Wikipedia:Teahouse

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.

To read the newest questions, skip to bottom
About the Teahouse

Most recent archives
1212, 1213, 1214, 1215, 1216, 1217, 1218, 1219, 1220, 1221, 1222, 1223, 1224, 1225, 1226, 1227, 1228, 1229, 1230, 1231

(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.)

Changing the instruction in line1

Been trying to help someone who wants the page under his name not to automatically redirect to his company. LINE1 has hash REDIRECT Company name All attempts to amend get cleared shortly after ? what is the solution please

REDIRECT Columbia Games Grant Dalgliesh is the name — Preceding unsigned comment added by Urospin (talk • contribs) 10:19, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grant_Dalgliesh&redirect=no — Preceding unsigned comment added by Urospin (talk • contribs) 11:06, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Urospin: and welcome to the Teahouse. The title Grant Dalgliesh redirects to Columbia Games because when the article about the person was created, there was no indication of how he was notable according to Wikipedia's definition of notability. Your attempt to remove the redirect was reverted for the same reason – the only information there was that Dalgleish is the son of Tom Dalgliesh, the founder of Columbia games, and a game designer. All that information is in the article about Columbia games, so it makes sense to have the title redirect there. --bonadea contributions talk 11:24, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another issue here is the fact that you say that you are "trying to help" Dalgleish, which means that you have a conflict of interest. I have added some information to your user talk page about things you should be aware of, and policies you need to follow, in that situation. --bonadea contributions talk 11:27, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for pointing out COI I can't see any exists but I heard his exasperation about not being able to edit what is under his own name. I have no interest other than thinking there must be a solution. Does Grant (or I) have to present fully formatted text that adds significantly in matters beyond what is in the Columbia Games entry? My connection to Grant is slight in the least and can't waste too much more time on this myself but would to know the solution now I have strayed into this. As I understand it he has tried unsuccessfully for some time and never been able to get any editing he has done not be wiped clean immediately. Many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Urospin (talk • contribs)

@Urospin: You should direct him to Wikipedia's guideline on autobiographies, and the essays "Wikipedia is not about YOU" and "An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing", so that he understands why we highly discourage people from writing about themselves. If after that he still genuinely believes himself to be notable per the policy on biographies of living persons, he could attempt to create a draft article with the WP:Article wizard. He will need to demonstrate that he is independently notable by showing evidence of significant coverage in multiple reliable third-party sources. Nothing based on his unpublished personal knowledge or experience will be accepted. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:07, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) One way to have Grant Dalgliesh no longer redirect to the company article would be to have someone, pereferably not Dalgliesh himself, create a valid article in its place. This could only happen if he is notable. If he is, the 2016 attempt at an article was a long way from demonstrating it. There would need to be multiple independent published reliable sources that discuss Dalgliesh or his creative work in some detail. See our guideline for notability of individuals and our guideline for the notability of artists, authors, and other creative people as well as the general notability guideline. Note that merely working for a notable company, working on notable games, or being the son of a notable person are not relevant to a person's own notability. Creating a valid Wikipedia articel requires significant effort and time.

The other way would be to ptopose that the redirect page be deleted by starting a discussion at Redirects for Discussion (RFD), but I see no obvious basis for it to be deleted.

Merely trying to help someone does not establish a confliuct of interest but we do get a lot of p[eople trying to edit "on behalf" of friends, famnily, and buisness associates where there is in fact a conflict. You can understand why Bonadea raised the issue, I trust. If you want further assitance on this matter, you can respond here. Or Dalgliesh can use his existing account to post here, if he so chooses. If there is private information involed, you (or anyone) may use the "email this user" to contact me -- I am an admin on Wikipedia and have access to deleted content. But pelase respond on the site unless there is confidential information involved. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:18, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Urospin: DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:55, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Urospin If someone is going to seriously work on an article about Dalgliesh it would be possible to have the existing text moved to draft spacve as a startiong point, but I won't do that unless there is a specific request that nindicates a serious intention to work on this and soem understandign of what would be needed to create a valid article. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:00, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"his exasperation about not being able to edit what is under his own name" Does he feel the same way about seeing his name in newspapers? Or being mentioned on television or radio? Or in books? Why would he expect to have control here, and not in those situations? This isn't his personal or professional website. --Khajidha (talk) 13:28, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Page submission not accepted because it is deemed to be more of an advertisement.

Hi,

I submitted a page, made it factual (at lest I thought so) and referenced it to authoritative webpages. However it was rejected because it was deemed more of an advertorial, which is not the intention. No suggestion was made as to what needs to be changed, which I am more than happy to do so.

Can anyone help on this?

page in question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sal_Jobe

Kind regards

Luis — Preceding unsigned comment added by Echezuria (talk • contribs) 13:22, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Echezuria: Unfortunately page reviewers and, generally speaking, commenters at the teahouse don't have the time to provide detailed advice and feedback on pages. The onus is really on an editor who wants to publish an article to read our policies, understand them, and write the article in a way that complies. We'll happily point you towards policies and advice, as the comment on your draft did, but that's probably all you can reasonably expect. To give you a bit more help here, just from reading through the first couple of paragraphs of your article, it's written in a way that comes across as more promotional than encyclopedic, for example phrases such as: "he turned his talent to acting", "Having a good understating of the sport, a sport he played from primary school," and "Miller was given the opportunity of his career" do not sound like language I would expect in an encyclopedia. The inclusion of unsourced information about his company is also likely to have flagged up to the reviewer as being potentially promotional. Hug^syrup 13:37, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you syrup - I did read and follow the policies (so I thought) :-(( Will take your valuable comments into account and re-draft. I do however think that if an article is rejected, highlighting why it was rejected does help, rather than being too generic in the response. Once again, thank you for your valuable help. Echezuria (talk) 21:48, 4 December 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Echezuria (talk • contribs) 13:58, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Echezuria: You're very welcome. And I understand what you're saying - it's a common complaint, but you have to appreciate that right now the backlog of unreviewed articles for creation stands at 3,449. If reviewers (all of whom are volunteers, remember) had to give detailed feedback on each article, we would not have a hope of ever keeping up with demand let alone reducing that backlog. We give general reasons for declining articles, along with links to policies and essays that have lots of helpful information, and we then rely on editors to do the work themselves in making changes and improvements. Hug^syrup 14:06, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Echezuria Note that the IMDB is usually not considered a relaible source (with a few limited exceptions) because users can change its content with limited oversight, and should not be cited as a source in Wikipedia articles or drafts. Note also that interveiws with the subject of an article are not independent sources. They can be cited, but do not help much if at all in establishing the notability of the subject. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:08, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you DES. Will look for different sources. Having said that, the information is factual, nonetheless will look for another source. Still, I am very surprised as IMDB is an Amazon company. Echezuria (talk) 21:48, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Echezuria. Wikipedia's policies often seem strange to people who are not used to them. A central one is verifiability, not truth: what is crucial is that a reader should be able to the sources and verify everything in an article. This is necessary because Wikipedia, like iMDB, can be edited by anybody.(Unfortunately, many older articles do not meet this standard, but new ones do not get accepted unless they do). One approach to looking at your draft is to ask, for every single claim made in the draft, "Which reliable published source backs up this claim?" If you can't find one, you need to remove the claim from the article, even if you personally know it is true, or have unpublished documents relating to it. Furthermore, if the only published source for it is a source close to the subject - the subject's own website, for example, or an interview they gave, or a statement from their press office - then you need to take it out unless it is uncontroversial factual data, like places and dates.

Another way of looking at this is to say that Wikipedia has basically no interest in what the subject or their associates say or want said: it is only interested in what people unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish about them.

