registrar's ads for some reason, even in the earliest captures from 2002. Tell your browser to block images (temporarily) to see the actual content (in Firefox, go to Tools→Page Info→Media, check "Block images from web.archive.org", and reload the page with F5). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 18:25, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

trouble with citation

Hello. I'm having trouble adding a citation to the article Norm Nixon. Although I tried to include all the info for the citation in the wikitext, I can't seem to properly add the citation. Can someone help me? Here is the article that I wish to cite: https://goduquesne.com/news/2019/10/9/mens-basketball-sincere-to-carry-on-the-legacy-of-no-10.aspxJoesom222 (talk) 14:44, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Joesom222. I think that I and David Biddulph have had an edit conflict whilst both trying to fix your problem for you. My apologies to David as I thought it appropriate I overwrite his edit, primarily because your sentence was unbearably long winded. Saying that notable person A allowed named non-notable person B to wear a jersey number in memory of non-notable named person C who was killed in gun-related violence is far too long, and far too specific. So I've trimmed out the person C's name. Please check it conforms to the citation. How I added it was to use the 'Cite' button in the editing interface to insert the details, using the lookup function to use the hyperlink to insert the details (I've put some guidance notes together here, which might help). I had to add the article date manually, as I'm guessing it should have been 9th October, not 10th September. But I'm in the UK and we do things sensibly here (er, well, maybe not Brexit-related things...but most other things are done sensibly. LOL!!) Nick Moyes (talk) 15:15, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

You's missed off the closing > from the opening <ref> tag. I've corrected it in this edit, & also included the title for the ref. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:06, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

@Joesom222: If you prefer David's version, just undo mine in View History. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:18, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Nick Moyes I also had an edit conflict with you and David Biddulph , but none of my changes remain in the article. I was going to shorten the excessivly long ref name as well as closing the open ref, but David Biddulph} got the ref closed first, so I didn't re-do my edit. Such is the power of the Teahouse. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:23, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

@DESiegel: We're all just too darned keen, aren't we?. So maybe no time for kite-flying after all! (see post below) Nick Moyes (talk) 15:29, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you all for your help, but can someone tell me how to properly include links in citations? I don't want to have this problem again. Joesom222 (talk) 15:31, 20 October 2019 (UTC) I see; I can just use the handy-dandy cite button. I was using the buttons on the bottom not the top Joesom222 (talk) 15:37, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

@Joesom222: In the edit that I made (which you can see here, you'll note there is a command: |url=https://goduquesne.com/news/2019/10/9/mens-basketball-sincere-to-carry-on-the-legacy-of-no-10.aspx This was added via the Editing tool's 'Cite' button, and then by selecting the 'cite web' template, and simply pasting in the website url, and clicking 'Insert' to put the whole reference into the article.

However, I've just realised that the referencing format used in that article is a bit basic, and had you wanted to add a url into an existing one so that it follows the same style, you would should find the title of the article in that reference, and immediately before it type a single opening square bracket, immediately follow it by pasting in the full url, then leave one character space between what you've just typed and the article title, finally closing it all off by going to the very end of the article title and placing a closing square bracket. It's not as elegant, or as easy as using the cite web template via the 'Cite' button in whichever editing tool you're using , but hopefully you now have two ways of doing it. Does this make sense? Give it a go and let us know how you get on Nick Moyes (talk) 15:50, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

PS: Be aware that that article also 'calls up' a second or third use of the same reference by calling the 'ref name'. The article will only have one full version of that reference, and that's the one you'd need to edit. See WP:REFNAME to understand how references can be re-used without having to retype them multiple times within the same article. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:55, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Joesom222 I will give you a quick summery, but I urge you to read Referencing for Beginners for more details than I can put into an answer here.

There are several ways to format citations. The msot basic is untemplated using <ref>...</ref> tags. These will look something like this:

<ref name="ShortName">[http://URLHERE Name to appear in reference list]2 October 2019, Author's name, Publisher, retrieved 22 October 2019 </ref>[

Note the placement of the ref tags, and the angle and square brackets. Leaving one of these out can produce odd results

Better, in my opinion, is to use a citation template. This will look something like this in the wiki-source:

<ref name="ShortName">{{cite web|url=https://URL-HERE |title=Title here |work= Name of website or publication here |date= Date of publication here| first=first name of author |last=last name of author |accessdate=Date you checked the web site}}</ref>

Note the positions of the curly braces and angle brackets. They matter. The order of the various paramaters does not matter. Thre are various semi-automated tools which allow yoiu to enter info on a form and will build such a reference in the wiki-text for you. All have limitations.

There are other ways of doing cites as well, but thsoe are the two most common. I hope this is helpful. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:58, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

help me how I can edit Wikipedia

Teahouse hosts taking a few spare moments to enjoy Kite Flying

How I can use template on wiki and able to create article on Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flykites (talk • contribs) 14:45, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Flykites. As a very new editor here, you won't need templates to start an article (except maybe for adding references) - so perhaps leave that till a little later, eh? It's always best to start off slowly and learn the basics of editing and cooperating with others, rather than dive straight in to the hardest task here...that of creating a new article from scratch.

So maybe you might like to try out out interactive tour called The Wikipedia Adventure, where you can acquire 15 different badges as you proceed. Then take a look at Help:Getting started or Help:Your first article. We advise new editors to create draft articles first, and to submit them for review and feedback at Articles for Creation. Meanwhile, I've left you a welcome template on your user talk page, full of lots of helpful links to understanding the basics. Just remember that everything you add here that might be challenged will need to be supported with a published reference. We have a page called Help:Referencing for beginners, though it can be a bit hard to follow until you've worked through some of the other simple tasks first. I see that Primefac has just suggested that on your talk page as the best place to start. If you find it a bit complex, try these alternative notes I put together on how to add inline references.

If you have any specific problems, just let us know. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:56, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

PS: To actually answer your question: see Help:Template for more information on what templates do and how they work. Bear in mind that changes made to one template can impact on innumerable others, so be wary of fiddling with them until you are more familiar with the basics. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:33, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Flykites You may have been looking for the article wizard, which guides an editor though the process of constructing the skeleton of an article and putting it under the articles for creation project. That is not a bad way to start a new article, butit is better to do some editing that does not involved new articels fist. However, below are soem steps that often lead to success in creating an article.

