Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dr Ashish Singh (talk | contribs) at 11:50, 8 November 2019. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is the teahouse
Shortcuts

David notMD, a Teahouse host

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

(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.)

There is a screenshot in Wipeout 3 If I would like to publish a screenshot of a video game, should I make the copyright option an original work (own work) as I took the screenshot myself, or should I make it not an original work? If it should NOT be an original work, how should I publish it so it wouldn't violate copyrights? -- Bank: Bank Robbery started a robbery (notify) 03:40, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bank Robbery: if you designed the video game, you can claim that it is original work. Otherwise, I would check the game's license, to see if it is compatible with wikipedia. It probably won't be though, so I suggest reviewing Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria to see if using the screenshot would qualify as "fair use" --DannyS712 (talk) 03:56, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Bank Robbery. A screenshot is a derivitive work, and the original copyright is almost certainly held by the company that developed or owns the marketing rights to the game. You should never claim a common screenshot as your own "original work" because your creative input was negligible. The "work" was created by the videogame company. DannyS712 is correct. Any such upload must comply with WP:NFCI in all details. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:12, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@DannyS712:@Cullen328: Thank you for your help. The image I wanted to upload is a screenshot from Hungry Shark World. Is there an official page for Hungry Shark World, or do I need to upload it on to the page Hungry Shark directly instead? -- Bank: Bank Robbery started a robbery (notify) 09:56, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Cullen328: I also have a problem. How can I find the copyright information about the game? -- Bank: Bank Robbery started a robbery (notify) 11:04, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Bank Robbery. The home page for the game says "© 2016 Ubisoft Entertainment". Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:54, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Cullen328: Don’t really understand what you mean. Actually, I am asking which license should I use (like CC Public Domain 3.0 (I don’t really know the name of the license)). -- Bank: Bank Robbery started a robbery (notify) 00:59, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And Cullen328 is telling you, Bank Robbery, that there is no licence that you can use, because you are not permitted to upload such a picture to which you do not own the copyright, unless the copyright owner has explicitly released it under a free licence, or unless your use complies with all the terms in the non-free content criteria; in the latter case you upload it as non-free, and don't specify a licence. --ColinFine (talk) 23:23, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bank Robbery, you cannot arbitrarily assign a free licence to an image that is copyrighted by someone else. That would be illegal, immoral and quite ridiculous. Copyrights are equivalent to property. The rights to images that you did not create are not your property. Those rights belong to other people. The only possible acceptable uses of copyrighted images are described quite clearly in WP:NFCI and no other use is permitted on Wikipedia. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:32, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: Is there any way for me to not specify a license? -- Bank: Bank Robbery started a robbery (notify) 10:04, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bank Robbery, you must provide a rationale (not a license) that complies with WP:NFCI in every way. Read that very carefully. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 15:40, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Cullen328: Even I have read WP:NFCI for two times, I still do not understand how to upload a photo without a license. Can you give me the steps? -- Bank: Bank Robbery started a robbery (notify) 10:47, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bank Robbery. All files uploaded to Wikipedia are required to have two things: (1) a copyright license and (2) information about the file's source; so, no you cannot upload a file without a copyright license and any such file will be tagged (most likely quite quickly) for speedy deletion per speedy deletion criteria F4. If you're uploading a non-free file which seems to be what you're asking about, you will also need to provide a non-free use rationale for each use of the file and explain how each use of the file satisfies all ten non-free content use criteria explained here; if a use is judged to fail even one of these criteria, the file will be removed or deleted. If you're not sure whether the screenshot you want to upload will satisfy all ten of these criteria, you might want to ask for help at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games since the members of that WikiProject may be able to help you figure this out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:52, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Marchjuly, the WikiProject Page doesn’t seem to help me much. I want the steps instead. -- Bank: Bank Robbery started a robbery (notify) 23:23, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are no steps or short-cuts listed other than those listed on relevant Wikipedia pages. If you want someone else to try and upload the file for you, you can try asking for help at Wikipedia:Files for upload. If you're trying to upload a screenshot of some video game that you don't own the copyright on, you will need to uploaded it as non-free content. In that case, you will need to provide a non-free use rationale and a non-free copyright license. For video game screenshots, Template:Non-free video game screenshot is generally used for the license, and Template:Non-free use rationale video game screenshot is generally used for the non-free use rationale. If you're not sure whether the screenshot you want to upload and use satisfies Wikipedia's non-free content use policy, please ask for help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video Games or Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:27, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Marchjuly, as I have read a project article about uploading files on Wikipedia instead of Wikimedia Commons. I forgot the page for the Wikipedia file uploading, so can you please tell me the page and how to use the template you have mentioned above? -- Bank: Bank Robbery started a robbery (notify) 09:56, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I don't know what Wikipedia page you're referring to. Perhaps try looking at Wikipedia:Image use policy, Wikipedia:Image dos and don'ts, Wikipedia:How to upload a photo or Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard. As for how to use non-free use rationale, you basically add it to the file's page and complete the parameters as explained in the template's documentation; for the copyright license template, you just need to add the template as is since there are no parameters to complete. You can practice doing both of these things in your user sandbox.
I get that uploading files can be tricky, especially for new editors. However, every time someone points you to a page where you can find more specific information or suggests a page where you can ask for more help, your responses are basically always along the lines of "I still don't understand" or "Please tell me how". I suggested that you ask for help with this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video Games since that's a good place to ask about video game screenshots, but you haven't seemed to have tried that yet. There are only so many ways to explain something and I'm not sure how to try and explain this to you any better or any differently than I already have. Your account is only about a week old so nobody is expecting you to know everything there is to know about Wikipedia, but perhaps you'd might be better off focusing on other things instead of uploading images so as to get a better feel for editing and other things Wikipedia. Maybe with a little more experience under your belt, you'll be better able to understand how to do things like uploading a file and then adding it to a page work. If at that time you still can't figure things out, you can always request that someone else upload the file for you at Wikipedia:Files for upload. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:12, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Marchjuly: I think you've just given me the page name. WP:File Upload Wizard. -- Bank: Bank Robbery started a robbery (notify) 23:18, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Marchjuly: Even I have found the page, I cannot start uploading. Why? -- Bank: Bank Robbery started a robbery (notify) 23:29, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but I don't know why you're now having problems with the Upload Wizard. It could be you're doing something incorrectly or it could be a problem that has nothing to do with you. You might be better of asking for help at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) because that's where those who are really familiar with the technical aspects of Wikipedia tend to hang out. Just explain exactly what you're trying to do and where you're having the problem. It might be easier for someone at the Village Pump to figure out why you're having problems if you list everything you're doing in the order that you're doing it; for example, I did "X" first, then I did "Y" and finally I did "Z". -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:50, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Marchjuly: Village Pump? X? Y? Z? -- Bank: Bank Robbery started a robbery (notify) 06:38, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) is a page, like the Teahouse, where you can ask questions only it tends to be a place to ask more technical questions about how or why the Wikipedia software is doing (or not doing) a certain thing; so, if you're have technical problems using the Upload Wizard page, then perhaps someone at the Village Pump can help figure out why.

"X", "Y", "Z" where just generic terms I used since I don't know exactly what problem you're having and what you're doing that's leading to the problem. If you ask for help at the Village Pump, it will probably be much easier for someone to help you if you're able to describe exactly what problem you're having and what things you're doing. If you just say something like "I can't start uploading", then there's pretty much no way anyone is going to be able to help you because they won't have any idea what the problem is. So, you need to describe it in as much detail as possible and the best place to do that type of thing is at the Village Pump. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:05, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly: If I don't want to use WP:File Upload Wizard, how can I specific a rationale on Wikimedia Commons Upload Wizard? -- Bank: Bank Robbery started a robbery (notify) 03:39, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Commons doesn't accept fair use content (i.e. non-free content) of any kind as explained in c:Commons:Fair use; so, if you try to upload any such content to Commons, it will be tagged for deletion (most likely fairly quickly). If you want to know some more information about Commons and screenshots, please read c:Commons:Licensing and c:Commons:Screenshots. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:12, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a new page

Greetings! I joined Wikipedia, last sunnier. for a class assignment at Georgia State University. I am hoping to create another Wikipedia page for a different class. How do I go about creating a new Wikipedia page? Is there a different training or set of requirement outside of what I trained for via GSU? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Obie Njoku (talk • contribs) 18:58, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Obie Njoku and welcome to ther Teahouse. Creating an article from a blank start is one of the harder tasks here at Wikipedia, and it is often better to edit existing pages for a while fist. But here are some stapes that, when followed, often lead to success.