Finally, about iMDB: as I indicated above, Wikipedia (in fact, almost all wikis} is also not regarded as reliable, because anybody may edit it. This has nothing to do with who owns it. --ColinFine (talk) 22:32, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to Dylan Wruck

Hi Zamekrizeni I don't understand why you keep putting your own opinionated comments about injury to Dylan Wruck's profile. No other professioal hockey player has has an anything about their injuries or an injury report in their profile. So I keep changing the profile fit with the other profile of Professional player I read on this sight. I would appreciate if you would delete the comments that you put on his profile about his injury and the part about him going to Canada to rehab this has no bearing on his accomplishment as a athlete.

It seems as you have a personal issue here in which you need to overcome and instead of looking up articles that verify what was written by people that know the above person and his background of accomplishment. Something the non administrator can not do and it is not easy to leave notes on this sight. I have tried to leave you notes to verify the edits and looks like some of the other administrators has found the stats , from the 2009 U17 tournaments and other edits. I will leave it up you to remove what I have ask you to do. You know it is the right thing to do as again no other hockey professional has anything about injury his his profile this is not a injury report and a place to put personal edits from a journalist who has been taken out of context -with the return to Canada thing not sure what is so important to you to have that in there. Again Please remove Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.169.6.50 (talk) 15:00, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@198.169.6.50: I think you may be posting in the wrong place. If this is aimed at Zamekrizeni you are better off posting on their talk page, or else on the talk page of Dylan Wruck, which I assume is the article in Question. The Teahouse is for general questions about how to edit Wikipedia. Hug^syrup 15:34, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hugsyrup Please remembver that pings don't work for unregistered (IP) editors. One can use a Tehouse talkback instead (as I have now done).

IP Editor, I endorse Hugsyrup's advice, but would suggest posting to the article talk page, perhaps with a ping to the user in question. Remember, pings must be signed to work. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:44, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any "opinionated comments" and I don't have any "personal issue". It is about facts which are "based on reliable, third-party, published sources" in accordance with Wikipedia rules: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources This is the case for the mentioned information in this article, in my opinion. It is untrue that "No other professioal hockey player has has an anything about their injuries or an injury report in their profile". It is easy to find several articles of pro hockey players which include information about injuries, which I think is relevant, because injuries are as much part of professional sports as accomplishments as an athlete. Zamekrizeni (talk) 08:22, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Drake article

Hello Teahouse hosts. When reading the Francis Drake article, I see significant sections that are not adequately cited. I believe they are egregiously lacking citations and should have an appropriate message on the talk page to indicate such. However, I am unfamiliar with the proper process to do this.

I have found what I believe is the correct template. You can see the template to which I refer HERE. I am glad to post it myself it that is acceptable. I would like others' thoughts, those much more experienced than I, regarding the matter. Kind regards, Hu Nhu (talk) 19:46, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On your user page I inserted a template for when a section is lacking citations. David notMD (talk) 20:01, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello David notMD and thank you for your kind attention and response. I am having trouble with the template. Each time I insert it into the Francis Drake article, the template reads THIS ARTICLE and not THIS SECTION. Might you try it to inquire as to what results you have? Kind regards,Hu Nhu (talk) 03:40, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I tested, and was able to add the THIS SECTION tag by editing a section and making the tag the first line in the section. I then removed it, because the top of the article as a THIS ARTICLE tag, and because so many sections are lacking citations, I don't see a need to tag each section. David notMD (talk) 03:54, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Registered Mark Question

I have a question. A few days ago, an editor asked to have a draft (since deleted as G11) reviewed, and User:John from Idegon said, among other things: "First, lose the registered mark symbols. We do not use them." As a reviewer at Articles for Creation, I occasionally review a draft that has registered mark symbols, and I have always said to get rid of them, because their use is promotional. So John and I are in agreement that the symbol should be deleted. However, I have not seen a guideline that explicitly says not to use them. Is there such a guideline, so that I can point to it the next time that I encounter a draft that uses them? (I'm not surprised that the draft got deleted, but that isn't the issue.) Robert McClenon (talk) 00:12, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: MOS:TMRULES. Specifically, fifth bullet point: "Do not use the ™ and ® symbols, or similar, in either article text or citations, unless unavoidably necessary for context." AddWittyNameHere 00:29, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, User:AddWittyNameHere. Actually, I think that most of the times that I have encountered those symbols, the whole draft has been promotional, and I tagged it for G11. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:49, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. And yeah, I'd bet promotional drafts and straight copyvios of the subject's site account for the great majority of cases using them. AddWittyNameHere 00:59, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, User:AddWittyNameHere, you reminded me that sometimes it is a good idea, on encountering a promotional draft, to check whether it was copied from the company's web site, which would be G12. I have seen editors who then ignorantly ask about using copyright permission to post the copyrighted material, because they don't realize that the permission that Wikipedia is asking for is permission to all in the world to reuse with attribution. You reminded me that maybe I should check copyright more often. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:35, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Accused of being a sock

~~An editor accused me of being a sock here. It is not true! How should I proceed? What are my options to move forward? This is incredible!~~UberVegan🌾 00:57, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@UberVegan:The same thing happened to me once, because some bum decided it would be funny to vandalize wikipedia, and unfortunately the person was within my IP range, so when I got blocked, I requested help from an admin, (ST47), and explained the whole thing to him, and then he contacted the blocking admin, who understood, and unblocked me, also in the future in case your account is compromised you should use the committed identity template https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Committed_identity, so they would know it is truly know, and lower your risk factor, and if you have 2 accounts you should really get both of them confirmed, by filling out a request here. I hope you find this info useful! --Gumshoe97 (talk) 01:10, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@UberVegan: Given that the editor that is making the accusation appears to be doing so in response to you commenting on an AN/I discussion about them, my feeling is it would be entirely reasonable to take it straight back to AN/I as harassment. On the other hand, given that the accusation is coming from someone that has been repeatedly pulled up for edit-warring amongst other infractions it probably isn't going to get much attention so you could also just ignore it. Physdragon (talk) 02:36, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He really has accused me of being a sock because I had some edits on a few similar pages, but considering that we seem to be Jewish and have the same interests, what are the chances? Using his logic, I looked into him and one other editor and I found that they edited 262 of the same pages, him making 4,954 edits and the other 3,080. And the amount of time between some of their edits were astonishing: 36 seconds, 50 seconds, 1 minute, 2 minutes, 4 minutes.

~~Following are only the first 25 mutual pages of 262. Is there any policy against this? I could use direction. Should I speak to the administrator who recently sanctioned him? Thank you.~~

General questions are fine for the Teahouse, but this is not WP:SPI or WP:ANI

Page Min time between edits Snooganssnoogans - 4,954 edits Grayfell - 3,080 edits

User talk:184.153.38.168 36 seconds 1 1

Dave Rubin 50 seconds 74 39

Talk:South African farm attacks 1 minutes 36 26

Talk:Center for Immigration Studies 2 minutes 96 11

Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard 2 minutes 49 2

Gatestone Institute 4 minutes 142 14

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents 4 minutes 139 31

Talk:Jack Posobiec 4 minutes 3 13

Ben Shapiro 8 minutes 69 19

Tim Pool 8 minutes 13 57

Jack Posobiec 10 minutes 27 14

Talk:Ben Shapiro 12 minutes 33 21

Talk:Douglas Murray (author) 13 minutes 10 3

Jordan Peterson 19 minutes 38 27

John Solomon (political commentator) 23 minutes 87 4

Steve Bannon 24 minutes 10 18

The Daily Wire 24 minutes 35 13

Talk:Tim Pool 25 minutes 13 57

Sean Hannity 27 minutes 114 1

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection 32 minutes 113 97

Talk:Gatestone Institute 35 minutes 57 11

Charles C. Johnson 59 minutes 18 59

South African farm attacks 1 hours 34 45

Stefan Molyneux 1 hours 24 87

Larry Elder 1 hours 7 3

UberVegan🌾 05:46, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi UberVegan. It's OK for you to ask for some general advice here at the Teahouse, but the Teahouse isn't really the place for you to post diffs or other "evidence" about another editor's behavior. There are various other noticeboards, such as WP:SPI and WP:ANI, which are more suited for such a thing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:22, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

UberVegan has just been confirmed as being a sockpuppet.[1] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:28, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccessible Sources

Dear all, I am facing a situation that I'm not sure what to do about. The article I've been working on (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Kevork_Yeramian) has recently been declined due to insufficient sources. My situation is: 1. The article's biggest source is the content person's family (Mr. Kevork Yeramian's family): his wife and children. 2. Some sources are from the 80s and are not digitized, and don't exist in the internet. 3. Those sources in point 2 are inaccessible since they are located in war-torn Aleppo, Syria.