• First, review our guideline on notability, our policy on Verifiability, and our general notability guideline (GNG). Consider whether your subject clearly meets the standards listed there.
• Second, read how to create Your First Article and referencing for beginners and again consider if you want to go ahead.
• Third, If you have any connection or affiliation with the subject, disclose it in accordance with our guideline on Conflict of interest. If you have been or expect to be paid for making edits, or are making them as part of your job, disclose this according to the strict rules of the Paid-contribution disclosure. This is absolutely required; omitting it can result in you being blocked from further editing.
• Fourth, gather sources. You want independent, professionally published, reliable sources with each discussing the subject in some detail. If you can't find several such sources, stop; an article will not be created! Sources do NOT need to be online, or in English, although it is helpful if at least some are. The "independent" part is vital. Wikipedia does not consider as independent sources such as press releases, or news stories based on press releases, or anything published by the subject itself or an affiliate of the subject. Strictly local coverage is also not preferred. Regional or national newspapers or magazines, books published by mainstream publishers (not self-published), or scholarly journals are usually good. So are online equivalents of these. (Additional sources may verify particular statements but not discuss the subject in detail. But those significant detailed sources are needed first.)
• Fifth, use the article wizard to create a draft under the articles for creation project. This is always a good idea for an inexperienced editor, but in the case of an editor with a conflict of interest it is essential.
• Sixth, use the sources gathered before (and other sources you may find along the way) to write the article. Cite all significant statements to sources. Do not express opinions or judgements, unless they are explicitly attributed to named people or entities, preferably in a direct quotation, and cited to a source. Do not use puffery or marketing-speak. Provide page numbers, dates, authors and titles for sources to the extent these are available. A title is always needed.
• Seventh, when (well perhaps if) your draft is declined, pay attention to the comments of the reviewer, and correct the draft and resubmit it. During this whole process, if you face any unresolvable editing hurdles, or cannot comprehend any editing issue, feel free to post a request here or at the help desk and ask the regulars. Repeat this until the draft passes review.

Congratulations, you have now created a valid Wikipedia article. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:09, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

May I create such a Wikipedians category?

Hi! I ask because I hate speedy deletes so I ask before creating, I suffer from OCD and would like to know whether I could create "Category:Wikipedians with OCD" as I've seen other categories of Wikipedians suffering other conditions :-), with respect, Iván. :) --CoryGlee (talk) 21:41, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

CoryGlee, Sounds OK to me. Interstellarity (talk) 22:03, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

CoryGlee (Iván) there could be a problem with such a category. It would need to make very celar that it was only for those editors who chose to add themselves to the category, andn that adding another editor to mit would not be OK. Doing so might constitute outing or an invasioin of privacy. If you want such a designation, a userbox might be a way to go. Interstellarity does this make sense to you? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:15, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

DESiegel, Yes it does Interstellarity (talk) 22:35, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

DESiegel Oh no, I don't want nor is it my intention to out anyone, I would never want such a thing, I had not thought of that you may be correct, it's a disturbing disorder and many may not want to admit it, it even costs to me to do so. I will go for the userbox. Thank you both. --CoryGlee (talk) 22:20, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

CoryGlee, in fact a user box for OCD already exists at {{User OCD}}. It does not include a category, but the template page notes that one could be added. If you want that and want help adding one, please say so. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:27, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

DES No my friend, I just noticed that it clearly states that "for privacy reasons" such a category has not been created. I'll respect that strictly. Thank you again. :) --CoryGlee (talk) 22:34, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

A discrete userbox sounds very sensible, though anyone can click that template and then click 'What links here' to see where it has been WP:transcluded, so it might have been better to have suggested substitution in that instance, which pastes in the full userbox markup, with no backlinks. Just out of interest, you might like to look at Category:Wikipedians with Asperger syndrome. I'll just add that as an editor who has often bumped into new users who are being rather problematic with some of their editing, I have found it quite helpful to see such declarations. I confess to knowing little about such syndromes, but I do then tend to go a lot easier on people if I can understand where they're coming from, and thus they can become better editors with a bit more understanding and support from me in return. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:58, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

What should I do if I find a sockpuppet account?

I found an account (User:Youname1488) which appears to be a sockpuppet by the username (Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Yourname) and by the fact that the account edited the talk page of a confirmed sockpuppet. What should I do? The category page said I should add {{Sockpuppet|Yourname|proven}}, but when I click "Preview", it inserts a message to their talk page saying they have been banned, which hasn't happened yet. What should I do? Merlin04 (talk) 22:17, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Youname1488 per the block log, has been blocked, so I think its ok to put {{Sockpuppet|Yourname|proven}} on their talk page? Not sure though. Apologies about the short reply, interestingly if you go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets and enable "Strike out usernames that have been blocked" (click on it and press save) any user that is blocked will be crossed out OkayKenji like this and appear lighter if blocked (so you don't have to go to the block log or their user page). OkayKenji ^{(talk page)} 22:42, 20 October 2019 (UTC)See belowOkayKenji ^{(talk page)} 00:03, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

​If you suspect someone is a sockpuppet and they haven't been blocked, you can start a sockpuppet investigation (Twinkle makes writing the report easy). You shouldn't add a tag, the blocking admin or a clerk will add these tags if they feel it is appropriate, and us regular editors rarely have a reason to add these tags. – Thjarkur (talk) 23:42, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Ok. I already added the tag, should I remove it? In addition, the user was already blocked, but it doesn't seem to be because they were a sockpuppet account. Should I still use Twinkle to start the investigation? Merlin04 (talk) 23:46, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

​I've removed the tag so no worries. They are indeed a sockpuppet, the block note says long-term abuse, which are users which continually show up with new accounts to be bothersome – Yourname has been active on and off for 10 years. It's not necessary to start an investigation if someone has already been blocked. – Thjarkur (talk) 00:00, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Should have known better. OkayKenji ^{(talk page)} 00:04, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Need help on reverting unreferenced edits

What should I do if someone states that something had shut down, (e.g. changed "is" to "was", "currently operating" to "no longer operating") without any sources or new references? Should I revert it? Dibbydib (💬) (✏) 23:30, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

​Yup, just revert and optionally leave a note at their talk page. {{subst:uw-unsourced1}} will include a link to referencing for beginners. – Thjarkur (talk) 23:47, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Dibbydib. Welcome to the Teahouse. For me, the answer really depends upon the context of the article. If it's about the sun, or the White House, then, yes, I'd revert it as vandalism or trouble-making. But if it looks like a good faith edit which maybe happened quite recently I might either revert it with an edit summary asking for a reference (as suggested above), or simply add the 'citation needed' template after it if it's very plausible and quite a minor event. Better still, does a quick browser search reveal any evidence of that thing 'shutting down' that you can add as supporting evidence, yourself? Had you given us a link to the article in question, I might have been able to give you a clearer answer. Does any of this help? Nick Moyes (talk) 23:58, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