  • 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 19:14, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
However, the wait for an AfC review between steps six and seven can be several weeks or more. If your instructor can arrange for an experienced Wikipedia editor to do such reviews on a more expedited basis, that will help. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 19:17, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, Obie Njoku, and welcome to the Teahouse. First, pick a topic that satisfies the criteria at WP:GNG, the more easily the better. Then, move on to Help:Your first article wich has guidance on how to create a draft and submit it for approval. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:18, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Obie Njoku: See WP:Creating a new page. Mathglot (talk) 19:58, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Obie Njoku, I agree with DESiegel's steps above, but please add a new step "0" at the top:

  • Please make sure that the article doesn't already exist. You will waste a lot of time, if you create a new article, and then find that the encyclopedia already has an article about that, possibly under a different spelling (especially if it's about a foreign person or topic), or is treated as a section in an existing page with a different article title.

If you disclose your topic here, other editors can help you determine if the topic already has an article about it. Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 03:30, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Mathglot I will add that to the template that produces the above. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 03:37, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DESiegel, didn't realize it was template-generated. Can you please add a hidden text identifier string including the Template name, in the generated text, in the way that user warning and welcome templates such as {{Uw-unsourced1}} or {{Welcome}} do? Also, there's more I would add to the boilerplate about "step 0" in a template, that I didn't add here, because there are so many helpful editors here to help out the questioner. But if you want to discuss possible wording, please point me to the Template talk page, or we can discuss at your page or mine, if you wish. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 06:03, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The last period in the text links to the template, as can be seen in the wiki-source, Mathglot. This also enable finding uses via the link. I could also add an HTML comment, do you think that is also wanted? I am also a bit reluctant to add too much text. But this could be discussed at Template talk:Steps to Article. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 14:18, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to crate an article for "World Igbo Congress." World Igbo Congress or WIC is socio-cultural organization that represents the interests of Igbo people of southeastern Nigeria. I am aware that the there is no article yet about the group. Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Obie Njoku (talk • contribs) 04:29, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Obie Njoku. Your subject is notable. I was able to find several scholarly sources (mainly books) that can be used besides the news reports you can find on the web. Let me know if you need the details of these sources so I can give them to you. Good luck. Darwin Naz (talk) 01:37, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Publish after one/all edits?

Hello Teahouse! Let's say an article needs different types of corrections - references, wikilinks, new information etc. When do I save the edits? After every one of them, or after every type, or maybe after everything is done? I've been doing both but I wanted to know which is considered more correct. Thank you --Less Unless (talk) 20:55, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Less Unless: Welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for working to improve it. It is usually better to make several small edits instead of one big edit. This makes it easier to see what has changed each time and if one of the small edits has an error it is easier to spot it, and if the edit needs to be undone then only one small part can be undone instead of undoing everything. RudolfRed (talk) 21:00, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
RudolfRed Thank you! Does this also apply to creating articles via draft? --Less Unless (talk) 21:04, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Smaller edits are always better and easier to manage. -- Alexf(talk) 21:06, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is a matter of working style, Less Unless. I prefer small edits myself, but when creating a draft, some prefer to work offline and save a more complete text in the initial edit, and if creating a new article not in a draft (which i do not advise) a large initial edit may be essential to avoid a speedy deletion tag from a new page patroller on a partly completed page not yse constituting a valid article. Ther is no rulke against large edits, but if you make ne to an existing articel, it is a very good idea to explain what you are doing in boith the edit summary, and on the talk page, and even so, makign smaller incremental edits is often better practice. It allows discussion of your changes one npiece at a time, if anyone objects to them, DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:47, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Less Unless: Smaller edits, yes, within reason. While there is really no right or wrong, a bunch of separate saves for each spelling or grammar fix would be annoying for others to review. I like to try to group together similar types of changes in one save. For example, if I'm going to do some copyediting to one paragraph, re-arrange a table, and fix some minor grammar, that would be three saves, with the grammar one marked as "minor". If you put it all together, you run the risk of a less-than-careful editor reverting the whole thing if they don't like one small part of it (which isn't right, but it happens, so ...). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 02:15, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this issue is a matter of working style. Personally, I prefer big edits because the changes you made were all highlighted anyway when you compare it with its older version. If you choose to do big edits, you might want to check them first with grammar checking applications (e.g. Grammarly) to spot mistakes before saving. Darwin Naz (talk) 01:47, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New editor

What defines a new editor? Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:27, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Djm-leighpark, New editors are editors who are new to Wikipedia. We all were new editors before. Interstellarity (talk) 23:01, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Djm-leighpark, There is no official definition. Certainly any editor that is not auto-confirmed, less than 10 edits and 4 days. But I would say being a new editor may last a while. Until folks understand all the core policies and have edited in a variety of areas, I would say they are new and learning. That doesn't mean those editors are any less valuable or have less pull, they should be treated with kindness and respect all the same, and should be given extra help and care. We WP:BITE way too many new editors, and need to provide a more welcoming environment to new folks. For me, I would say I was still a new editor until I had probably 1,000 edits and had been actively editing for several months. The period of "new" will vary for every editor. Hope that helps! Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 23:07, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@CaptainEek sounds in general a reasonable answer, and I bet there are quite a few who find the more they know about pillars, policies, and guidelines the more they feel they don't know.
@Interstellarity ... one for you. How many edits have I made, how do I tell how many edits I have made, and could I reasonably be considered to be a new editor? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djm-leighpark (talk • contribs) 18:36, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Djm-leighpark, In your preferences, you can see how many edits you have made. I see you have over 10000 edits. That's more than me. I would consider you far from a new editor. Interstellarity (talk) 00:37, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Hello, Djm-leighpark. You have 11,570 edits at the moment, 686 of them deleted, and an average of 4 edits per page touched. You have been editing since 2017-01-29. I wouldn't call you new, although there are many editoirs who ahve been editing longer and have larger edit counts. You are surely experienced enough to know that you ought to WP:SIGN discussion page edits, and how to do it, for example. There are several ways to check your own edit count. The most accurate is probably the counter at https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org but the one in your preferences (at Special:Preferences) is probably simpler. There are some others as well, but those two should be enough. Each gives slightly different results in my experience, but usually not different enough to matter. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:41, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@DES ... Thankyou for the reminder to sign. Unfortunately I will forget that sometimes. As you have pointed out most reasonable people would determine I am far from being a new editor, but as my omission to sign shows I am far from perfect. Thus to be labelled a new editor on one's talk page and invited to discuss my feelings about that experience at the Teahouse perhaps might be felt to be inappropriate might it not? If I misjudge an article as demonstrating sufficient notability for mainspace that is one thing and in my making a less than perfect and considered answer to a question and another ... but for AfC reviewers to then start telling me: If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! is somewhat mind boggling! Can me a plonker for lots of stuff if you like but condescending insults like that is unlikely to have a positive effect on my mood! Unbelievable! Djm-leighpark (talk) 02:49, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As you should realize, Djm-leighpark, the wording you complain of is boilerplate, produced by a template , placed by a script, on the assumption that an editor who is using the AfC process and getting a submission declined is probably relatively new -- that assumption is valid in the vast majority of cases. I am sure that Theroadislong intended no condescension or insult. Please assume good faith on this matter. Your contributions are welcome, as are those of all well-intentioned editors, new or highly experienced. I m sure you know this, but it can be hard to recall in an emotional moment. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 02:59, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:AGF I'm pretty sure it was unintentional on Theroadislong's part. But something is wrong ... either the template was wrongly applied, or it should be modified to assess an edit count, or it should simply have the words like yourself removed (or perhaps changed). As it is that template seems like a complete redacted. In all events Draft:ThePrint is even more tainted now than its salting would suggest: [1]. More positively Wikipedia:Teahouse/AfC Invitation should likely be changed or perhaps it can be left as is to shame editors with a significant number of edits on their talk page. Djm-leighpark (talk) 03:32, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I must say, Djm-leighpark that I for one do not see a Teahosue invite as a "badge of shame" in any sense. It is an attempt to offer help, possibly not needed in some cases. Nor do I see how the draft is tainted by the use of a template on the creator's talk page. I know that when I review a draft, I don't consider such things. I do consider past decline reasons, if any, but only to check if the issues have been dealt with since the decline (and if I agree with the previous reviewer, sometimes I don't). I agree that an edit count check might be a good idea, but I think that is not as trivial for a script to do as you might suppose, and it is a bit rare for an experienced editor to ask for an AfC review of a draft, so the script doesn't really cater for that. Perhaps it should. If you think the invite is disrespectful you are totally free to remove it from your talk page. I doubt anyone will check the page history for it. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 05:16, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I generally don't use WP:AFC but for a WP:BLP (of which I've done less than a handful) and maybe in some other cases I may opt for WP:AFC as a second pair of eyes. This article in question had a salted target so requires admin assistance in some form; possibly a WP:DRV or perhaps contacting the salting admin Doc James per WP:RFUP procedure, but as the WP:REFUND of the rejected draft I had used as a startpoint after coming across the subject had gone via AfC that was a reasonable continued pathway especially as Nosebagbear's comments seem encouraging and addressable albeit in retrospect more attention should probably had been paid to his notability comment.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:31, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