My questions: 1. How can I handle a situation like this? 2. Are personal testimonies acceptable as sources? 3. I could include a written/signed statement from Mr. Yeramian's wife that the information included in the article are valid, since she's the source to many of them (I have her permission to use the photos and more, since I am a family member as well). Would this be acceptable?

Mr. Yeramian's significant architectural contribution to the city of Aleppo mainly, and some other cities, are archived and verified through analog source which are inaccessible due to war in Aleppo-Syria. All help, advice, and guidence is much appreciated. Thank you for your time, consideration, and support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex662607004 (talk • contribs) 09:01, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Alex6626070: I think you slightly misunderstand the type of sources we are after. It’s not so much about proving the information is true (although of course yes that is part of it) but establishing that the individual is notable, and has been given substantial coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources. That is why personal accounts, photos, family documents, and of course personal knowledge are simply not usable as sources. They may verify the information but they do not tell us why it is notable enough to be in an encyclopaedia. Now, some good quality reliable sources are also not available online - old newspapers being a good example (although most major newspapers are increasingly making archives available digitally) and it is absolutely fine to use them as long as you know the publication, and article title and date. But the source must still be reliable by our definition. Hug^syrup 09:07, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to disagree slightly with Hugsyrup, Alex662607004, though I agree with their overall answer. It is not just a matter of notability: unpublished information is never acceptable in a Wikipedia article, because there is no way that a reader next week or next year can verify it. Even if the information that you put in is 100% accurate, what happens if somebody comes along tomorrow and alters it, whether because they are mistaken, or they have an agenda to push, or they are simply vandalising it? Nobody has any reliable way of telling which is the correct information' (And notice that providing a signed statement from somebody doesn't really help - how is a random reader going to be able to read such? and how can Wikipedia verify the identify of the person signing it?) So the decision that was taken early on was to disallow any such unsourced information. I know this can be frustrating, but that is how the consensus has been to manage information in Wikipedia. See WP:Verifiability, not truth.

On the other point, of non-digitised information, Hugsyrup is absolutely right: there has never been any question that sources have to be online, as long as they are published so that a random reader can in principle obtain them (eg through a major library). I'm not sure what the answer would be to your point 3: are they not in libraries elsewhere? --ColinFine (talk) 09:49, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How to get an article from the sandbox into public?

Hello!

I prepared an article about the German-based software company Ashampoo. Currently the article is in my sandbox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ArsLongaVita/sandbox

Please advice how to get the article into review and later on alive. Thank you for your assistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArsLongaVita (talk • contribs) 09:13, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ArsLongaVita: the answer to your question is to paste {{subst:submit}} at the top of your article. However, there is no point doing this as your article will not be accepted. Firstly, it has no sources (the company's own website is not a reliable source), secondly it makes no indication of why this company is notable enough to have an encyclopedia entry about it, and thirdly it is clearly written in a highly promotional manner. It seems very clear that you own or work for this company, and yet you have not made the disclosure required at WP:PAID. I very much doubt that Ashampoo is suitable for an article no matter how much you edit it, so I would suggest you abandon this and work on articles where you do not have a conflict of interest. Hug^syrup 09:42, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On your Talk page you stated "I am not employed by the company." Are you IN ANY WAY connected to the company? Consultant? Family member or friend of the people who own/operate the company? Invested in? Consultant would equal paid. Other connections would be considered conflict-of-interest. David notMD (talk) 14:42, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Need help changing an article that was written as a resume

Hello,

I have been editing the Wikipedia page of Andrew Zerzan, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Zerzan in the last few days, updating the content and adding new references. At the top of the page there is a note saying: "This biographical article is written like a résumé. Please help improve it by revising it to be neutral and encyclopedic".

I hope someone can give me some precise instructions what needs to be changed in the article to remove that notification. I am editing the page using the Visual Editor.

Thank You! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbernardos (talk • contribs) 11:00, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bbernardos Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I don't know if I have any specific recommendations, but the article reads as simply a list of what Mr. Zernan has done- it should read as a summary of what independent reliable sources that have given him significant coverage say about him. 331dot (talk) 11:15, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @331dot

Thanks for the info. Is there a way to find out who posted the notification so that I can contact that admin and ask for more information and instructions? Any other contact person you can suggest I talk to?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbernardos (talk • contribs) 13:43, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bbernardos You can examine the edit history of the article to see when the maintenance tag was posted and by whom. 331dot (talk) 13:46, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbernardos: Of course you can contact the editor who posted the notification, although I don't think you really need to. It's MUCH more productive for you to go where the note points to, namely our guidelines about neutrality and appropriate style. Additionally, I'd recommend to see our gudeline on biographies and especially the policy on biographies of living persons. Pages that do not follow rules defined there may get removed from the articles' space or even deleted from Wikipedia. --CiaPan (talk) 13:54, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

/* Paid COI */ I am unable to contact the editor who admitted to Paid editing. Please help me to remove the paid template.

Hi All, please help me to delete the maintenance template on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZS_Associates article as it's hard to track the user who had admitted the paid editing. Thanks in advance Jayjha89 (talk) 11:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are the editor (one of them, at least) who appears to be editing the article as part of their job. You need to make the required disclosures, or you are likely to be blocked from editing. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:50, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yunshui, Yes I did edit the page but I'm not associated with ZS at all. The maintenance template was added on 29th June 2019 and I joined Wikipedia on November.Jayjha89 (talk) 12:27, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jayjha89 Please don't post the same question in multiple forums, as I see you did at Wikipedia:Cleanup. Doing so is called forum shopping and it fragments the discussion. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:28, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

Hello, I was wondering if anyone can help me, I am currently trying to add to a page about Ruth Dodd, and I have added a little bit of information about her to the page. I am struggling to understand the way to cite a website (the tyne and wear archives service) can anybody help me? (If you are looking at the page it is citation 2 that I am trying to fix. Thank you Slikitty (talk) 11:53, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Slikitty: I assume it's Ruth Dodds we're looking at? I've formatted the web citation for you, and for future reference you can use this template: Template:Cite web for that. Hope this helps. Hug^syrup 12:12, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hugsyrup Thank you for the informationSlikitty (talk) 13:27, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How do I edit the title of a draft page I'm working on?

Hello!