It's an attraction on an amusement park if that helps. I've reverted it because I searched plenty of sources and didn't find anything on that attraction shutting down, Nick Moyes. Thanks though! <3 Dibbydib (💬) (✏) 01:10, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Original research

What is the difference between adding original research and unsourced content? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.175.106.249 (talk) 00:27, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

It's pretty much the same thing: For example if I say "Danielle is an actress" this is both original research and is unsourced content. --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 02:06, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I will offer a different opinion. Unsourced content may be true, but without a citation it has not been verified. Options are reverting, tagging with citation needed, or finding and adding a citation. Original research is information the editor believes to be true based on their own thought processes (if A is true and B is true, therefore C must be true). Can also be unpublished information known to the editor. Hope this helped. David notMD (talk) 02:17, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

See more at Wikipedia:No original research. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:49, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Is present tense suitable here?

Hi, this editor reverted me here [7]. Which is correct? Thanks. 210.10.5.32 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:36, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@210.10.5.32: My guess is that becomes is correct, based on the fact that basically all of the other info in the article is in the present tense. Taewangkorea (talk) 00:41, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Should encyclopedia articles documenting past events be written in present tense? 210.10.5.32 (talk) 01:28, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@210.10.5.32: I think it is per MOS:TENSE Taewangkorea (talk) 01:41, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

That’s very helpful! I thought the opposite is more obvious. In the first example - “The PDP-10 is a mainframe computer family manufactured by Digital Equipment Corporation from 1966 into the 1980s.” would be wrong without any mention of the dates in the sentence. Even here, l would have used ‘was’ instead. 210.10.5.32 (talk) 01:58, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

It makes sense if you think of it in broader terms. The PDP 10 never stopped being a computer, though it stopped being manufactured. So it is a computer but was manufactured. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:35, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I get your point now. Never seen any computer larger than a desktop but I imagine our phones are more powerful than these old mainframes nowadays! 210.10.5.32 (talk) 05:12, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Can't fix my own files?

I am trying to fix the speed and brightness/contrast of this file and this file, but when I head over to the place where the link to upload a new version of a file was supposed to be, I see "You cannot overwrite this file." What can/should I do to be able to upload a new version of each of the files?  ⠀—‌‌  Glosome‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌  💬 02:42, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@Glosome: that's hosted on Commons, so you're best off asking at the Commons help desk. That's where the experts would hang out. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:49, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Dead URL in Indian National Highways

This is in relation to dead URL [8] used extensively as reference in National Highways of India articles as in National Highway 544DD (India) for example. This URL is archived Here. Please run the relevant bot to incorporate archived URL to resolve this issue. Thanks -- Jazze7 (talk) 05:30, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@Jazze7:  Done in this edit DannyS712 (talk) 23:49, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Article about EqualOcean

I am trying to set up an article for a company named EqualOcean, but I am still confused by the reasons of rejection. "they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject."

How to define "significant" coverage? Must it be the main body of the coverage? How to determine is the source is "reliable"? To what extent, the source could be considered independent?

It will be really helpful to know which part of the article EqualOcean is not qualified. Is it the source only, or also other parts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CavernBreeze (talk • contribs) 08:10, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

CavernBreeze Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Significant coverage is coverage that goes beyond a brief mention; essentially, the source of the coverage must be primarily about the subject and be independent of the subject. The source must have chosen on its own to write about the subject. A 'reliable source' is a source that has a reputation of editorial control and fact checking. Put another way, they must have a reputation of not making things up and checking accuracy. Independent sources are not affiliated with the subject in any way; this includes a republished press release, a staff interview, or routine announcement(which are not independent as they come from the subject itself).

You may find it helpful to read Your First Article and use the new user tutorial if you haven't already. 331dot (talk) 08:18, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Minor quibble, "the source of the coverage must be primarily about the subject" is not quite right, but the closer to this the better. But for WP:N purposes, passing mentions doesn't help. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:59, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) CavernBreeze Welcome to Teahouse. See below and WP:SIGCOV for details.

1. "Reliable sources" - means that sources that support the content claimed are published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that qualifies editorial integrity which could be verified. Books published by reputable publisher and major newspapers are considered reliable sources. User generated sources are considered not reliable.

2. "Secondary sources / sources that independent of the subject" - are sources not not affiliated/associate with the subject of the article. Homepage, official web site, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, interviews and etc are considered NOT independent sources

3. "Significant coverage" mean the sources talk about the subject directly and in detail and in depth, and not only passing mentioned.

Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~). Thank you and hope the above help. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:30, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Courtesy, content is currently at Draft:EqualOcean. Submitted once, declined once, no edits since declined. Three of the four references in the draft are about the company receiving funding. Although I cannot read the content at the references, I doubt these can be considered independent. David notMD (talk) 09:58, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

CavernBreeze: does it help if I remark that Wikipedia is basically not interested in anything the company has said about itself, whether published on its own website, or in a press release or interview published by somebody else? Wikipedia is only interested where people unconnected with the subject have chosen, unprompted by the subject, to write something in depth about the subject and been published in a reliable place. If not enough such independent people have so chosen, then the company is not notable, and there is nothing that can be done to make such an article acceptable. --ColinFine (talk) 15:44, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

ahoi ashtami

What do I need to change in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suryanshu32 (talk • contribs) 11:05, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

You don't need to change anything, but most articles can do with a bit of improvement and this one is no exception. You could consider giving it a copy-edit, and it probably needs some better sources, as well as having the existing sources properly formatted to include more information about author/publisher/date etc. Go slow and only make changes you are comfortable with, being sure to discuss anything that may be controversial or that another editor objects to. Hug^syrup 12:46, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Link: Ahoi Ashtami —[AlanM1(talk)]— 22:16, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

what i should post on wikipedia

what should i post on wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imtemmie (talk • contribs) 11:06, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@Imtemmie:. You don't 'post' on Wikipedia, but you can edit almost any existing article to make improvements so long as any changes are in line with our policies and are well-sourced. You can also create articles about topics that are notable - which is to say, they have been widely covered in reliable, independent sources already. I suggest you read this guidelines first: WP:GNG, WP:RS. Hug^syrup 12:48, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I need help