... Of course one generally has respect for the WP:NPP and WP:AFC people but of course one trick is scummer by using an WP:AFC reviewer tool to leave the derisory comment Nah; attributions are fairly commonplace and block editing for over 12 hours [2] ... maybe the edits and dumping of sources by Winged Blades of Godric are justified but per RHaworth at User talk:RHaworth/2019 Apr 27#User:Vidyutblogger/sandbox/Vidyut Gore there is history of the slashing. Now with the totality of our interaction history there there is perhaps rightful cause to be WP:UNCIVIL to me but to misuse the tools to do so is likely inappropriate. While the message at Old revision of Draft:ThePrint helpfully points to Wikipedia:IRC help disclaimer apart mainly from the fact I had a pretty bad experience over a WP:BLP last time I was there I see another gotcha taking that route ... so Theroadislong and others options of courses of action please ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djm-leighpark (talk • contribs) 03:19, 6 November 2019 (UTC) Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:42, 6 November 2019 (UTC) Probably wrong place for this .... Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:02, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A rant towards wikipedia

hello. my name is bill. i have come to discuss controversy and how wikipedia users handle it. yesterday, i went on the article for extra credits, and there was zero mention of the recent controversy about their stop normalizing nazis video, despite how major the controversy was. and this is just 1 example. back in 2018, when the channel awesome controversy occured, instead of simply adding a section about it, someone just deleted the list of episodes, and the article for doug walker himself. all i'm asking is, when something like this happens, the articles should be updated to reflect it, not just have it ignored or have pages deleted. Bill cage (talk) 09:38, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It would help if you could tell us to which of Wikipedia's 5,965,325 articles you are referring (or which of five different Doug Walkers). The usual place to discuss article content would be the talk page of that article.--Shantavira|feed me 09:57, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Shantavira: As OP mentions a 'list of episodes' I'd guess he means Doug Walker (actor) (see history for "article removal"). --CiaPan (talk) 12:27, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTNEWS may have some helpful guidance. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:59, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

to shantavira: was the mention of channel awesome not clear enough to figure which doug walker it was? also, maybe i'm misreading, but it somewhat seems like you're dodging my question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill cage (talk • contribs) 17:19, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you want people to know what article you are asking about, put double brackets [[ ]] to create a Wikilink: Channel Awesome. David notMD (talk) 19:14, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I can't speak for Shantavira, but for me the mention of channel awesome was not clear. Not at all. Possibly, if you used capital letters, like Channel Awesome, or even better, capiltals with italics, like Channel Awesome, I would guess where to look to discover what you meant. But neglecting common rules of writing made your question hard to understand instead of fancy. --CiaPan (talk) 19:43, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]


okay i understand, but will someone please adress the main topic of my question? Bill cage (talk) 12:55, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bill cage. I'm sorry you've had a runaround here (though for my part, I read your question, hadn't a clue what you were referring to, and left it for somebody else). But I'm afraid I'm going to give you more runaround: it's unlikely that snybody here is going to answer your question. The place to discuss it is on the article's talk page. -ColinFine (talk) 13:20, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Got the ping wrong. Bill cage -ColinFine (talk) 13:25, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Bill cage: As ColinFine said, you are more likely to get useful advice at the article talk pages, that is, Talk:Channel Awesome or Talk:Extra Credits. If it is not in the articles, it might just be because nobody thought to put it in.
However, be aware that in general it's hard to find reliable sourcing for "controversies" in Youtube communities - since most of it is unlikely to be picked up by newspapers or the like. And on Wikipedia we require those.
Finally, the title "a rant towards Wikipedia" is not a wise choice diplomatically speaking. I expected your post to be some variation of "you are biaised for/against politician X/random cause Y" (we get one every week or so at the Teahouse), and maybe some skipped it after reading the title alone, when actually your question/remark has decent potential to turn into an improvement of our articles. TigraanClick here to contact me 15:19, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

okay. thanks Bill cage (talk) 20:15, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Revolve NTNU must be unblocked.

Hi!

We are the marketing team of Revolve NTNU. We have been trying to update and edit the Wikipedia page of our organization, Revolve NTNU. But seems like there has been some misunderstanding between Wikipedia admins on the changes we have published. We have been blocked from editing. We believe that there is simply just a big misunderstanding since we can't figure out what we have done wrong. All the information that we have added to the User:Revolve NTNU page is facts and relevant information about our organization, Revolve NTNU. There is no sensitive information about individual people or about the organization itself.

We hope you guys can unblock us and also give us permission to edit the page and accept our published changes.

Our page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolve_NTNU

Best regards, Rafi Khajeh Marketing team, Revolve NTNU — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tehrafi (talk • contribs) 18:06, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Raised at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Revolve_NTNU_must_be_unblocked., which is a more appropriate forum for the question. creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 18:16, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tehrafi and welcome to the Teahouse. You need to understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a marketing tool. Wikipedia has little interest in what an organisation wants to say about itself. Wikipedia reports only what has been written in independent WP:Reliable sources. I note that you have not yet complied with the WP:COI and WP:Paid requirements notified on your talk page. Dbfirs 20:09, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tehrafi and helpful Teahouse folks. I've left a note on the article talk page after seeing the AN/I report. The article is very out of date, but unfortunately the corresponding Norwegian page has few sources. What we really need is third-party sources (newspapers, NRK reports ... ) to update the article. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:50, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Etiquette around creating articles?