I'm very new to contributing here, and have never started a page from scratch before. I have started a draft but would like to make a small edit to the title of the page, but I can't work out how to do this. Any help much appreciated! — Preceding unsigned comment added by FuchsiaHart (talk • contribs) 12:56, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FuchisaHart Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I assume that you have not yet saved your draft, as your edit history does not have any contributions to a draft. If you haven't saved it, I would just copy and paste the text into a new draft with the proper title. The other thing you could do is just save it and once you submit your draft for review using Articles for Creation, you can make a note on the associated talk page that you want the reviewer to alter the draft's title if they accept it for formal placement in the encyclopedia. 331dot (talk) 13:01, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that's really helpful. Also, do you recommend that I should be building the draft in my sandbox? I just started using the article wizard, but I'm not sure if that's the best thing to do. And, one more question, if that's ok - is it best to publish it early and then continue editing, or to submit it when it is as near completion as possible? Many thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by FuchsiaHart (talk • contribs) 13:07, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FuchisaHart I also assume that you are writing about the subject for which you have declared a conflict of interest(depending on the nature of your conflict of interest, you may also need to declare as a paid editor). You should use the article wizard as that will allow you to submit the draft for an independent review, a must if you have a conflict of interest. You should submit it when you believe it is suitable for placement in the encyclopedia. If you haven't already, you should read Your First Article. Keep in mind that Wikipedia articles must summarize what independent reliable sources unconnected with the subject say about it, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable person(in this case). That doesn't include press releases, interviews with the subject, or anything connected to the subject. 331dot (talk) 13:13, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

331dot: her name is "Fuchsia", not "Fuchisa". You've got it wrong twice now, hence the redlinks. Maproom (talk) 13:57, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I don't know how I managed to do that, but I don't think I do have a conflict of interest. I am writing about a historical figure who I am researching as part of my PhD. I think I have managed to remove my declaration. Thanks again! FuchsiaHart (talk) 13:16, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FuchsiaHart, you asked about the difference between creating a draft in a user sandbox (which could have a name like User:FuchsiaHart/Whatever) and creating it as a regular draft (with a name like Draft:Whatever). The main difference is that other users will generally regard your own sandboxes as private to you, while they may try to help improve a draft – something you may or may not welcome. And you should submit what you create for acceptance as an article once you are confident that it meets Wikipedia's standards, particularly regarding notability. Maproom (talk) 14:10, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maproom thank you that explanation - much clearer now. FuchsiaHart (talk) 14:48, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FuchsiaHart, I see that you created a draft, and it has already been moved to article space by a very experienced editor. Congratulations! Maproom (talk) 22:47, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Series overview

On the series overview of Ackley Bridge, I've tried tweaking around with the fourth series, but it won't seem to display itself on the table correctly. Would someone be able to fix it? Thanks – DarkGlow (talk) 14:11, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You had left the old end-of-table marker in place before your addition. Fixed in this edit. Your addition might be reverted as it was unsourced. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:18, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@David Biddulph: Thanks! I'll add a ref now, just wanted to sort that out first. – DarkGlow (talk) 18:07, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

deletion

why is someone deleting the pages i recently made.?

i recently created some pages for a couple of articles for some football teams club in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines. While waiting for more information on the teams i got this message

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on K&R Strikers requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. XXX8906 (talk) 13:49, 5 December 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kemani16 (talk • contribs)

@Kemani16: it sounds as if the message you received explains that the reason for deletion is that the articles were very short and lacked enough context for the reader to understand the topic of the article. Although we don't mind articles being short or incomplete, they do need to have enough information for the reader to at least understand what they are about. If you are still waiting for information to fill out the article, I would recommend creating these as drafts first, and submitting via the articles for creation process. Hug^syrup 14:30, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[[User:Hugsyrup i understand the article were to short. i was creating the basic information for each teams then add the other important info later. i recently created some teams from st vincent in the caribbean names and kits the easy stuff and once i finish i was just about to fill in the other information like player and where each team a plays manages and where they are based when i got a message saying my work has been deleted. the person who remove my work could at least send a warning and give me time before deleting everything i worked on creating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kemani16 (talk • contribs) 15:35, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kemani16: the trick is to make your article first (like you're doing in your sandboxes) then post it. That will give you time to improve it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:58, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sabotaged Articles

Back in October 2019, I noticed that the article for the "Canadian Who's Who", a Canadian resource publication that lists the biographies of notable Canadians, was filled with wildly false, inaccurate and downright vicious statements. This is a legitimate publication by a professional company. It has been in print for over a hundred years. It did not take the tone of a factual article written by a third party. Instead, it seemed to be written with a passionate hate for the publication. Many of the sources used are either decades old, or have nothing to do with the actual publication.

According to the history, many changes were made in February 2019 by one user. On November 1st, I made revisions, removing the false information and pulling up-to-date information from the publisher's official website. On November 2nd, the article was reverted back to the previous version by none other than the same user.

What can I do to stop this back-and-forth? Can anyone provide insight on how to proceed to ensure purely factual information is being published?

I did not re-post my edits to avoid wasting time, so here is the article as it currently appears: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Who's_Who — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artist2020 (talk • contribs) 14:44, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Artist2020: Wikipedia aims to avoid bias by reporting what has been written about a subject in reliable independent sources, rather than in sources connected with the subject. When you edited Canadian Who's Who, you removed six reliable independent sources and the content that was based on them, and replaced it by information from the publisher's own web site, thus presenting a strongly biased view. Your edits were, quite properly, reverted. If you want the article to remain unbiased, you should leave it alone in future. Maproom (talk) 15:22, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ADDING PAGES

Hello, I have been trying to create a new page for wikipedia, but I don't know where to start. I was wondering is someone could give me the basics for page creation, along with how to publish a page and create a title for it.

Thanks, RAWRSON — Preceding unsigned comment added by RAWRSON (talk • contribs) 14:56, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RAWRSON Hello and welcome to the Teahouse, and thanks for wanting to contribute and being willing to create a new article(not just "page", a subtle but important distinction). I would caution you that successfully creating a new article is the hardest task on Wikipedia. It takes much time and practice. Users new to the process are more successful when they first spend time editing existing articles in areas that interest them, to get a feel for how Wikipedia works and what is expected of article content. Users who dive right in to creating articles often end up disappointed and with hurt feelings as their work that they spent hours on is mercilessly edited and deleted by others. I tell you this not to scare you, but only because I want you to have a good experience here. I would as such suggest that you edit some existing articles first and use the new user tutorial to learn more about how Wikipedia works.

If you still want to start with creating a new article, you should review Your First Article, and then you can use Articles for Creation to create and submit a draft for a review before its formal placement in the encyclopedia. This way you get feedback first, instead later, when your work will be treated more critically. 331dot (talk) 15:01, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

COI Editing

Hello, I recently made a coi edit request on a page. Because I am requesting to replace all the text on the page, I was told "To that end, the COI editor is asked to continue the conversation about these changes here, with local editors on the talk page. The use of the -request edit- template is not necessary for that discussion.

Does this mean that all I need to do is post in the relevant wiki projects and receive approval? Not that I think that is easy, just that I mean if I can find that, do I need to make another edit request? Or do I just ask someone in the project to do it? What is my next step after reaching consensus?

Theintern007 (talk) 15:12, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Theintern007 You have been asked to discuss your changes on the article talk page, but not as a formal edit request just yet, so that other editors can discuss them with you and a consensus reached. 331dot (talk) 15:39, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

331dot Yes, I am just wondering what I do after, if they can reach a consensus. Do I ask the people I discuss with to make the edits or do I end up making another edit request? Theintern007 (talk) 15:57, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Either would work. If a clear consensus is reached, the former would likely occur; if it's not so clear, an edit request might be more helpful as it would bring another set of eyes to the discussion. 331dot (talk) 16:00, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Wars

Good day, I am a new user and as I am certain most users start out, I saw a page that needed some work and tried to "fix it".

My edits were changed back and the erroneous info was added, this time with a single book reference from 1903.

I would like to make the necessary changes and get on with the rest of my life. Is there a way of contributing updated research without getting involved in a debate about the authenticity of a "fact" written in a hundred-year-old encyclopaedia etc.?