How do you edit — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suryanshu32 (talk • contribs) 11:08, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Suryanshu32, Hi greetings, welcome to teahouse. I have posted a welcome message in your talk page. There are some bits of things that you can do! Best.--PATH SLOPU 13:19, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Seeking permission/support to make changes

Hi, I've recently (16 October) suggested on its talk page merging one wikipage with another and was wondering do I need 'permission before proceeding and how long I need to wait, also what that would look like, thanks AJSteer (talk) 12:03, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

WP:MERGECLOSE says "(normally one week or more)". The rest of WP:Merging tells you the various steps to go through (including tagging the relevant pages to let readers know about the merger proposal). --David Biddulph (talk) 12:32, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

writing article

hi,

  I am new here, I just want to ask that if i could write about myself here or not..And where should i write the content?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diwedisandeep25 (talk • contribs) 12:39, 21 October 2019 (UTC) 

@Diwedisandeep25: If you mean can you write an article about yourself then the answer to your question is almost always 'no', unless you have been widely written about already by other independent, reliable sources, that can be used as sources for an encyclopedia article. Have you been? You can put a small amount of information about yourself on your User page, so long as it is not excessive or highly promotional. Hug^syrup 12:42, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Submitting Draft Article

I want to submit my Draft article...How can I do so? Here’s the link to the article - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Shinchan_In_India# (Please submit it on my behalf). Thank You! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.69.231.62 (talk) 13:10, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi greetings, welcome to teahouse. You can submit your draft by simply adding {{subst:Submit}} on the top of the draft and wait for some days (may be weeks) for a reviewer to review your draft. Thank you.--PATH SLOPU 13:15, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Adding Photographs

Greetings fellow Wikipedia Editors! I am new here and trying to contribute. My biggest difficulty has been finding photographs that comply with Wikipedia Commons usage rules. I had my first uploaded photo deleted for this reason. I also just edited 2 stub articles on "animation" and considered a few others that requested an image be added. However there does not seem to be a way to find images for film or other media work that readily complies short of emailing the copyright holder and asking for permission. This would likely take a long time and may not result in success. Any suggestions? Would a YouTube thumbnail image or an image from an official press release be acceptable? I was unable to add anything to the articles so far. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonam108 (talk • contribs) 13:50, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

No, it almost certainly wouldn't, I'm afraid, Sonam108. Unfortunately the laws on copyright are rather tortuous, and Wikipedia chooses to apply them rather more strictly than many sites. In some circumstances Wikipedia allows non-free images, but use in a general article (such as Animation) is unlikely to meet all the criteria in the non-free content criteria. --ColinFine (talk) 15:49, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Question about date format

I was going to add something to an article when I noticed that in the first paragraph the American date format is used. However in a later paragraph the British format is use. I read the Style Manual about date formats and know this is "unacceptable". How does one determine which format to keep? The article is Good Omens TV Series and it's a collaboration between the BBC and Amazon Prime video. Thanks for your help with this.

Mjr524 (talk) 13:54, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

The first line of the wikitext of the article says: "{{Use mdy dates|date=June 2019}}". --David Biddulph (talk) 14:25, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Which was changed - with a blank edit summary - from the initial usage of DMY on 2 June. Raise it on the talk page. Not sure why this shouldn't use DMY, given the source material, setting, cast, crew etc. Only American thing about it is the Amazon money. - X201 (talk) 14:37, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

To be fair, the dates were all changed from MDY to DMY by script only the day prior. There was no use dates template (of either flavo[u]r) prior to that edit, and the first MDY date was added in 2017, shortly after the article was created. Agreed that this discussion should go to the talk page, however. CThomas³ (talk) 22:26, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@Mjr524: There's no one standard date format that articles are expected to follow, but there are certain things listed in MOS:BADDATE that are not recommended. Much like citation style and variety of national English used, generally the date format used by the first major contributor to the article should be the one used unless there's a good reason like MOS:DATETIES for changing to another. Probably the most important thing is consistency in format, but over time this consistency can be lost as more content is added and more people are editing the article. So, if you can figure out what format was established by the first major contributor to the article, then that's should be the starting point. Once you've determined that, you can then decide whether a change in format is warranted. If you think it is, then you can try and be WP:BOLD and make the change; if reverted, follow WP:BRD and discuss things on the article's talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:05, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Image sizing and just images in general

I am confused on how to resize an image to the format I want it to be at because I keep trying to add in photos that are too big for the page and just mess up the entire page. As well as how to even get an image inside wikipedia if it wasn't added by me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neararena (talk • contribs) 14:23, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@Neararena: I'm not an image expert, but you might look at MOS:IMAGE, which is fairly comprehensive and has links to other pages as needed. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 23:42, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Help with sourcing

I need help with citing news, the second reference on User:Melofors/Keepy Ducky. Melofors (talk) 14:42, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Corrected in this edit. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:06, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Ah, thank you, what an embarassing mistake. Melofors (talk) 16:33, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

How to create a Wikipedia Page for my company

Good Day Wikipedia community,

I would just like to know what steps must I follow to create a Wikipedia page for my company and how long will it eventually take?

Our website url: http://www.myplayers.com/

Regards, Raynique. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raynique Meyer (talk • contribs) 15:21, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@Raynique Meyer: - we don't have 'pages' here, exactly, as it's not a company directory or social media site. It's an encyclopedia, and we have articles about notable topics, so the key question is whether your company is notable. The easiest way to establish that is to consider whether it meets the criteria at WP:NORG. If it meets those criteria then you can create a draft article by following the instructions at WP:AFC, but as you have a conflict of interest and meet our definition of a paid editor, you must first read WP:PAID and make the disclosure specified there, otherwise you will likely be blocked from editing. Hug^syrup 15:26, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@Raynique Meyer: The link you supplied rather made me chuckle. You haven't even built the website yet (!), so I earnestly suggest you forget about trying to promote your organisation on this encyclopaedia. We're not here to help you advertise your project. Nick Moyes (talk) 17:54, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

How do I become a GA/FA reviewer?