Last night I wrote an article about a book I enjoyed recently, and I followed what I thought was the right etiquette for making a new article. I used a wizard to make a "Draft", and then, when I thought it was in good shape, marked it for review. It's currently in the category "Pending AfC submissions." That was so much fun that then I went to the Women in Red Project and found someone interesting and put together a rough article about her. When I finished, I realised that it wasn't a "Draft" but an actual real article in Wikipedia (which is how I learned that I am an "autoconfirmed" user). On looking more closely, it looks like the AfC review process exists largely to allow non-confirmed users to still contribute pages. Since I can create pages, am I cluttering up the review process by posting an article there? Can/should I move my own "Draft" article to the main namespace? Or, does it go the other direction, should my second article be reviewed too? Of the two, I think my first one is better than my second one... I couldn't find any English-language sources about Marion du Faouët and I got tired of reading French. Thank you for the advice! Oulfis (talk) 21:43, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy: the draft is Draft:Daughters of the Samurai: A Journey from East to West and Back. The article is Marion du Faouët. David notMD (talk) 22:23, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Oulfis: Submitting a draft to WP:AFC isn't mandatory, and it's OK to be WP:BOLD and create a draft and then move the draft to the WP:MAINSPACE yourself instead. What AFC does is give other editors a chance to review and assess the draft for Wikipedia notability and other issues; since AFC reviews tend to be experienced editors who have a pretty good grasp of relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, this can be helpful to editors who are new or haven't otherwise had lots of experience (successful experience) creating articles. Articles approved by AFC reviewers tend to satisfy Wikipedia's most basic notability guidelines; so, even though they're not perfect, they seem to be less likely to be immediately tagged or nominated for deletion. Of course, even being accepted via AFC isn't a 100% guarantee and individual reviewers might look at the same draft and see two different things, but for the most part drafts approved via AFC do seem to have a bit more of a chance of surviving as an article. If you feel comfortable enough creating articles and feel you've got a good grasp of Wikipedia notability and other relevant policies and guidelines, then you can basically act as your own AFC reviewer and move your drafts to the mainspace yourself. However, you need to understand that once something is added to the mainspace, it's pretty much there for anyone anywhere in the world to edit at anytime and you don't have any special editorial control of an article's content just because you created the article; this means that another editor can tag or nominate the article for deletion if they feel it's not something which meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines or has other problems that are too serious to be fixed.
Articles created without AFC still may be subject to some kind of review by Wikipedia:New pages patrol which is sort of a post-creation review process, but I believe editors who have established a track-record of creating acceptable articles may be exempted from these reviews since the WP:COMMUNITY has confidence in their ability not to create articles that need to be deleted. At the same time, editors who have continuously created poor articles that have been deleted, may find the community to be less willing to give them the benefit of doubt and may be "required" to submit drafts to AFC for review until they can demonstrate they know what they're doing. Same goes for WP:COI or WP:PAID editors where the community feels an AFC review is too the benefit of Wikipedia to ensure inappropriate articles aren't being created. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:36, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Marchjuly: Thank you so much for this detailed reply! It is very helpful to know that I am not being rude if I create articles on my own, as long as I am confident that I'm following Wikipedia policies. My draft article was approved, which makes me feel good that I am on the right track. I will keep the AFC process in mind if I'm ever unsure about an article, but otherwise will try to be WP:BOLD! ~ oulfis 🌸(talk) 03:21, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oulfis, Personally, I advise using a draft, whether you submit it to AfC or not. I am a fairly experienced editor (over 40,000 edits), and I always start new articles as drafts, and move them into mainspace when I think they are ready, although I do not ask for an AfC review. This is because I cannot create a reasonable quality article in a single edit, and once an article is in the main article space, it is expected to comply with a number of policies right away.
New articles are sometimes tagged for speedy deletion within minutes of begin created, and may possibly be deleted soon after. If the article does not indicate the significance of the topic, in some cases WP:CSD#A7 (or A9 or A11) may apply. So may some other of the speedy deletion criteria. Even if there is no risk of deletion, putting an article into main space says that it is ready for Wikipedia's readers to see. At least when I create an article this is not true on my first few edits.
You are free to create directly in mainspace if you choose, but there are benefits to using a draft, or a user-space draft. Note that any autoconfirmed user can move a page from draft (or user) space to the main article space, unless it would overwrite an existing article, or has been move-protected. Both cases are rare for new drafts.
Have a look at the early versions of Judy Sullivan, which I created in draft space on 8 October 20-19, but was not moved to the main article space until 16 October.
All this is merely advice, you are in no way obliged to follow it, of course. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 04:36, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Oulfis: Although it is not mandatory, in general, I would strongly advise to go through WP:AFC for your first couple of articles, until you get the hang of things, most importantly the fairly arcane "notability" rule and sourcing requirements. An AfC reviewer declining a draft and giving improvements idea is much less resource intensive than a new page patroller having to look around the internet for sources, sending the article through the deletion process where a few editors would weigh in, and then restarting as a draft all over again. Finally, AfC reviewers are here to review articles, so it's not bad etiquette to send something to them!
That being said, looking at Marion du Faouët, I think the advice does not apply to you specifically. Unless you got extremely lucky, you seem to have a good understanding of those already. Keep up the good job! TigraanClick here to contact me 15:41, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@DESiegel:, @Tigraan:, thank you both for the additional advice! I will work on future articles as drafts in my userspace... it will be nice to be able to save my work :) (I was copying it into a plaintext file to edit as I worked before it went live, but of course there is a better way!) And, I'm glad the notability and sourcing look ok to you on Marion du Faouët, Tigraan. I think it would be better if I could find more sources in English -- she might not be notable outside France? But she seems interesting enough that I am glad to have learned about her! Being an academic, I feel solid on following Wikipedia's policies for sources and citation... I just have to always watch myself for WP:NOR!
@Oulfis: You forgot to sign your post and as a consequence the pings to DESiegel and myself did not go through. See WP:PINGFIX (especially the first sentence) for an explanation.
About non-English sources, see WP:NONENG: English sources are preferred when possible but not mandatory. Other editors may ask for a direct quote and translation from the source if something is unclear. If it was up to me, a reference to anything longer than a newspaper article should always be made specific (page or chapter number or direct quote). Recent personal anecdote: I was reading an otherwise fine report that quoted some number from a 1100-page textbook without caring to say the page or chapter, and since that number was a crucial part of why I was reading said report, I was not happy.
Notability rules are different on English-Wikipedia and in other Wikipedias, but notability is not a matter of locality. In practice there are two effects though:
  1. Systemic bias due to editor demographics, so that we are more likely to miss an article about a member of the Sejm than one of the House of Commons, even if both are (usually) notable; we strive to eliminate that one;
  2. The availability of reliable sources limits the topics we can cover. That can skew coverage in multiple ways: men are more likely than women to have been written about in (almost?) all societies before the 20th century; wide-circulation uncensored journalism appeared in Europe in the late 18th century, but China has pretty much never seen it; etc. That is not something we can do much about, even though it means copying the biases of the past.
Academics usually have an easier time starting on Wikipedia, for a couple of reasons: the practice of writing text without passion and citing sources is relatively similar; they have some specialized knowledge that is useful to the project (pages of contemporary American politicians need little editing, unlike those of 18th century Breton bandits); and the ideology usually aligns (most academics view their job as increasing the sum of human knowledge, and Wikipedia editors as disseminating said knowledge, which is complementary, even if within both groups considerable differences of political opinions exist). TigraanClick here to contact me 14:11, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PING!

How do I ping someone? Jtarvin (talk). 4:13, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

@Jtarvin: You can ping someone like this: {{ping|user pinged}}. Hope this helps --LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 22:21, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jtarvin: See the {{Ping}} documentation for some more information and caveats. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 23:45, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jtarvin: You can also do {{Hidden ping|user pinged}} for the ping to not to show up in the text. Dibbydib 💬/✏ 00:21, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Jtarvin there are other methods besides {{ping}}, including {{U}} and a direct wiki-link to the user page of the recipient. See Help:Notifications for an overview of the whole system. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 05:54, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That’s good advice, but do I put the ping in my talk page or the other guy’s talk page? Jtarvin (talk). 10:41, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you leave a note on the other person's talk page, they will get a notification anyway, you don't need to link to them, Jtarvin. This would be appropriate if you are initiating new contact (and was the only option before the "Echo" notification system was created). Some people consider it rude being "summoned" to your place, it's more polite to "go visit theirs". On the other hand, if there is already discussion somewhere and you would like to inform somebody who's not yet involved, it's sufficient to ping them from there. Personally I don't feel that to be rude, but if somebody says "stop pinging me about this", then I try to remember to respect their wishes. Hope that helps! Pelagic (talk) 21:07, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tumhari maka bhosda

Madarchod k bcho — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dharmamulla (talk • contribs) 22:11, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dharmamulla, This is the English language Wikipedia, if you are not familiar with English you may wish to contribute to your native language's Wikipedia instead.Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:21, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps Hindi Wikipedia? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 00:03, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dharmadulla, you are using hindi swear words on a encyclopaedic site. Please remove thhis immediately.DrapalDragon (talk) 14:53, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IP Banned

How to left banned IP? — Preceding unsigned comment added by OthnielM. (talk • contribs) 07:20, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OthnielM., Howdy hello! I'm not quite sure what your question is. Could you expand on what the issue is? Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:04, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question archived but not copied to my Usertalk page

I have had the following archived https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_1029#Sorting_an_ambiguous_title Usually, I get notice of this and a copy is put on my Usertalk page. This has not happened (did I do something wrong?) and I would appreciate a copy of it on a site (my Usertalk page) that I can readily locate.BFP1 (talk) 13:05, 6 November 2019 (UTC)BFP1[reply]

how long will it take from draft edition to formal edition

i have supported an item which is called "Zhang Yan", now it can be searched as "Draft: Zhang Yan"

so i want make sure about how long will it take to become the formal edition?

thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SheenaZhao (talk • contribs) 15:00, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SheenaZhao Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Once you actually submit your draft for review, there is no set timeframe for the review to occur, as reviews are done in no particular order by volunteers. There is usually thousands of drafts waiting for review, and though it is possible it will be quick, it will most likely be several weeks and possibly months. 331dot (talk) 15:06, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draft:Zhang Yan has not yet been submitted. There is a blue rectangle with submission instructions. It will be declined, as large sections of text have no references. Also, written in a promotional tone rather than a neutral point of view. As just one example, all of this has to be deleted:"Exposed to art when he was a little child, he was keen of poetry and painting and was diligent to learn knowledge. These traits not only helped make him a prudent and meticulous person, but also opened slowly a door of understanding Chinese culture and traditional Chinese painting. As an adolescent, when Mr. Zhang started to study syncretic painting, he has showed an extraordinary artistic talent. His parents were always kind and his family emphasized on education, accepted norms and family tradition, which made him not seek fame and official rank." David notMD (talk) 20:22, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Draft:The Leylines" Submission Declined

Hi, I created a Wikipedia page for a band that I know and the submission was recently declined. The reason is that there are not enough references to the band's notability. Having looked through the criteria for notability of musical artists, I have supplied references from news articles and independent sources. I have been using the band's current peers (other band's in the same genre, including bands that usually play alongside this band) as a baseline of content and referencing. Is there something else I'm missing?