Thank-you in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by Αλέξανδρος Αρμένης (talk • contribs) 15:43, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Αλέξανδρος Αρμένης Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. As there are no edits in your account edit history other than your above comment, I assume you made that edit while logged out. Without knowing which article you edited, it's hard to give a specific answer, but I can say that this is a collaborative project, and you must work with other editors to arrive at a consensus as to what the article should say. There is no way to by fiat post one's version of what they think the article should say- this is because if there were, everyone would use it and fight with each other anyway. 331dot (talk) 15:50, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Αλέξανδρος Αρμένης I must agree with 331dot just above. I will add thsat any time there is a disagreement about the correctness of a fact or statement in a Wikipedia article, or the reliability or appropriateness of a source, discussion on the article talk page should be the first step in solving the matter. I note that you said that another editor had provided a single book reference from 1903. Did yoiu provided a newer source, or indeed any source, for your fixes? I reapat that, as 331dot said, without knowing what article this is in regard to, we can only answer in theoretical terms. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:04, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was signed in at the time, or so I thought. My edit history states that I have made 10 edits.

I have been a volunteer curator at Geni.com for many years and am well versed in fact checking. My edits were accompanied with updated sources, compared to the 1903 reference provided by the Greek-speaking admin who refused to give timeous feedback. Hardly collaborative.

The page I am referring to is an info-page on the surname Armenis.

Αρμένης (επώνυμο)

User:Αλέξανδρος Αρμένης —Preceding undated comment added 16:18, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure that you're not confused between edits here on the English Wikipedia and those which you have made on the Greek Wikipedia? --David Biddulph (talk) 16:34, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Αλέξανδρος Αρμένης, was this page on the Greek-language Wikipedia? Please understand that each language is a separate project, and may have different rules, procedures, and standards. This page is for help with the English-language edition of Wikipedia, and cannot provide any assistance with projects for other languages. I would hope that some similar help page is available on that project, but I do not know what it is called. Your edit history is separate on each project also. For this project it is at Special:Contributions/Αλέξανδρος_Αρμένης. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:38, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Αλέξανδρος Αρμένης Your edit history on the English Wikipedia shows that you only have four edits, so I think David Biddulph is correct in that you are discussing something on another version of Wikipedia, which as noted is a separate project. 331dot (talk) 16:42, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, I did not realise that the different language projects are governed by their own rules and admins. I was hoping that the better established English Wikipedia project would provide some oversight and transparency. Thank-you for your assistance.

User: Αλέξανδρος Αρμένης —Preceding undated comment added 16:46, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First time editor here; is there a proper etiquette to suggest changes?

I am a first time editor here.

I noticed some discrepancies on the wikipedia page "List of Equipment of Republic of Singapore Air Force".

Is it okay if I just make a comment on the "Talk" page?RonaldYeo (talk) 16:26, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RonaldYeo, On Wikipedia, we mainly operate on the WP:BRD policy. Users see a problem, they make the changes they feel are needed, and then if another user takes issue with the changes, they revert your edit and enter discussion with you to reach consensus on the edits. If you see an issue on the page, change it! Jeb³ _{Talk at me here}^{What I've Done} 16:30, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy: Article appears to be Equipment of the Republic of Singapore Air Force. David notMD (talk) 17:39, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SuggestBot

How do I get User:SuggestBot to give me a list of articles to fix up on my talk page? ωικιωαrrιorᑫᑫ1ᑫ 16:58, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See the bullet list at the top of User:SuggestBot. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:03, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question re edit of "John Rennie Short" from a total novice

Hello, and thank you for having this neutral and polite space for questioning. I submitted a Wiki page a bit before Thanksgiving (John Rennie Short), and it was responded to within 1 day by DGG with lots of good guidance. I am ready to upload the new version, but I'm not quite sure where/how I should do this. Also, in the course of incorporating your suggestions especially re the bibliographical entries, some vertical red lines have appeared outside the left margins of the bibliography. I've tried and tried to get rid of them, but have been unsuccessful. Please help.17:34, 5 December 2019 (UTC)Ahjazzer (talk)

The way to produce your new version is to edit the existing draft Draft:John Rennie Short. Remember to include inline citations for your references, as well as addressing the points which the reviewer made. I don't know where your vertical red lines might be coming from, but if you edit the page other editors will be able to see what has gone wrong. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:41, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

help

how do i make uploads — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zokatone (talk • contribs) 17:59, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zokatone, Using the File Upload Wizard. Interstellarity (talk) 19:02, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

editing an addition to Biography on Wikipedia Page "Edward Francis Anhalt"

A new publication (2018) has been authored by Dr. Edward Francis Anhalt entitled "Mandatory Reading: Open Your Mind to 18 of Life's Most Important Questions". A portion of sales of books has/and is being given to the Susan G. Komen Foundation (Wisconsin Chapter). The ISBN # is 978-0-692-05865-7, and the book can be found at https://books.google.com/books?id=L3tptAEACAAJ&dq=mandatory+reading&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiz17KGip_mAhVMJKwKHVntAgMQ6AEwAHoECAIQAg.

I am looking for someone who can assist in adding this publication to the Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.1.150.25 (talk) 18:02, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition was removed by another editor. It's best to raise the issue with them on the article talk page and attract their attention with the {{ping}} template.

FYI, whatever financial arrangements are behind sales of the book are of no interest here. What is of interest is knowing if you have any personal involvement with the promotion of this book, particularly if you are being paid to do so. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 18:42, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a place to store research in progress for the next guy?

I did a bunch of research trying to track down a fact and found no support for it in a bunch of places. However, there are print journals that I can't get to that may support the statement. Is there a place/way to put the list of what I already checked somewhere so the next person doesn't have to start from zero? Thanks. Gwen the Cat (talk) 18:07, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gwen the Cat: You can put some notes onto the article's talk page. Also, check out WP:RX. There is where you can find Wikipedians with access to journals and other resources that you may not have access to. RudolfRed (talk) 18:17, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Gwen the Cat (talk) 18:29, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

editing references

I need to edit a reference, but editing is not allowed under Visual Editing. I can't open a window under Source Editing to make edits in references. I'd be grateful if someone could tell me how to do this. Thanks!Kjysoi4 (talk) 18:37, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References are placed not in the "References" section but in the text with the facts being referenced, see Help:Referencing for beginners. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:57, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Linking Old Revisions

How to I link an old revision for my talk page? MegaGoat talk 18:41, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MegaGoat: first you need to know the old revision ID, then you can simply use a wikilink like Special:Permalink/929421268#Linking Old Revisions. Or you can use a Template from the {{Oldid}} family. --CiaPan (talk) 18:56, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, now i'm going to put these links in my sandbox so I can look back to see what I need to do. 𝘔𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘎𝘰𝘢𝘵 (talk)

Cost to Run Wikipedia per month?

What is the total cost to run to Run Wikipedia per month? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.67.140.56 (talk) 18:54, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy hello! You can see the fundraising and expense stats at Wikipedia:Fundraising statistics. In 2017/18, the WikiMedia foundation spent 81 million USD, averaging almost 7 million a month. You can look at this to see the WMF's official audited expenditure reports. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:05, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Citing scientific journal articles?

Hi! Hope y'all are doing well. I was wondering what the rules are about citing scientific journal articles that are copyrighted. Are they allowed to be cited, but all findings must be paraphrased properly so that the content is not copied? Or can you not even cite them? Thanks for the help! Brsmith19 (talk) 19:34, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Brsmith19 and welcome to the Teahouse. Any published reliable source may be cited if it supports statements in a Wikipedia article. This includes scientific journals, newspapers, magazines, news sites on the web, books, and other such sources. (The rules of copyright are the same for all kinds of publications.) It is never a violation of copyright to cite a source. In addition, short quotatiosn from a source may be included in an article. The text must clearly state the source of the quote, must mark off the quote with quote marks or using <blockquote>...</blockquote>, and must also cite the source in a footnote or other inline citation. Additional information from the source can and should be used, but rewritten in original phrasing. See Wikipedia:Quotations for more detailed advise on how much quoteed t4ext is advisable, and how to format quotes. See Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing for advice on rewriting source content. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:07, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV and the subject of bias

I've been reading over the debate about neutrality within the 2019 Hong Kong protests article. So far a common argument I've seen that neutrality can be curved if the reliable sources themselves have decided that something is right or wrong. An example from a user is "If reliable sources declared Hitler is evil, then Hitler is evil, despite it not being neutral towards Hitler." Essentially, reliable sources can overrule the neutrality rule despite it being biased? Do a certain number of reliable sources overwhelmingly supporting one side dictate what overrules neutrality? What is the line between saying what reliable sources say and neutrality on a certain article?