I'm fairly interested in becoming one myself, so it's good to know.Thatoneweirdwikier (talk) 16:02, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@Thatoneweirdwikier: Thanks for wanting to make Wikipedia better. See Wikipedia:Good_articles. According to that page, anyone may become a reviewer, if you follow the linked instructions. RudolfRed (talk) 16:10, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@RudolfRed: Many thanks.Thatoneweirdwikier (talk) 16:12, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

That said, GA reviewers typically have been active for months and months, have made hundreds of edits, may have created articles, and definitely have been through the experience of raising an article to GA status. Editors who have joined only recently would not be expected to have a working relationship with what is expected. There have been instances when a reviewer approved an article to GA, and then a more experienced editor downgraded it as not qualifying. David notMD (talk) 22:36, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations as to whether requiring a 500 edit minimum and/or having raised an article to GA in order to be able to do a review of a proposed GA. David notMD (talk) 02:11, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Non-diffusing category

Hello,

What does one mean when they say "Non-diffusing" category? For example, if you have "Government ministers of X" and then "Female government ministers of X" on the same page. Why do we need to keep the parent category if it's already part of a subcategory? Snickers2686 (talk) 16:16, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

WP:DUPCAT says: "Subcategories defined by gender, ethnicity, religion, and sexuality should almost always be non-diffusing subcategories." --David Biddulph (talk) 16:23, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@David Biddulph: So it could have the parent and the non-diffusing category or just the parent category, correct? Snickers2686 (talk) 16:35, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@Snickers2686: As I read it, ... there is no need to take pages out of the parent category purely because of their membership of a non-diffusing subcategory means that if "Female government ministers of X" is a non-diffusing category, a page for a female minister of X should be in both "Female government ministers of X" and "Government ministers of X".

It would be helpful if you gave links to the article and categories that raised the question. Here's one: Category:Freemason United States Presidents is a non-diffusing sub-category of Category:Presidents of the United States, so articles like Andrew Jackson are in both categories. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 00:01, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Articles about couples

I am thinking about writing an article about Georg and Vera Leisner, who were collaborating archaeologists working in the early to mid 20th Century. They were responsible for carrying out initial excavations of many of the megalithic sites in Portugal that I have recently been writing articles on and they left their collections to the Portuguese state. My question: Can I do one article or should I do one for each? Thanks Roundtheworld (talk) 16:46, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Roundtheworld. Consider the example of Charles and Ray Eames, the married team of furniture and industrial designers. We have an article about the team, and separate biographies for the husband and the wife. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:51, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

If most of their work was done together, it makes sense to write just one article. If you feel so impelled, just be WP:Bold and do it in your WP:sandbox. If it looks good to you, chances are it will look good to most other people, too. Best wishes, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 17:00, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

My edits are getting removed

Yes my first 2 edits were spiteful but the following edits have only been constructive so why are they getting removed ? Iwasntallowedemojis (talk) 17:02, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@Iwasntallowedemojis: Your edits such as this do not look very constructive to me. Taewangkorea (talk) 17:25, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Iwasntallowedemojis: welcome to the Teahouse. You haven't made many mainspace edits yet, and none of them seemed appropriate, or valid to me. Did you really think this contribution was OK and be likely to remain? People who make bad edits do tend to have the next few scrutinised closely. It's now your chance to show you can contribute constructively, and to support all your additions with citations. We'll gladly support you if you do. Nick Moyes (talk) 17:30, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello

Some person posted on my talk page to come here and I don't know what this is or what I should do? Am I in trouble?? I want to contribute positively. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by VeggieGaymer (talk • contribs) 17:15, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Hey VeggieGaymer. That's just a helpful little robot that posts automatic notifications on the talk pages of new users. You don't have any obligation to do anything at all. It's just letting you know that if you have any questions, this would be the correct place to seek advice or assistance. GMG^talk 17:31, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Where do I find the rules? — Preceding unsigned comment added by VeggieGaymer (talk • contribs) 17:47, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Hey VeggieGaymer. I left a message on your talk page with some helpful links about how Wikipedia works. You might also want to consider taking our interactive tutorial at The Wikipedia Adventure. GMG^talk 17:55, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

That makes two of us! Nick Moyes (talk) 18:07, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Wow, thank you guys so much!! I can't believe how nice everyone is. I thought i'd be treated poorly for not knowing the rules. I am truly grateful! VeggieGaymer (talk) 18:10, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Update: This user has since been indefinitely blocked as a WP:sockpuppet for abusing multiple accounts. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:18, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

There are harsh ecxerpt on page about living people written just in lede on page "Sonja Biserko"

There is harsh criticism of person on page Sonja Biserko written straight in lede, that is a bit unusual for bio of living people. May admins with experience help to clean up or edit it? PoetVeches (talk) 17:24, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Hey PoetVeches. I have removed that bit from the lead as well as another bit that was probably questionably source and really badly written besides. Looks like there were some drive by additions by an anonymous editor a little while ago, and just nobody noticed it. GMG^talk 17:50, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

There was more of that on Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Serbia. Drmies (talk) 17:52, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Editing section in Wikipedia which highlights violence act, spoiling content of the page

Respected there is a page Charsadda in which section Recent History contains violent material which is exploiting the whole content of the page the thing is that a reference of external website is provided how can i make changes. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mian Moazam (talk • contribs) 18:12, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Mian Moazam Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is not censored in that text describing a violent act cannot be removed merely because it describes a violent act or anything offensive. A significant incident in a community would seem on the surface to be worthy of inclusion as a historical event for the community- but if you have an argument based in Wikipedia guidelines and policy that it should not be included, you should discuss the matter on the article talk page with other editors who follow that article. You can even make it a formal Request for Comment to get additional input. 331dot (talk) 18:29, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

331dot Mian Moazam I think I found a reasonable way to communicate the info about the attack without having to describe the violence in detail. I added an education section to the article, and linked to the university and the article about the attack there. I just moved the link from the external links section to the education section and piped it. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:52, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Adding a photo

How does one add a photo? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingkazmaeditsnow (talk • contribs) 18:39, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Kingkazmaeditsnow Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. How to upload an image is described at WP:UPIMAGE, however you should first be familiar with the image use policy. You need to make sure that you have the rights to upload the image and that its copyright is compatible with Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 18:44, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Number of edits

How do I found out how many edits I made? Jtarvin (talk). 2:58, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@Jtarvin: You can go to your preferences and view how many edits you made. --LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 20:17, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@Jtarvin: A more complete analysis can be found at Jtarvin – Wikipedia (en.wikipedia.org) – Edit Counter – XTools. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 00:16, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Lists vs. Tables in Living Persons Biographies