Draft link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:The_Leylines

I would be grateful for any advice, if possible. NickMcLeod1980 (talk) 15:28, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there!
From the looks of things, I'd say your article was declined as most of the references are just listings of where the band is playing. I don't edit music articles, and they're not my specialty, so I could be wrong, but references for musicians and bands have to be more than festival listings. Take, for example, a look at the references for The 1975 - most of them are news articles about their new releases, interviews with the band's members, etc.
The references that link to festival listings are great for inline citations on where and when they've played - but to meet Wikipedia's notability criteria and the good referencing criteria, we'd need more references like the ones I've talked about above. Again, I don't edit music articles, so this isn't as specific a feedback as you'd probably like, but I think I'm in the right ballpark.
Other than that - the writing in the article is good quality. I would suggest you include more in-line citations on the 'History' section using WP:REFNAME - this means you can use a citation more than once to back up what you're saying. It's not recommended you stuff your article full of the same source over and over, but you won't be taken out and shot for using the same reference twice where it's relevant!
I'd also recommend copy-editing the 'History' section to be a little shorter; could some of the information go into other headings? And, as per the guidelines for articles on bands, the 'associated acts' section has to be acts that have collaborated with the band on more than one occasion and/or song.
I hope this helps! If you can find some good references of reviewers talking about the band and add those in, I see no reason why this article couldn't pass the draft stage. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 17:22, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that is very helpful. I will revise it and see how it goes NickMcLeod1980 (talk) 06:39, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When Is Someone Gonna Work On 2019-20 North American Winter

I mean its not winter yet but there has been some winter storms already so.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ProGamerYT676 (talk • contribs)

ProGamerYT676 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is a volunteer project, where people do what they can, when they can, with the information that they have available. If there are certain edits you think should be made, you can either make them yourself, or post on the article talk page to discuss any proposed changes you feel are needed. 331dot (talk) 16:01, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I want to ask for help in creating a page

Hi guys, 

  this is a request for information on how I can ask for a Wikipedia article to be created?
   Any help welcomed.
 Thanks!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by HunterGetsHunted (talk • contribs) 15:56, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
HunterGetsHunted Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You can go to Requested Articles to request that others write an article. Please understand that there is an extensive backlog there, and an article will probably not be written quickly. It will probably help if you indicate how the subject meets Wikipedia's special definition of notability and if there are independent reliable sources to support it. 331dot (talk) 15:59, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

COI or no COI?

For my first article I am putting together an article about the National Herbarium of Guinea, an academic institution that my partner has involvement with (not employed by). Would this connection be enough to require I decalre a conflict of interest?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipikeia (talk • contribs) 16:20, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipikeia Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If you are the one writing the article and your partner has no input on it at all, I don't think that's enough of a COI to need to declare. 331dot (talk) 16:58, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Wikipikeia. I would say that that depends on how cloely your partner is involved with Herbarium. If your partner was, say the director, or if it had been your partner's life work to get the Herbarium established, that would be a clear COI. Think of it this way. If you learned that someone was creating an article about, say the National Zoo of Guinea, and you learned that the author's partner was connected with the Zoo in exactly the same way that your partner is connected with the Herbarium , would you think that perhaps the author had been unconsciously biased because of the connection? Many people are, after all, unconsciously biased in favor of things that their spouses or partners are deply involved with. If you are seriously in doubt, it is better to disclose because then you cannot be accused of trying to hide the connection. If you disclsoe and stick to neutral writing in the article, there should be no problems. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 19:20, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Same Name but Different Person

Hi Everyone!

Greetings! Please help me on this one, newbie here. This person has the same name of the biography I want to write: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_Avery What action should I take if I want to create a new biography with the same name as his but different content since it's not the same person? Problem is his wiki page appears when you search on the name Ryan Avery, which confuse people because he is not the one written on the wiki page. And he is more known than him.

Should I just edit the singer's content? I'm afraid I will violate Wiki policies if I do that or the person will report me. Or should I just create a new page about the speaker Ryan Avery?

Thank you in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azumi121 (talk • contribs) 16:46, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Azumi121 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If the person you want to write about meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable person(or the more specific criteria for certain careers), and you have independent reliable sources with significant coverage about the person, you can use Articles for Creation to create and submit a draft for review by another editor; if it is accepted, the reviewer can handle differentiating your draft from the existing article; that will be done by adding a disambiguation to the title(such as "Ryan Avery (politician)", for example). 331dot (talk) 16:49, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If, once your article is created, you want to argue that your article should have the "Ryan Avery" title and the other person have the disambiguation, you would probably need to start a formal Request for Comment to sort out who is more well known(or if they are equally known). 331dot (talk) 16:51, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for that information. It helps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azumi121 (talk • contribs) 16:54, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What should I expect next?

Hello TeaHouse, thanks for your time. I submitted an article yesterday for review/approval yesterday immediately after the article was not there. I checked back today only to see the article again with a button asking me to submit for review. Nothing was said about the article I submitted and I did not see any changes to it. Am curious about what I should do next. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikechukwu272 (talk • contribs) 17:03, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ikechukwu272 Hello and welcome. I don't think you actually submitted the draft for review; you need to click that blue button on the draft and follow the instructions. If you were to do so now, however, I believe your draft would be rejected, as it reads as a very promotional piece for job websites in Nigeria. Wikipedia is not a how to guide or forum for merely providing information; this is an encyclopedia that summarizes what independent reliable sources state about article subjects that meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability. I would suggest that you read Your First Article and use the new user tutorial before further editing and submitting your draft, so you better understand the process and what is being looked for. 331dot (talk) 17:09, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moving from talk space to publish

Hello, Still trying to following along here. How does an article eventually move if the original editor is no longer involved? And who is the deciding factor after the time comes to an end? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Draft:Nichelle_Rodriguez#Draft%3ANichelle_Rodriguez — Preceding unsigned comment added by AKinderWorld (talk • contribs) 17:08, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AKinderWorld If you are referring to the deletion discussion, an administrator will eventually make a determination and address the matter. 331dot (talk) 17:10, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New editor

I received a notification and It took me to a "user talk" page where someone "messaged" me. Can someone please tell me what the page is and how can i reply? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 33sam33 (talk • contribs) 17:19, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep bullet points in the 'normal' Wikipedia font, but indent more.

I added a pic to the left of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Forbes under 'Climbing routes', but the indented bullet points almost abutted the photo, so I tried adding spaces which worked to get the points more to the right, but changed the font and changed the bullets to '*'s. I Googled 'wiki bullet' and scanned that page and Googled 'wiki indent bullet', but neither seem to address my issue (unless I scanned to quickly). How can I keep the font standard and indent more, please? BrettA343 (talk) 17:58, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, BrettA343. The MediaWiki software converts asterisks to HTML unnumberd list items (bullets, actually <li>...</li> inside <ul>...</ul>), but only when they come at the start of a line, with nothing but other asterisks or colons in front of them. To do what you want would, I think require he use of custom HTML and CSS code, and if done, should be checked on multiple devices and resolutions. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 19:37, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@BrettA343: This is a long-lasting problem with wiki formatting. Possible work-around: shift the image to the right and let the bulleted list to fill the left part of the page. --CiaPan (talk) 19:45, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again, DESiegel (and CiaPan). Bummer. So as the WP expert(s) here, would you keep the font and bullets almost abutting the photo (not ideal), indent but have the font changed and use asterisks (also not ideal) or shift the image to the right which I think would look ugly, abutting the info box (again, not ideal, IMHO)? Or is it just my choice (in which case I'll keep it as is)? BrettA343 (talk) 20:23, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
BrettA343, I have limited experience with articles that have such a high ratio of images to text. I would probably play safe by using a gallery at the bottom of the articel, but I am not sure that is the beast solution. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:13, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DESiegel, I've been using https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Robson as a bit of a guide for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Forbes layout and was comfortable with the text to image ratio (they lined up at roughly the same place at the bottom of the article), but are you suggesting I'm too heavy on the photos? I want the climbing image under 'Climbing routes' and have been thinking of a small shots-from-the-summit gallery (we had great weather; not always the case). BrettA343 (talk) 01:56, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First article - getting approved

Hi everyone, I wrote my first draft "Dial-A-Poem Montreal" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Dial-A-Poem_Montreal in August but it has yet to be reviewed. I'm wondering if there's any way to speed up the review process or do I just have to wait? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chuang726 (talk • contribs) 19:35, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chuang726, Hola y bienvenidos a la casa de té. Reviewers are done by volunteers that will take their time reviewing drafts. This makes some drafts reviewed sooner and others a while longer. Interstellarity (talk) 21:09, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamo foundation

I don't know why draft page is not accepted. will you please help me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stockster2000 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your Talk page has explanations as to why your draft was deleted. David notMD (talk) 20:30, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Guidelines for creating article on prominent family

Hi! I recently have been improving the article on Mary van Kleeck, and found that she was the granddaughter of Charles F. Mayer, a Baltimore lawyer and politician on whom we already had a page. I found, in fact, that we have pages on six members of the Mayer family (including one I just created):

Given this, would it be worthwhile to create a page for the family? Or should I just create a new category for them? Are their guidelines covering the creation of these sorts of "group" pages? I know we have a few relevant categories (Category:Families from Maryland but I want to make sure I'm not blundering about when there might be a relevant WikiProject or guide I can work through. Thank you for the help! Ganesha811 (talk) 22:02, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your question tried to put this Teahouse page into the category, but I've put a colon in front of the category name to provide a link instead of putting the page into the category. --David Biddulph (talk) 22:16, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
David Biddulph, thank you! Ganesha811 (talk) 22:28, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ganesha811 such pages are sometimes created about families, but only when there are several reliable sources that discuss the family as a family thus making the the family itself notable, not merely its individual members, just as a business or organization might be notable. Such articles are not very common, in my experience, but Wikipedia does have some. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DESiegel, makes sense. So, in that case, the correct course would be to create a new category for the family and categorize accordingly? Thank you for the help! Ganesha811 (talk) 23:19, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First time using Wikipedia

Hello comrades! My change to the webpage replacement value was removed, any reason why? It said it was promotional...I just explained what replacement cost is. Did I not cite my website properly? Should I not be citing at all? I am new to this, would appreciate feedback. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Curtis kbd (talk • contribs) 22:48, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Curtis kbd. In this pair of edits you aded some posisbly relevant text cited to
https://kbdinsurance.com
which is a commercial site, and apparently one you are connected with. That is a promotional edit, and as such was reverted promptly. If you really want to add an explanation of replacement value for autos to that articel, find a site other than your own, preferably a non-commercial site that is also a reliable source. Give the recent revistion, please propose such a change on Talk:Replacement value first. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:06, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia fortnite

Hello, this is by far not my speciality, but my brother brought to me the wikipedia page of fortnite that seemed to have been vandalized. I do not know how to report vandalism, so that is why I am putting it here.