Again, all answers and opinions are helpful. YouGottaChill (talk) 20:54, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@YouGottaChill: It’s a tricky topic, but NPOV doesn’t mean everything has to be straight down the middle, “nothing is good, nothing is bad, everything is neutral”. Rather, it means articles have to reflect the available sources in a balanced way and without allowing the editor’s own point of view to come in to play. If a majority of sources say something is bad, Wikipedia can absolutely say so, and that doesn’t breach NPOV rules. If a small number of reliable sources disagree, we can include a section to that effect as well. What would breach NPOV would be if I only used sources that were negative, or only picked the negative elements of sources, or drafted the article using language that emphasised the negative and threw doubt on positive elements. Hug^syrup 21:09, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Kruszewski draft

Hi, my name is Meredith and I work for Stifel, which is disclosed on my profile and at Draft talk:Ronald Kruszewski. I submitted an article about Ronald Kruszewski at Draft:Ronald Kruszewski back in August, but I'm still waiting for a review. I thought I'd post a message here in case editors familiar with Articles for Creation wanted to take a look. I'm confident he is notable based on the amount of coverage received, and I believe editors will find the draft to be accurate, neutral, and well-sourced. I don't plan to edit live pages related to Stifel directly because of my conflict of interest. Is someone here willing to take the page live?

Thanks for any help! Meredith at Stifel (talk) 21:12, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Editors here are not necessarily article reviewers. And given that this is the first time you have created an article, advice is to wait for the AfC review. If declined, you will get advice on what needs improvement. Taking an article directly to Main space runs risk of it being nominated for Articles for Deletion (AfD), a worse place to be. P.S. Your declarations as PAID on your User page and the Talk page of the article are appreciated. Many new editors neglect this requirement. David notMD (talk) 23:16, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion

I was under the impression I submitted an article for review, but apparently, I didn't do that. It has since been marked for deletion. I'd be happy to start the process over again, if that's easier. I am just not sure what to do, as I had provided numerous links and tried to create the page in accordance with the rules. I checked out multiple pages to get an idea of what things look like like, in addition to reviewing the rules.

How to handle?

Wpearce1983 (talk) 22:05, 5 December 2019 (UTC).)[reply]

Wpearce1983 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. It appears to me that most of the references in your draft are press release-type articles or routine announcements. These types of references are not what is being looked for. Wikipedia articles summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage state about article subjects that meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability(in this case, the definition of a notable person). Significant coverage is more than just a routine announcement or press release, but something extensive that the reference has chosen on their own to write. The nature of your references causes the draft to read like a resume and not an encyclopedia article. Have you read Your First Article? 331dot (talk) 22:13, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I find this reaction confusing. My post was published articles from reputable sources.

Is it best just to delete the page myself and start over, given that I missed the standard process (despite, as I indicated above, operating under the impression I was following the regular process)?

Wpearce1983 (talk) 22:21, 5 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]

You haven't necessarily done any wrong in terms of the process. The sources are 'reputable' but that isn't the issue. The issue is the references themselves. They largely consist of routine announcements which mention Mr. Olesky little if at all. At least one other had a quote from him- but that is not an independent source. What is needed are references that largely discuss him and are independent of the subject. 331dot (talk) 22:27, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Successfully writing a new article is the hardest task on Wikipedia, and it's easy to get discouraged, but my intention isn't to discourage you. Have you used the new user tutorial? That may help you understand the process more as well. 331dot (talk) 22:29, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have reached out for help, I have removed the speedy deletion tag for now. I would suggest that you use the tutorial before working on the draft further; feel free to continue to ask questions here as well. 331dot (talk) 22:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the clarification (and apologize if I came across as testy). I've acquainted myself with the process but will do so again, then try to create the page for the subject using the article for creation link provided elsewhere so it will be given proper review.

Wpearce1983 (talk) 22:49, 5 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Hello, Wpearce1983. You can and should work on the existing Draft:Lee Olesky, which several other editors have now made minor improvements to. When you think the draft is ready, just click the blue "Submit your draft for review" button at the bottom of the grey "Draft article not currently submitted for review." box at the top of the draft. Do not leave the draft unchanged for a period of 6 months, as it may be deleted as abandoned. You should be warned a month before that could happen.

Please try to be sure that the draft contains several Independent published reliable sources that discuss Olesky in some detail. That means not interviews or press releases, not fan sigtes, forums, or blogs, and not routine announcements. There should be at least three or four sources, each of which has at least several paragraphs about Olesky or his specific creative work.

However, try to avoid over-sourcing. I note that one sentence has seven different sources cited. It is a little unusual for that many separate sources to be needed at the same point. If some of those support only a single fact in that sentence, they can be moved to just after that fact, so they are not all bunched up. If soem of them essentially duplicate others, keep only the best 1 or 2. -- and perhaps note the alternates on the talk page. But the key is to get those detailed, reliable, independent sources.

Note that once you submit, there may well be a delay of several weeks or even months, because there is a large backlog of draafts awaiting review. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:24, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What is the rule to adding an disambiguation hatnote?

I was editing the Goal (website) page and noticed that this did not have an disambiguation hatnote even though an disambiguation page exists! Why? Maccore Henni _{Mii! Pictochat Mii!} 22:14, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably, because no-one has thought of adding it. I would encourage you to add it. Maproom (talk) 22:31, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It does, indeed, have a hatnote that refers to the dab page. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 05:58, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mac Henni. Please ignore the above answers. Maybe they thought you were referring to Goal. The title of Goal (website) shows the article is about a website. We only have one article about a website called Goal so no hatnote is needed. Hatnotes are for cases where the full title including a part in parentheses may be confused with other topics. See also Wikipedia:Hatnote#Disambiguating article names that are not ambiguous. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:12, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@PrimeHunter: So basically: you're saying if the topic has one possible permutation, you don't need a hatnote? Maccore Henni _{Mii! Pictochat Mii!} 19:03, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mac Henni: Yes, basically. Wikipedia:Hatnote is the official guideline. We do make some exceptions when readers are likely to be unsure whether they are on the right page. Wikipedia:Hatnote#Disambiguating article names that are not ambiguous mentions the numerous treaties at Treaty of Paris. Treaty of Paris (1320) can only refer to the 1320 treaty but do readers really know whether they want that year or the treaty from 1303, 1323, 1355, or another year? Readers who get to Goal (website) know whether they are looking for a website, and probably clicked the link because they are. Some editors (not me) have argued that "X (something)" should always have a hatnote to "X" or "X (disambiguation)" but there is no consensus for that. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:14, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And @AlanM1:, not trying to not start a flame here, but if you did notice that I put a clarification as to which site I want, the 'website' named Goal. I apologize for the confusion. :) Maccore Henni _{Mii! Pictochat Mii!} 19:07, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mac Henni: My fault. I must have just gone to the Goal page manually instead of following your link. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 02:04, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting for information about a mainspace article

Hello ,greetings from Zimbabwe .i came across this article Tony_Ganiosand i have noticed it has 2 references which includes Youtube which cannot be used as a reference ,the second reference mentions almost nothing about him .Is there an exception of Wikipedia:Reliable_sources given to subjects like him that i'm not aware of? .Also what should i do when i find similar articles?,I'm here to learn ,thank you Georgiamarlins (talk) 22:56, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Georgiamarlins and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia has many articles which are not fully up to current standards. Some are old from a time of different standards, some slipped past, some are just borderline. Do note that for an actor in films or television, the credits of each released (published) work he or she has appeared in are an implicitly cited source confirming that actor's appearance in that production. Also it is not at all the case that Youtube cannot ever be used as a reference. Many of the videos on YouTube are self-created, or are copyright infringements, and so are not reliable or not usable here. But quite a number are posted officially by reliable broadcast organizations or journalists, or by recognized experts in the relevant field. These can be cited, just as if the same organization or person had published them separately on the web. I am not sure if the particular video in Tony_Ganios is from a reliable source or not.