I've been reading the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout to try to discern when tables can be used or when it is better to use a list in Living Persons Biographies. Over the past little while (less than one year) I've written several articles but would like to expand and improve them. I would like to expand articles to present select exhibitions and a filmography. I've drafted a Biography section and two subsections 'selected exhibitions' and 'filmography'. In the table for the selected exhibitions subsection I've created table headings:'year', 'title', 'venue', 'works', & 'reference'. For the filmography subsection I've created the table headings: 'year', 'title', 'role', 'notes', & 'reference'. If this should not be done this way could you kindly make a recommendation how it should be done. Thank You! LorriBrown (talk) 20:07, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Examples:

Select exhibitions

Year	Title	Venue	Works	Reference
Year	Title	Venue	Works	Reference
Year	Title	Venue	Works	Reference

Filmography

Year	Title	Role	Notes	Reference
Year	Title	Role	Notes	Reference
Year	Title	Role	Notes	Reference

LorriBrown (talk) 22:25, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@LorriBrown: there's some advice at WP:FILMOGRAPHY. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:47, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

how to link email to wikipedia account

Good afternoon wikipedia! I forgot my pass code, and i am wondering if i can link my email to my wikipedia account. Gumshoe97 (talk) 20:11, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Gumshoe97 I assume that you are still logged in to your account; you can add your email in your Preferences, in the top right corner of the screen. Once you click Preferences, the option to add your email should be in the User Profile tab. 331dot (talk) 20:14, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! Gumshoe97 (talk) 20:16, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Recently deceased

This is probably in WP:MOS somewhere, but I cannot find it. When an article subject has recently died as a result of suicide, do we say "died by suicide in XY place" or "committed suicide in XY Place"? Thank you in advance to the volunteers on this page.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:27, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

@ThatMontrealIP: This recent RFC about category titles found consensus on "committed". —[AlanM1(talk)]— 04:25, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Addition to the "Coronet" article. How do I know it's been saved?

I was reading the article about the schooner yacht "Coronet" and tried to add some info b/c her builder was my great, great, great uncle. I've finished the addition, but I'm unable to find any verification that it's been submitted. How do I submit it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swan4368 (talk • contribs) 02:47, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Swan4368 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Your edit history shows no edits other than the above. You need to click "Publish changes"(which simply means "save changes") to submit your edit; it will need to be sourced to an independent reliable source. 331dot (talk) 02:57, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

More professional

How do i make my first page look more professional? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beartrack 1 (talk • contribs) 03:24, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

@Beartrack 1: If you haven't read it already, I recommend reading Wikipedia:Your First Article. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 07:11, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

If by "first page" you mean your User page, there are lots of ways to add content. Wikipedia:User pages has do's and don't's about what goes on a UP. Remember, no email, phone, address, true name. Keep in mind that we are here to improve the encyclopedia, not perfect our UP's. P.S. 'sign' your comments by typing four of ~ at the end. David notMD (talk) 10:05, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

As said, your userpage is of little importance, so there is no need to make it look "professional". What we really value are your contributions. If you would like help in that respect, please see the Tutorial or the Wikipedia Adventure. Thanks, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 13:04, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Follow-up to Updating IWG page

Hello Teahouse dwellers!

I am currently editing IWG plc's Wikipedia page for accuracy and completeness as part of my ongoing work with the company. I have declared my status on the IWG:Talk Page and have followed Wikipedia protocols.

Right now, the IWG plc page is pretty void of information for a multinational company implanted in 120 markets!

Following protocol, I have submitted factual changes, backed up by Tier 1 media sources. These changes included paragraphs on notable, historic events and deals in the company's biggest markets, the United States and United Kingdom. However all of the changes were rejected on the grounds that the content was "marketing."

Given the events described were factual, backed up by sources and used neutral language, I am not sure why they would be considered as "promotional."

Could someone help me see clearly here?

Huge thanks to the community for your ongoing time and support. --KatherineBusby2019 (talk) 08:25, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Your PAID status belongs on your User page. Dormskirk and other editors have been active in modifying (not completely reverting) content you added to the article. Some of the deleted content was resting in primary sources (the company's press releases, announcements of financial dealings, etc.) Of late, you have more appropriately shifted to proposing changes on the article's Talk page and leaving article changes to responding editors (mostly Dormskirk). David notMD (talk) 10:14, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Also, the greater part of the article is about acquiring other companies. The only content that describes what IWG does is "The company provides serviced offices, virtual offices, meeting rooms, and videoconferencing to clients on a contract basis." David notMD (talk) 10:26, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) @KatherineBusby2019: For an example, one of your proposals was IWG plc is currently only global flexible workspace company with a multi-brand portfolio. It was rejected, and correctly in my opinion. There are a couple operative guidelines, the most relevant in that instance is IMO WP:UNDUE: in another context, a sentence such as "actor X is the only left-handed, A-list British actor who owns at least two rabbits" could be well-sourced but frankly nobody cares. Basically, the sentence tries to put its subject in a positive light ("it's the only one to do X!"), which goes against WP:NPOV/WP:PEACOCK, and does so with a piece of information that is too convoluted to appear even if it was neutral.

Another word on sources. It is one thing to not understand the fairly arcane Wikipedia requirements about sources; it is another to make grandiose claims of "tier 1 media sources" without understanding what is required. What I see in your requests is mostly a mix of unreliable sources (e.g. Youtube videos) and PR-washes i.e. pieces that were more or less transparently copy-pasted from a company press release (such as [9]). The only thing you could conceivably consider a "tier 1 media source" is this NYT piece but it is an interview so it fails WP:INDY.

I am assuming here that you are at liberty of choosing how to word your edit requests, but possibly some higher-up gave you some indication of what they want to see (even with specific wording they want to include or something more general "our brand should be associated with XXX"). If so, you should tell them that it is not going to happen, because no matter how hard you or your colleagues try, Wikipedia guidelines are pretty much non-negotiable. We will not obey requests from article subjects that certain sentences or facts appear or do not appear in the article about them, and attempts to force those through have the potential to backfire spectacularly. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:58, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Personal Biography

Hello there, How can I Build my personal biography? I need help, please. I tried to build mine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mzalendo_Mithika_Mwenda/sandbox) but it has not been approved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mzalendo Mithika Mwenda (talk • contribs) 08:53, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

You have not submitted it for approval, but of course it would not be approved because it has no references to published reliable sources. Please read the advice against trying to use Wikipedia to write an autobiography. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:00, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Mzalendo Mithika Mwenda Wikipedia is not social media or other place for people to tell the world about themselves or post their resume. Wikipedia is only interested in what independent reliable sources state about you, not in what you want to say about yourself. 331dot (talk) 11:31, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

How to add awards and honors to a page.