The content has been fixed, thanks for letting us know! Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 00:34, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deployable Operations Group

Hello Wikiusers

There is a section in Deployable Operations Group, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deployable_Operations_Group, under (MSRT) thats states their are acronyms that may be confusing to others, as an editor and someone who knows these acronyms, can I replace it with the full word instead; and parenthesis the acronym next to it?

Thank you! Zacharysoto96 (talk) 00:33, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zacharysoto96, yes, that would be a good idea. If there are articles about the fully-spelled out version, then it would be good to make them into wikilinks. You can even link the names (or acronyms, if they are more well-known by the acronym than the name), even if there isn't an article about it; this will create a red link, but red links can encourage someone to create a new article. If it is very likely that a term has sufficient notability or sufficient sources that someone someday could write an article about it, then it's probably worth making it a red link; otherwise, not. Mathglot (talk) 01:01, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More information on Wikipedia IFTTT action?

Is there somewhere I can get help for the IFTTT actions for Wikipedia? I'm guessing that I should be discussing this at WP:VPT, although I could be correct in coming here. Maccore Henni Mii! Pictochat Mii! 00:47, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mac_Henni What kind of actions are you thinking about? Wikipedia already has a notifications system that will notify you when articles you are interested in (i.e., the ones on your WP:WATCHLIST) are modified, or when someone ping you, or links your username on a talk page somewhere. There are also Alerts. Were you thinking about other kinds of actions? Can you be more specific? Mathglot (talk) 01:18, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Mathglot: I'm not talking about notifications within Wikipedia. I'm talking about if this then that actions, where you can, say, have all the articles edited by yourself sent to you as email. Sorry for the confusion.
I guess my question is, then, can I omit the underlines that are replaced with spaces within WP when I'm not physically in WP? Maccore Henni Mii! Pictochat Mii! 02:02, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Mac Henni. I know nothing of IFTTT (I'd never heard of it before). But unless it has special knowledge of Wikipedia syntax, it must be using URLs, and those need all the underscores. It's only the Mediawiki software which can cope with spaces and replace them with underscores when it generates URLs. --ColinFine (talk) 23:20, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Changing text to links in Commons; what am I doing wrong, please?

I've changed image caption text to be links on: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ViewFromMistayaSummitToNWMtsForbesLyellColumbia.jpg but when I look at the image at the top of: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mistaya_Mountain the caption is just plain text. How am I screwing up? TIA. BrettA343 (talk) 02:06, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BrettA343. I don't think you're really screwing up; it's just that the Commons and Wikipedia pages are technically two different pages. I think all you need to do is WP:WIKILINK the relevant parts of the caption in the article infobox's |photo_caption= parameter. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:38, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The caption feature on file pages (commons:Commons:File captions) cannot contain links or other wiki markup. It must be plain text. The caption displayed at Mistaya Mountain is not from the file page but from [3]. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:46, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the lesson for me here is not to use the caption I put on in Commons, but to use the captions in Wikipedia, because I now find that that works like a charm with links. BrettA343 (talk) 04:01, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

November Contributions

Hi I would like to contribute 4 or more articles to Wikipedia so that I can be a part of the contest in the month of November. How should I decide on what topic to write and are there any submission guidelines (font, word limit, etc.)? Please help as I want to get started writing.

Thank you Navodita — Preceding unsigned comment added by Navoditapande1980 (talk • contribs) 03:53, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Navoditapande1980 Greetings. Pls check out this link [4] for more info and Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red where it lists /suggests of needed topics. Please also read WP:Your First Article and referencing on how to write an article and provide referencing in Wikipedia. Best. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 05:15, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RA has lists of articles that other user's are requesting to be written. RudolfRed (talk) 05:48, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Creating new articles is one of the most difficult tasks for new editors. While your enthusiasm is welcome, cautious advice suggests you become familiar with Wikipedia by improving existing articles for a while before attempting a new article. References are an absolute requirement. Also, 'sign' your comments by typing four of ~ at the end. David notMD (talk) 10:26, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bottom infobox

hello. i have a simple question. those things at the bottom of articles, those tiny boxes that have related articles displayed in an order, whatever it is they're called, how do i make one/ add things to it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill cage (talk • contribs) 10:32, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please give us an example of what you're talking about? Which article, & what does the box include? Are you talking about categories? --David Biddulph (talk) 10:53, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bill cage. It sounds like you might be asking about navigation templates (also known as navigation boxes). If that's the case, you can find out more about them at Wikipedia:Navigation templates. If that's not what you're referring to, then please clarify what you're referring to (perhaps by providing a name to an article where it can be seen) so as to make it easier for others to try and help you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:05, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
yes the navigation boxes. i am attempting to create one on the page Bill Weld. Bill cage (talk) 13:47, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bill cage, as you see Bill Weld has a whole stack of those at the bottom, though they're collapsed so one has to click "show" at their right edge to see what's in them. Creating new ones are possible but probably very complex, but you can indeed add stuff. They are actually their own WP-pages. See the 3 tiny letters at the left of each, VTE? Those are links, E is for edit. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:38, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
well you see, i'm attempting to create one for weld himself. granted, there is'nt all that much that would be placed there Bill cage (talk) 16:29, 7 November 2019 (UTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill cage (talk • contribs) 16:27, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, like you can see at Mitt Romney? I don't know anything about Weld, but I think several articles focused on him would be required for this to be a good idea. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:55, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
well i like just like to be prepared. if he becomes president, then it will likely be made anyway, so i think we should get it started now. Bill cage (talk) 17:17, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Bill cage: He is unlikely to become president and he already has a sidebar {{Bill Weld series}}. I don't see a need for adding a navigation template with mostly the same links for display on mostly the same articles. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:28, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete editing

Dear DESiegel, In the discussion of my question https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_1029#Sorting_an_ambiguous_title , now archived, you helpfully suggested collaboration and started to edit my draft and indicated that you would finish this when you had time (perhaps to expedite its creation). I wondered whether this would now be possible? I note, however, that from your subsequent Teahouse activity that you are a very busy and respected editor and may not be able to return to my draft. If that is so I would still like to express my appreciation of your initial help and interest. Regards BFP1 (talk) 13:07, 7 November 2019 (UTC)BFP1[reply]

Dear DESiegel, I am grateful that you made space in your busy schedule, to continue editing my draft. I am also glad that a change in title was made to avoid ambiguity. Wikipedia is fortunate to have such reviewers/editors. BFP1 (talk) 09:17, 8 November 2019 (UTC)BFP1[reply]

How can I change a title ie "Dlemiti primary school " to "Dhlemiti primary school" .I ommitted "h".

May you please assist on above headingJ Zvinongoza 13:53, 7 November 2019 (UTC)Jotham Mapenhure Zvinongoza — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jotham Mapenhure Zvinongoza (talk • contribs)

@Jotham Mapenhure Zvinongoza:  I have changed the title per your request. Interstellarity (talk) 22:01, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Time for a page to seen on google when searched

Hi so I had made a wiki page on 4th October last month. So I wanted to know long does it take for the wiki page to go live and also I needed help with the various errors. Thanks

Link for the page: Namah Pictures — Preceding unsigned comment added by KevinThomas71293 (talk • contribs) 14:40, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New articles are NOINDEXed until either they have been reviewed through the new page patrol process or 90 days have expired. Concerning the issues that have been raised, the words in blue are wikilinks to further advice. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:45, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New contribution

When and how is a new contribution approved or not, and hopefully appears in the offerings? The process is all very complex and one is left not knowing what happened to a contribution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas A. Regelski (talk • contribs) 16:10, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Thomas A. Regelski: It appears that you have a response to your posting at Talk:Action learning. You can discuss your proposed changes with the other editor(s) until a consensus is arrived at about what changes to make, if any. After that, anyone can make the agreed-upon changes. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:42, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How do I edit a page?