You could 1) look for sources, and add any useful ones to the article; 2) tag the article with {{BLP sources}} or some simiaolr tag to call attention to the issue, or 3) Nominate the article for deletion at articles for Discussion if you ahve done a sufficiently though search to be confident that needed sources do not exist. See WP:BEFORE on the scope of a needed search. Or you could do none of these, and jsut leave the article as it stands. Any of these would be acceptable, it is your choice which action you take. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:46, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you DESiegel i have added external links to the article since i din't find sources for inline citations ,thank you for the information ,next time i will know what to do.Cheers!Georgiamarlins (talk) 23:53, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Igwilo

I got a message on the above subject that reads "A tag has been placed on User:Igwilo requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia", after creating an account with my name, Igwilo. Please what does it mean and what do I do. Igw!lo 07:26, 6 December 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Igwilo (talk • contribs)

@Igwilo: Your userpage (the personal page you see when you click on your username) was tagged, and subsequently deleted, for misusing Wikipedia as a web host, because it contained content not closely related to the purpose of Wikipedia. You have since recreated the page, which now looks fine to me. So all you really need to do now is not repeat the same mistake, and ensure you keep your user page to content related to your activities as an editor, and a small amount of personal information if you wish. I suggest you read WP:UPYES and WP:UPNO for a useful overview of what you may, and may not, have on your page. If an admin comes by this question they will also be able to look at the deleted page and tell us in more detail exactly what the problem was with the content you had there. Hug^syrup 08:10, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hugsyrup: Thank you. Am just new here. Please how do I create my name Igwilo Kingsley Chinwuba on Wikipedia without violating any rule. I noticed that it appears red anywhere is typed but several other names are blue with hyperlinks.Igw!lo 09:46, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Igwilo: Your userpage exists, and so if you type [[User:Igwilo]] that will display as User:Igwilo which is, as you see, a blue link going to your userpage. You can also format it in other ways such as [[User:Igwilo|Igwilo]] which means just your name appears, without the 'user:' - i.e. Igwilo. A link such as [[Igwilo Kingsley Chinwuba]] will be red (Igwilo Kingsley Chinwuba) because it is looking for an article with that name, and no such article exists. Unless you are notable, and have sources to demonstrate that you are notable, you should not attempt to create an article in the mainspace with that name. Can I just remind you that Wikipedia is not a social media site where people create personal pages - it is an encyclopedia full of articles about notable topics, and editors sometimes put a bit of basic information about themselves on their userpage just to help get to know each other. Hug^syrup 09:52, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hugsyrup: This is just getting interesting and I honestly appreciate your help, Thank you so much. Please can you kindly give me a little brief on how I can format my username to remove 'User:'. Again, can i put basic information about myself on my userpage also, things like age, place of origin, education etc. without violating any rule.Igw!lo 10:28, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Igwilo: You can't permanently remove User: from your userpage, that is an essential identifier to differentiate it from other types of page. And, honestly, there is no good reason to want to remove it unless you are trying to make your userpage look like an article, in which case you are misusing Wikipedia. However, when you write a link to your userpage, you simply use the pipe symbol |. Everything before the pipe is the actual page name, and everything after the pipe is what shows up as the blue text. For example, [[User:Hugsyrup|This is a link to my userpage]] shows up as This is a link to my userpage. In answer to your second question, can I direct you again to WP:UPYES and WP:UPNO for the policies on what you can include on your userpage. A small amount of biographical information is fine as long as it does not look as if you are using the page for personal promotion, as a CV, as a blog, etc. Once again, your primary purpose for being here should be to edit the encyclopedia, not to create a personal profile. Hug^syrup 10:44, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hugsyrup: I now understand. I will continue to learn more on articles and editing. Thank you very much and Best regards.Igw!lo 11:08, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Want to write about a comapny named Nandog

It is a pet gear company that supplies pert products like pet beds, pet poo bags, etc. I have tried writing about that but every time it says promotional content and falls under speedy deletion. But Again I want to give a fair trial.https://www.nandog.com/.https://www.linkedin.com/in/nando-vergara-6631078/

Please help me with it. This is my first task on the wiki pages. And I have to do it. https://www.agreatertown.com/mission_hills_ca/nandog_pet_gear_0004298852

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Priyanka8971 (talk • contribs) 08:40, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Priyanka8971: Welcome to The Teahouse. There are three things you need to be aware of to help you with this.

The first is that from saying this is your 'task' and you 'have to' complete it, I assume you are doing this as part of your job? If so, you must make a disclosure on your userpage as required by our policy on paid editing, and you should also read the guidelines on editing with a conflict of interest. In particular, if you have a COI, you should not create articles direct in the mainspace but only via a draft following the AFC process.

The second is that the company will only be included in Wikipedia if it is notable - which means it must have been the subject of significant coverage in multiple, reliable, independent sources (such as newspapers, journals, published books, etc.). Most small companies cannot meet this standard and so attempts to create an article about them simply will not succeed.

The third thing is that if Nandog can prove its notability, it must still be written in a balanced and non-promotional way. In general that means only including information that is from reliable sources, not dwelling unduly on products, benefits, marketing information, etc, and above all writing the article in a way that sounds like an encyclopedia and not a company website or a press release.

If you can deal with those, then your draft is less likely to be deleted, but I should warn you that step 2 is a difficult barrier to get over for most businesses. Hug^syrup 09:18, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Priyanka8971: - when I wrote the above response, I hadn't seen the full history of this article and the warnings/notifications on your talk page. Now that I have, I'm afraid my advice is going to be a bit blunter: you need to stop attempting to publish this article. You have been advised that the company is not notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, and no amount of editing will change that. Your continuous attempts to get it published under different names will not succeed and are becoming disruptive, and you risk being blocked. I suggest you explain to your employers that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a business directory, and that the company is not yet notable enough to be covered in an encyclopedia. Hug^syrup 09:29, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did something that made my Wiki Application worse but...

I hace absolutely no idea what I accidentally pressed or click for it yo happen.

For instance Vladimir Lenin's entry paragraph was just a súper quick-couple sentence long overview rather than the common two to three paragraphs popular articles usually have.

I was reading the article in English and directly noticed the differences by moving back to my PC to confirm I wasn't going crazy, alongside having my app, until now, set to prefer offline articles to save data consumption.

Apologies for the grammar and formar, autocorrect is a huge pain when writing in a second language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.160.103.167 (talk) 09:00, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, IP user, I don't understand what you are saying. I think you are saying that the Wikipedia App (on which platform?) has changed the way it is displaying an article. (I have no idea how to help you, I'm just trying to clarify what your question is; but if that is the case, I suggest looking at WP:SMARTPHONE, and if that doesn't help, asking at WP:VPT. --ColinFine (talk) 11:05, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Block me

Dear all, As you will see on my user page, I am a doppelganger account for testing. But the test failed, and this account lost its purpose. So can someone block this account indefinitely for me? Thanks, and goodbye to Wikipedia! Calc Guru (talk) 10:02, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Calc Guru: Are you sure it failed? {{Ping}}s from your own user page probably don't do anything, nor does it work if you don't sign it. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 10:36, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the color of the changes on a diff

Weird question, and I don't know how I can ask this clearly but...is there a way I can change the color of the changes on a diff? Like [2] for example. My eyesight is not that great and does not do well with light colors on a white background. Sub |_HMU 12:19, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hola Subwaymuncher, You can change the color of the diffs to yellow and green by going to your Preferences at the top right, click Gadgets, and check the box under Appearance that says Display diffs with the old yellow-and-green colors and design. You can also have a black background by checking Use a black background with green text. I hope that helps you at least a little bit. Let me know how you get on. Interstellarity (talk) 12:43, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect! Thanks Interstellarity!