After updating an award entry with links to offical websites. It was removed by an administer. How can update awards without it being removing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MorganGenus (talk • contribs) 11:24, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

MorganGenus Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Your edits were removed because they violated Wikipedia policy on copyright. Please review the information on your user talk page to learn more about this. 331dot (talk) 11:29, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Use of non-English title translations in "List of ..." articles?

I looked in on a "List of ..." article today, and found it has (often long, and multi-language) translations of the the names of the various government agencies related to a particular topic. It seemed a bit unwieldy for a list, since I would imagine the language translations also occur near the top of the actual subject articles, as do many other details. Does Wikipedia have any guidelines for how much translation might be appropriate in articles that list a large number of English names of items that obviously also have names in the various 100's of other languages? (Here's the example, if you'd like to see what is there in this list article.)

I'm happy to start a discussion, but would like to understand what has come up before, or been worked out more broadly, before having the article-specific discussion. Cheers. N2e (talk) 11:44, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Image licensing

I keep uploading an image of Dolly, Andrew Johnson's first slave, to his Wikipedia page and another user keeps removing it challenging the license. The image is the public domain. I have confirmed this with the National Parks Service and the Andrew Johnson NHS. The user who continues to remove it says the public domain licensing is not enough and further that it doesn't comply with WP:OPRS--what is this?

Stirpicult (talk) 12:54, 22 October 2019 (UTC)stirpicult

Hello Stirpicult, OTRS is essentially the system used to email Wikipedia.

What the editors will be asking you to do, is for the copyright holder of the image (I assume Andrew Johnson National Historic Site) to email OTRS at permissions-commonswikimedia.org to show that permission is given to use the image. There are instructions on how to do this at Commons:OTRS

Thanks, ~~ OxonAlex - talk 13:17, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

For other helpers, the image is File:Dolly - Andrew Johnson.jpg ~~ OxonAlex - talk 13:19, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Please assist me

Hello, Please assist me in guiding on how to improve the rating of any article through improving the article. Check my recent edit on the article Sooraj Pancholi. Thanks, I hope to get a answer. Imwet (talk) 13:27, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Imwet Greetings. I have done the assessment on the talk page. See Wikipedia:Content assessment rating. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:34, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Translation

How many edits do I need to make if I want to translate a page into english? Jtarvin (talk). 10:33, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

@Jtarvin: If you are able to translate into English from another language, you can do that now. See Wikipedia:Translation for guidance and also WP:YFA for how to write an article on English Wikipedia. RudolfRed (talk) 16:20, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Jtarvin, although if you want to use the Wikipedia:Content translation tool you require 500 edits over 30 days. However, this tool isn't actually that useful, and for translation into English doesn't really give much improvement over translating by copy and paste - just make sure you use the attribution templates.

Also, be aware that Wikipedia consensus is that an unedited machine translation, left as a Wikipedia article, is worse than nothing - see WP:MACHINETRANSLATION ~~ OxonAlex - talk 16:28, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Payment

Does one get paid for corrections on the articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.34.125.176 (talk) 16:13, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

No. Editors are volunteers. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:15, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Relevant evidence.

I'm curious which part of the rules I can refer to if the article quotes a fact from a some book written by a historian that has no evidence in material historical sources.

I give an example, in Croatia Vlachs are historically mentioned and today they are Serbs and to a lesser extent Croats. Ivic Aleksa, Serbian historian (Budjanovci, 23rd XII. 1881 - Belgrade, 23rd XI. 1948). In his book he does not notice these original Vlachs, and he writes about them as Serbs. Mirko Valentić; Institute for Contemporary History, Zagreb, Croatia Mirko Valentić; Institute for Contemporary History, Zagreb, Croatia, states in the book "On the Ethnic Root of Croatian Bosnian Serbs" page 18. as follows: "Budući da arhivska građa, osim rijetkih izuzetaka, daje istraživaču samo vlaško ime, A. lvić, prepričavajući arhivske spise, jednostavno ondje gdje piše Vlah čita Srbin. Našavši u arhivskoj građi veći broj spisa o Vlasima katolicima, tj. potomcima starohrvatskih Vlaha: Bunjevci, Morlaci i drugi, on će i te Vlahe proglasiti Srbima nazivajući ih •Srbi katoličke vere«. Pišući o pokušaju oslobođenja Like iz koje Vlasi čine nasilja i zločine po središnjoj Hrvatskoj, provaljujući i u dubinu Kranjske, lvić sugerira svome čitatelju kako je austrijski nadvojvoda naredio »proterivanje Srba iz Like«. U originalnom dokumentu stoji »[ .. . ] Abtreibung der neu angesessnem Walachen in der Likha [ ... ]«.24 Isti postupak primijenio je s gomirskim Vlasima, koje A. lvić čita kao »Gomirski Srbi«, iako u arhivskom spisu stoji »Wallachen zu Goymerie«.25 Jednako postupa i s poznatim vlaškim selima Dubrave i Ponikve u okolici Ogulina. lvić piše: »srpska mesta Dubrave i Ponikve, gde su Srbi živeli«. U originalnom dokumentu stoji•[ ... ] die in dem Dorff Dubraua und Ponique wohnende Wallachen [ ... ]«.26 'Tužbu žumberačkih Vlaha iz Marindola 1668. prikazuje Ivić kao tužbu »Srba iz Marindola«, iako u originalnom spisu stoji: •[ ... ] die Walachen zu Marienthall beclagen sich [ ... ]«.27 Falsifikatima takve vrste vrvi svaka stranica Ivićeve knjige. Ovdje su gotovo nasumce izabrani samo neki primjeri"......"Because archival material, with few exceptions, gives the researcher only the Vlach name, A. lvic, retelling the archives, simply there where it says Vlachs reads a Serbs. Having found in the archival material a large number of writings for Catholics Vlachs ie descendants of the ancient Croatian Vlachs: Bunjevci, Morlaci and others, he would also declare these as Vlachs Serbs by calling them • Serbs of the Catholic faith. " Writing about the attempt to free Lika from which the Vlachs commit violence and crimes by Central Croatia, penetrating into the depths of Carniola, lvic suggests to his reader that the Austrian Archduke had ordered the“ expulsion of the Serbs from Lika. " The original document reads "[... ] Abtreibung der neu angesessnem Walachen in der Likha [...]. "24 The same procedure was applied by Gomirje Vlachs, which A. lvić reads as "Gomirje Serbs", although the archival file contains "Wallachen zu Goymerie" .25 He treats the well-known Vlachs villages of Dubrava and Ponikve in the Ogulin area as well. lvic writes: "The Serbian places of Dubrava and Ponikva, where the Serbs lived." In the original document reads • [...] die in dem Dorff Dubrau und Ponique wohnende Wallachen [...]. "26 The lawsuit of Žumberak Vlachs from Marindol in 1668 is presented by Ivic as a lawsuit by" Serbs from Marindol ", although the original file states: • [...] die Walachen zu Marienthall beclagen sich [...]. "27 Forgery of this kind is roped in every page of Ivic's book. Here are only some examples randomly selected"

If someone puts up a book of Ivić Aleksa as proof for some quote, on which rule I have to refer to delete such evidence from individual articles, this is just one example and there are many more because many Serbian historians do not use original historical data as evidence?