Colorado River

There is incorrect information in the table entitled "Statistics of the Colorado's longest tributaries". After doing some discharge measurements on the Gila River and finding that the stated discharge in the table was off by an order of magnitude I looked at the references (USGS Gauge Station statistics) and discovered that under "Discharge cfs" the author has entered the annual discharge total [247] (units presumably in cubic feet) instead of the average discharge 7.3 based on records from 2009-2010]. I checked the Gauge Station information for the Green River and found the exact same mistake. I haven't checked the remaining two yet but plan to. How can I edit the table in the article? Professor Catherine Hill Arizona Western College — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.229.220.1 (talk) 16:23, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Professor Hill. Have your findings been published in a reliable source? If so, you are welcome to edit the article and cite the source. However if they have not been published, then we unfortunately cannot accept your data, as Wikipedia does not allow original research. We can only include information that has already been published by a reputable source. Regards. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:37, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello professor, and Welcome to Wikipedia. The article is not restricted in any way, so you should be able to click "edit" to the right of "Major tributaries" and change the numbers you want. However, if you don't provide sources, you are likely to be reverted, and this is more complex, but doable. You can find info on editing at WP:HOW, and consider discussing your concerns at Talk:Colorado River, just click "new section" at the top and write. Consider also creating a WP:ACCOUNT. And keep asking questions, we'll help as best we can! WP takes time to learn, but it can be done. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:46, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Drm310 It seems to me that the professor here is saying tha tthe information is supported by the source already cited in the article, but that a previpous editor has misunderstood the source and taken the wrong figure from the source for the article. Is that the situation, Professor? Or are you saying that the source itself is incirrect? In either case it would be best to explain it in detail on Talk:Colorado River so that all interested editors can understand what you are doing and how it is supported by the source(s). DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:44, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reference closing tag error

I added a link and some information to the Charles Krafft article. I had a total of four references to add. The first reference added correctly, but the second reference caused an error that I have seen before called no closing tag to the reference. I checked and rechecked and added the closing tag over and over, but each time the reference came up with an error and my references had to be deleted due to them creating giant big red marks. The last editor was a bot that added a wayback archived link. I suggest this bot is creating this error. This is why so many people don't bother to add references. The process of adding reference since wikipedia changed to source editing is always fraught with peril. If someone would like to go and check what I did please let me know why this happened and if it was the bot or something else. I left the article with just one reference, but the other two can be found in the history of the article before I gave up and did not add the fourth reference.Ty78ejui (talk) 16:50, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Link: Charles Wing Krafft
I've re-inserted a reference, with a date given as "2019-07-23" rather than "2019-7-23". Maproom (talk) 17:26, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How to make edits without them being reverted

Good morning,

I work for rap legend "Mason Betha" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mase . There are several pieces of information on his Wikipedia page such as his middle name, his parents names, record deal details etc..When I went on to make the changes they were reverted. Can you please let me know how to make the proper edits in a way that they cannot be reverted? Thanks much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djhines1981 (talk • contribs)

Hello Djhines1981, and welcome to the Teahouse! Short answer you can't, that's not how WP works. If you want to try to have an influence on this article, take the time to read WP:PAID, WP:COI and WP:BLP carefully. Then go to Talk:Mase, click "new section" and write your suggested changes, with sources (WP:RS) for them. Good luck. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:14, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Djhines1981, the reason why the edits are being reverted is because you are not giving a Reliable Source. IN addation to that, you also have a Conflict of interest. You will need to declare your COI on your talk page as per the Guidelines for Paid Editors. As Robvanvee has told you, you should talk about your propsosed edits on the pages talk page. I hope this answered your question and happy editing! Also, please sign your talkpage comments with 4 tides ~~~~. This will sign them with your username and the current date! LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 17:16, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also Djhines1981, please be aware that no one can claim "ownership" over an article's contents. In all but rare instances, anyone can edit an article and its contents can change substantially over time. Of course, we want articles to be accurate, fair, balanced and neutral – to accurately reflect the sourced, cited opinions of reliable sources. If you believe reliable sources exist which will make the article better, you can help by pointing other editors to such sources. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 20:10, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per above advice, use a template from Guidelines for Paid Editors to declare your paid status. Then, on the Talk page of the article, describe a specific change you want to make (for example wrong name to right name). References needed for the proposed changes. Other editors will review and either implement or not. David notMD (talk) 00:32, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Help on a new article.

I recently created a new article titled MyKey (musician). I'm a relatively new editor so my question is whether I can ask for help on it. What I mean is help on things like possibly correcting spelling or grammer mistakes or correct some formatting issues. I think the page might need some other types of improving but I would like input or help with possible mistakes.SlackingViceroy (talk) 19:01, 7 November 2019 (UTC) SlackingViceroy[reply]

Nice work on the article! I corrected some minor issues with formatting and grammar. Overall, it seems like you have a good grasp on how to write an article and cite your sources. The biggest issue with this article, though, is that I'm not sure if the current sources are enough to demonstrate notability. Self-published sites like a musician's Bandcamp profile don't show that a subject is notable, since anyone can create a profile about themselves; neither do product listings on Amazon, or interviews, in most cases. To prove that he's notable you'd want to look for detailed music reviews or biographical articles from major publications or websites. Wikipedia's notability guidelines can be hard to understand, so don't feel bad about this. There is a specific notability guideline for musicians, which you can read here: WP:NMUSIC. Hope this helps. :) SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 20:16, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Howdy hello! The article is shaping up, but its not quite there yet. I have moved it into the "Draft" space (as Draft:MyKey (musician)) until more sources are found. Bandcamp is not a suitable source I'm afraid. What you need is media coverage. Interviews are usually not sufficient either. The rule of thumb is significant coverage in at least 3 reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Once the article has been cleaned up, a reviewer from AfC will come along and approve it. Alternatively, you can just drop a note on my talk page asking me to look at it again. Smooth sailing, Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:24, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources is a good place to learn what sources are considered reliable (and unreliable) for music-related topics. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 20:29, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I expanded a stub about a unique Indonesian butterfly so I would like to add links that show the geographical location, the classification of butterfles and other sites of this nature. How would I do that and how do I cite these web-sites correctly? Thanks very much — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadiantambusisiana (talk • contribs) 21:19, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Canadiantambusisiana: to cite see WP:Citing sources. If you want a plain reference, copy and paste this markup, replacing the example url with the actual url: <ref></ref>. --LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 21:22, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
​Using the VisualEditor, you can just click on the "Cite" button and enter the URL or DOI. To add a map showing geographical range, you can either click on Insert>Image or have a look at the source in articles such as Dodo, the trick is to add a parameter | range_map = Mauritius island location.svg. What other information would you like to show regarding classification? – Thjarkur (talk) 23:57, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Canadiantambusisiana, the VE "Cite generator" is not bad, but depending on how the web site is organized, it often gets things wrong. If you use it , you always need to check the provided cite, and correct any fields which are wrong, and add any which may be missing. The link which Thjarkur helpfully provided above shows how to accept or correct the cite provided by the generator. Please do not blindly accept the generator's output, it is simply not as smart as a human in extracting citation information. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 07:20, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The time! Gimme the time!

Hello guys.

I'm not entirely new there but I'm still learning. Step by step.

My question for today is : how can we fix the time of the edit history on Wikipedia? Because I'm very confused when it says that I've undone edits at 21:03 when it's only 6pm where I live. And for that I'd like to change it, if it's possible.

Thank you for any your answers.

Regards. BetterOfThatWay (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:02, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BetterOfThatWay: All of the times on Wikipedia, by default, are in UTC. You can change it in your preferences. --LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 22:06, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
BetterOfThatWay, You can change the signatures to show your local time. To do this, in your preferences, go to Gadgets and check Change UTC-based times and dates, such as those used in signatures, to be relative to local time (documentation). Interstellarity (talk) 22:11, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Make sure in your preferences, in the Appearances tab, you select your time zone. There is a drop down where you can select your time zone. Interstellarity (talk) 22:15, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@BetterOfThatWay: It may not work, though I've tried. I do primarily edit on a manged Chromebook, however, so... Maccore Henni Mii! Pictochat Mii! 03:42, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Manorama Actress

Hi,

Aachi Manorama acted in Various Tamil TV channels in the serials. It is nissing in the Wikipedia.


Thanks Annamika— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.122.18.176 (talk)

@69.122.18.176: Please sign your posts. The article exists, found here. Her stage name is used. --LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 23:30, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

correct channel to warn user operating in bad faith?