References

Mikola22 (talk) 17:21, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

The place for discussion is on the talk page for the article. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:24, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I did it and there is no progress, i started deleting some quotes that have no source in the material evidence but then some consensus started to be mentioned. If something is false and without concrete evidence even it was stated by the historian, I guess we will not debate for two years? If that evidence doesn't exist let the specific quote be deleted. Either there is evidence or no, five minutes of work. So I'm looking for advice in such cases which has a lot of.Mikola22 (talk) 17:41, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Learn to pace yourself, and allow Wikipedia to get better, and articles to be improved over time. I'd personally recommend you just start with three or five (no more) of the claims in the article that are not sourced, and simply add {{cn}} behind each of them, as a simple and polite request for a citation needed. A bot will handle the rest. Then, just go away, and avoid editor conflicts for a while. Others may add sources, or other editors may choose to help by removing the unsourced bits. Or in six or eight weeks, you might come back and gently remove the challenged bits if no other editor has chosen to find and add sources. Only after that, find another three or so areas that might be improved, and request sources on those. Rinse, lather, repeat. Slow and steady to improve an article that is off the rails, yet has editors with strong opinions about retention of unsourced statements.

Give it time, Wikipedia is a somewhat slow work in progress, but you can nudge article improvement in this way.

I'd personally recommend you stay away from the BIG project and "it must be fixed right now"" sort of editing. YMMV, but that's my advice. N2e (talk) 20:27, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Backlinks for another language wikipedia/wikimedia

Is there a way I can see the backlinks to the wikipage from another language wiki or commons from "What Links Here" section? Coderzombie (talk) 18:21, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

@Coderzombie: m:PetScan might be able to do something like that. I've never tried. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:12, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Timelines - How to use - especially if large

Hi, A brief question, I'm considering additions to the Central Valley Project what was at the time, the largest hydro-electric project in the world, that was first pushed in 1920 but not fully under construction between 1940-60. The subject matter for such a major project includes the intersection of complex legal and political battles over land and water laws as well as the extensive construction of close to a billion dollars in dams, power projects and canals in 1950 prices.

As a way to document literally dozens of major projects and their individual activities, I would like to introduce a timeline into the current article on this project that currently has no real history that even comes close to the scale of this project.

I would like to place this extensive history into the article with a timeline format with links to hundreds of digital news articles from federal budget news stories to the political fights that helped shape the state's historic past around irrigation, electricity and water. The timeline itself will exceed 300 or more individual lines of linked stories, that express the scale and missing history of the states water wars.

I've not seen an extended timeline like this on wikipedia, so am wondering if I can do this - a good part of it is already constructed away from the Central Valley Project article. Please remember, the CVP is on the scale of the federal government's manhattan project and is immense.

Sadly, wikipedia apparently doesn't have scripting systems that would allow very large indexing/timelines like this to be folded into a single line - so that such large documents can be presented and can be opened and closed by clicking on segments of the timeline/indes  :( Energynet (talk) 18:41, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Fixing image syntax

How do I fix image syntax? Ayobami Abiodun. --Abiodun 18:57, 22 October 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayobami Abiodun (talk • contribs)

If you are thinking of the image in the infobox in User:Ayobami Abiodun/sandbox/My sandbox, then Template:Infobox person tells you the syntax. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:07, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

References

Can i get references from Japanese websites to make an English article on a Japanese thing? Jtarvin (talk). 3:21 22 October 2019 (UTC)

@Jtarvin: you can cite Japanese-language sources here. The important thing is that the source passes our standards for reliability. If you can find an English-language source that's just as good, you might consider using that instead, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:08, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: How do I make references? Jtarvin (talk). 3:21 22 October 2019 (UTC)

@Jtarvin: Check out WP:REFB for how to do references. RudolfRed (talk) 21:51, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Found a mistake

Hi I found a mistake on a page that is protected from vandalism. How can I pass on the correct information so it can be corrected? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.190.72.122 (talk) 20:36, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

You can make an edit request on the article's talk page using {{Edit semi-protected}}. There's more information at Wikipedia:Edit requests. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:45, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Draft, change of name

Hi Everyone! I'm still writing an article on an upcoming company, however i would like to change the name from Certifyd Inc to Certifyd (App). Do i have to wait for it to be approved before doing so?? Thanks in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alesha Roberts (talk • contribs) 21:24, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

@Alesha Roberts: Continue working on the draft with its current name. When the article is approved and moved to namespace it can be given a new name if needed. RudolfRed (talk) 21:50, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Having issues with this article

Hi Teahouse i created this article User:MelvinSeja/sandbox and i was told there was already a draft article Diego Tryno and i had to merge my article with that draft article to make it one because they will consider the one already submitted and i did that . A reviewer asked us to comment about how the person qualifies to be singer and i commented but the original author of the article later commented and i thought his comment was better than mine ,here is his comment How he qualifies to be Singer. Today i checked the article to see if it has been reviewed and i noticed the original author removed a lot of things ,also he removed the awards category that i added saying that he didnt believe it has strong sources to be added there ,so i know i could add that category back but i wanted to ask how many sources are required for the award category to be on the article? Secondly how many sources are required on a article for it to be approved? .Lastly is there a reviewer here who can review the article so that i don't join the waiting crew? because the original draft was created in June and its been edited by various users but it took only 15 minutes for my own article to be declined so that i merge it with this article. Im new here ,im still learning so im sorry if i made the question long.When i checked the reviewers talk page ,he said he will leave another reviewer to decide.This is the draftDraft:Diego_Tryno