Hi All,

There is a user who continually winds back my edits but provieds no justification for it, and I beleive they are operating in bad faith. I may be wrong, but they provide no justification for the reversions. I'm aware of these warning templates (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Uw-delete2), but how/where do I actually use them? Cresscoriander (talk) 22:51, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cresscoriander, The best thing to do is to ask the user on their talk page to explain why they reverted the edits. They may be acting in good faith. Interstellarity (talk) 22:58, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If this is about Sustainable Australia, it would be good to start a discussion on the article's talk page about why you believe the content should be included. That way, you can work with other users to reach a consensus. Wikipedia has an essay on this process: Bold, revert, discuss. Basically, it's okay to edit an article without prior discussion, but if someone reverts you, you should get consensus for your changes first. You shouldn't revert back to your own version repeatedly, as this is considered edit warring, and edit warring is wrong even if you are right. I don't think that user is acting in bad faith, although they should have provided an edit summary when reverting. Hopefully by starting a discussion you'll be able to reach a compromise. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 23:28, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Cresscoriander,, such disputes should normally be discussed on the article's talk page. In this case, see Talk:Sustainable Australia#Edit war, where I have asked both you and The Drover's Wife to address the matter. Also, please do not delete other people's comments from talk pages unless they constitute clear and serious personal attacks or outing, and then get an admin involved, please. See WP:TPO for mor eon the limits of such editing. Interstellarity unless the dispute extends over several different articles, an article talk page is usually the best place to address such reverts, because other intereted editors may wish to express views on a content dispute. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:30, 7 November 2019 (UTC) @The Drover's Wife: DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:31, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Since you also asked about the use of templated warnings: you can use these templates by adding {{subst:uw-delete2}} ~~~~ on their talk page, but you should really only use those templates for dealing with new users. The Drover's Wife is an experienced user so it's best to just write a regular note to them on their talk page, or to start a discussion on the article's talk page. But you're correct that users are expected to give an explanation in the edit summary when reverting other people's good faith edits. – Thjarkur (talk) 23:40, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note that WP:DTR does not commend universal support, see User:DESiegel/Template the regulars which I really should polish up and move back into project space one of these days. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:41, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback requested on the text-over-image photo

Can someone with more experience provide Feedback on the text-over-image photo at top left of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Lyell_(Canada) and its use in 3 other pages, like at the bottom of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Peak_(Canada). There's confusion over Walter Peak especially - Google Earth has it as a major peak (it's on their site even if you go up 200 Kms) while the much larger and somewhat higher Mount Lyell isn't even noted (a search actually points to Walter Peak). I'm asking because it's my first attempt at something that isn't straight photo or straight text (I'd be willing to try again if it's deemed substandard... I'm used to Photoshop and could do a better job of it - this is done with the GIMP which is the only thing I have now). TIA. BrettA343 (talk) 01:35, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BrettA343. I think your placement of the image in Mount Lyell (Canada) is not really a good idea per MOS:SANDWICH; so, perhaps it would be better to move it somewhere else. However, that's not the only thing I noticed. The file also seems to be basically the same the main infobox image; so, I'm not sure how relevant it is encyclopedically to the reader. One thing to remember about Wikipedia is that it's read by all kinds of people from all over the world, including those whose might be using devices other than computers or might even be visually impaired in some way. This is one reason why there are things like MOS:ACCIM and WP:TEXTASIMAGES. There seems to be information about the different peaks in the article which is supported by citations to sources; so, I'm not sure why another image is need for that. Moreover, your image could be considered to be a sort of image original research since there's nothing to verify your addition of the text to the image. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:53, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, Marchjuly... Let me take this one at a time, because your response surprised me (I was only expecting problems with the quality of the image). The [[:MOS:SANDWICH}} issue says "most images" and sure enough, most are to the right. I suggest that an exception here is warranted because there's related text right next to it but someone new to this mountain will benefit from a visual clue (a pic is worth a thousand words and all that). And as I said, there's gross confusion about these peaks, partly because WP has been calling Walter Peak a 'mountain' and anyone who reads the references knows it's thought of as a mere subpeak (Mt. Lyell is the mountain, here.) And without clicking on the Info box image, it's difficult to tell whether the peaks are 1 through 5, r-l of l-r as they are numbered N to S in actuality. Also, lots of articles have left-placed photos.
Re the MOS:ACCIM and WP:TEXTASIMAGES, I guess I see this image as an additional visual clue, to save sighted users time and ambiguity about these peaks (again, a pic is worth a thousand words). As far as original research and verifying, if you read the references closely enough, you can likely come to the same conclusion but I see this as a timesaver. Also, many books use this technique where there are multiple peaks in an image and it's difficult to describe which is which. Anyway, I just wanted to get my ideas out, but if you read this and still disagree, I'll move it or delete it - your choice (I would like to keep it for a couple of weeks until I can get Google Earth to fix their end, but I won't push). BrettA343 (talk) 04:57, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any reason why the file with the additional text cannot replace the one in the main infobox? It seems to provide the same information as the one currently being used there and the captions for both files seem to be quite similar and using one image would resolve the sandwiching problem.
As for "original research", it's not really our role as Wikipedia editors to interpret reliable sources for others as explained in WP:SYN; so, if the peaks are laid out and clearly described in the cited source(s) using that particular image as you've done, then that's OK to reflect in the article and perhaps in the image; otherwise, at least in my opinion, you need to be careful here and not try to assume how other are going understand or interpret sources.
Finally, as for there being "gross confusion" about these peaks possibly due to what's written about them on Wikipedia, that's unfortunate and the Wikipedia articles should only be reflecting what reliable sources are saying about them per WP:RSCONTEXT; if reliable sources are calling them "subpeaks" then that's what the articles should reflect. At the same time, if reliable sources aren't in agreement as to whether they're "mountains" or "subpeaks", then perhaps that properly cited content about that disagreement should be added to the articles;t Wikipedia, however, shouldn't be taking sides and used (even unintentionally) in an attempt to try and resolve such problems as explained in WP:RGW. Wikipedia doesn't consider itself to be a reliable source for any purpose as explained in WP:WPNOTRS and shouldn't be written to be treated as one even though I do understand that many people out in the world often see it as one. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:26, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
One thing you might try doing (if you already haven't) is asking about this type of thing at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mountains since that's where you're liking going to find other editors who share you interest in this subject matter and have experience working with articles related to mountains, etc. It's possible that what you've done or what you're describing in your posts are things which have been tried by others or which have been discussed before. Asking for help at a relevant WikiProject can often get you more specific feedback than you'll get at the Teahouse since Teahouse hosts might not be very familiar with the subject matter. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:33, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Daily Mail okay to cite here?

Hey, I'm editing an article about pigeons. I need to cite the statement that seagulls have been recorded occasionally preying on them. I found this Mail article, with video, in which you can clearly see the bird being attacked and eaten. The information in the article is irrelevant really, since you can see what's happening in the video.

I highly doubt they would have a reason to fabricate/manipulate a video like this.

So is it okay to use?

Thanks. Watermelon-lemon (talk) 02:27, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Watermelon-lemon. I think the general consensus of the Wikipedia community is that the Daily Mail isn't really considered to be a reliable source for Wikipedia's purposes as explained at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Sources; however, there might be some cases where it can be used which means it might be worth asking about this at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. One thing, though, is that it's unlikely that the video itself would be considered to be a reliable source unless it can be established creator and anyone interpreting the video is a reliable source as explained in Wikipedia:Video links; so, if you can find a reliable source which states that "seagulls sometimes prey on pigeons" and contains a video showing such a thing, then that would probably be OK to use; however, a reliable source stating the same without a video would also be more than sufficient for Wikipedia's purposes. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:49, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:DAILYMAIL. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:42, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also there are many different kinds of gulls, and pigeons, so simply to say that gulls prey on pigeons is too much of a generalization.--Shantavira|feed me 09:24, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
An internet search on "seagull eats pigeon" yields many newspaper stories about seagulls eating pigeons, mice, baby rabbits, etc. and other prey that would not be traditional seagull fare. Thinking is that a dearth of fish in the over-fished waters around Great Britain has caused seagulls to expand their food searches. This in addition to taking food off plates and out of peoples' hands. David notMD (talk) 11:35, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if you're going to say that seagulls prey on pigeons, you need a source that actually says that, not just demonstrate that there have been occasional observed instances. If you google cow eats chicken you'll find plenty of evidence that cows have been observed swallowing chickens, but it wouldn't be an appropriate addition to either Cattle or Chicken to say that cows are predatory. ‑ Iridescent 11:43, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unpatrolled/unreviewed articles

Is there a way to list all articles created by oneself, yet unpatrolled? Thanks! Usedtobecool TALK ✨ 04:22, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Special:NewPagesFeed and set the filters appropriately. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:44, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
David Biddulph, well duh! I am gonna hide in the dark corners for a time, now. Thanks a bunch! Usedtobecool TALK ✨ 11:26, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Ashish Singh (talk) 11:50, 8 November 2019 (UTC)Hi Will, I want to write about the extensive work I have done as an Orthopaedic Surgeon.[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse&oldid=925186431"