@Subwaymuncher: If you're feeling adventurous, you can customize the colors by creating your own custom CSS stylesheet at User:Subwaymuncher/common.css with the following lines in it:

.diffchange-inline {
	background-color: #FCC !important;
	color:inherit !important;
}

The #XXX (or #XXXXXX or a color name) is the color for the background ("highlight") that you can adjust to your liking. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 04:46, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: The original version of the above was incorrect, so I've edited it because striking it out resulted in a confusing mess. Mea culpa.) —[AlanM1(talk)]— 10:46, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question for how to get help on articles.

My question is where exactly do I post articles needing help in general. Not like specific question help (As the Teahouse covers that), but a place to ask other editors to help expand the article. If this is the correct place, here is the article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_French_Pension_Reform_Plan_Strike

-Thanks in Advance (Also the article is a current Event, so once expanded, it needs to be added to the "In the News" section of the Main Page and the "Current Events" page.)Elijahandskip (talk) 16:16, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Elijahandskip, you can ask for help at the relevant Wikiprojects talkpages, see Talk:2019 French Pension Reform Plan Strike. It may not result in quick action, but asking is cheap. On the other thing, see WP:ITN. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:24, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hello Elijahandskip. All articles are works in progress, and many of them need help. any General Wikipedia:Articles needing attention would mahve millions of enttries an be useless. The thing to do is to identify the particualr problem and notify the appropriate sub group of editors who attempt to deal with that specific problem. Note that most (I think mall) of the maintenance tags place aerticels they are used on into categories which editoirs tryign nto find and fix a particular category of problem can and do use to find and deal with such issues. If there is an appropriate tag, start by using it -- unless you can fix the problem yourself, of course. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:30, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Check for notability

Hi, just wanted to check whether the subject I am beginning to write about (PrEP+) is a notable topic for an AfC. Thanks, Thatone~~weird~~wikier Say hi 17:26, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thatoneweirdwikier, Can you please link to the article you are writing about? Interstellarity (talk) 18:11, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If this is about Frank Ocean's event, it does fulfill the general notability guidelines, but the coverage seems to only have lasted for a few days. Possibly it would be better to add a short mention of this to Frank Ocean's article instead. – Thjarkur (talk) 19:07, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean PrEP as anti-viral drugs meant to reduce risk of HIV, that is already an article. Ocean's event was named after the drug concept. David notMD (talk) 20:33, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Submitting a request for a new article

Hello I am wondering if anyone can help me. I am currently editing and adding to a draft article that someone else submitted which got rejected for not having enough source material. I think the addition of the article would be really good but I do have a conflict of interest which I have stated on my editor page and have read all the guidelines on conflicts of interest - I know the person that the article is about. I would really appreciate it if someone could check for any bias on my part and also before submitting it tell me the likelihood of it being accepted- I would hate to be banned from Wikipedia as an editor and so I am trying to be as transparent as possible. The draft article is called Lady Kitt. Thank you ≈ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slikitty (talk • contribs) 18:12, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Slikitty, it is recommended that you do not create or edit articles that you have a conflict of interest with. You can ask someone to create the article for you if you wish. Also, if you are being paid to edit Wikipedia, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. Does this help? Interstellarity (talk) 18:16, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Interstellarity thank you for responding. When I read the guidelines for writing an article about someone you know it said it was recommended that you did not do this but that if you did it was best practice to ask for help from other editors to check for bias and that it is a notable article. I have already edited quite a lot of the draft and was just wondering if someone could check it over to remove any of my bias and to check if it can be submitted? Does that make sense?Slikitty (talk) 18:30, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Slikitty, I don't have the time to look over your draft for you since I am not an AFC reviewer. I recommend that you submit your draft and someone else will review it for you. Interstellarity (talk) 18:54, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Given that you have declared a COI on your user page, I don't foresee a problem in you submitting Draft:Lady Kitt to AfC. David notMD (talk) 20:35, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link: Draft:Lady Kitt.

Slikitty: I don't see any bias, but I'm not sure you have established the subject's notability by citing enough references to reliable independent sources that discuss the subject. Ref. 1 is to the site of a gallery showing the subject's work, and so not independent. 2 is to the subject's own web site, ditto. 3 reports what the subject said, ditto. 4 and 5 were written by the subject, ditto. 6 seems to me a good reference, helping to establish that the subject is notable. But 7-16 also do very little to establish notability, some of them don't even mention the subject. I'd encourage you to find and cite more sources like ref. 6 (and probably drop many of the others). If you submit it now, maybe it will be accepted, maybe it will be declined (it won't be rejected). Either way, here's no risk of your being banned, that's reserved for editors who repeatedly violate Wikipedia's rules, despite being warned. Maproom (talk) 21:19, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Creating an entry

Can I create an entry? Or am i only allowed to edit them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahines13 (talk • contribs) 18:34, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ahines13 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. At this time, you cannot directly create a new article- but you may use Articles for Creation to create and submit a draft for review. I would recommend doing that even if you make autoconfirmed status(account is four days old with 10 edits) as creating an article is more difficult than most people think it is. I would also recommend that you use the new user tutorial first, and edit some existing articles to get a feel for how Wikipedia operates. 331dot (talk) 18:52, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Need help with a redirect

Hello everyone! I've written an article in a draft and accidentally moved to the mainspace the talk page instead of a article itself. Then I made a redirect back to the draft- and now I can't make a new correct redirect. Can someone please help - why does it happen, what am i dong wrong? I've done these types of redirects before, this time was a mess( Thanks in advance.--Less Unless (talk) 00:13, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Less Unless, I deleted the accidentally created redirect. If you try now it should work. You might consider whether it's ready for prime time, though—that referencing is slim, to put it mildly. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:09, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seraphimblade Thank you for your help. It worked. I know there are not many refs, but it's everything there is on this artist. There are 2 library records, I hope it'll be enough.--Less Unless (talk) 13:21, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A.S.N 1ST

PLEASE DON'T DO THIS PLEASE,I WAN'T TO SEE MY TEAM INTO ALL PEOPLES I SEE THAT THEY KNOWS THAT A.S.N 1ST IS A WORLDS 1ST TEAM THAT SHOWING ON WIKIPEDIA I HAVE A REQUEST PLEASE DON'T DELETE — Preceding unsigned comment added by A.S.N 1ST (talk • contribs) 02:36, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A.S.N 1ST, sorry, but Wikipedia is not a webhost, and material like that is not appropriate here. Please consider a website set up for your team, social media, or a wiki farm. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:39, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zero errors but my draft cant be pablished

Article content

Martin Grof was born on April 17, 1982 Bratislava, Czechoslovakia. In 1998 he shot his first student film Illusions at High School in Vienna, Austria, which was also screened at a local movie theater.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Aktuality |first1=sk |title=film Illusions |url=https://www.aktuality.sk/clanok/14.chaela-jacksona |website=Ringier Axel Springer}}</ref> While studying at the High School, he got a job in the national Slovak TV, STV, and became a professional cameraman at 20 years old. He then directed music videos for popular artists in Czech and Slovak Republic, such as Iveta Bartošová<ref>{{cite web |last1=SME |first1=Sports |title=Sports SME |url=https://sport.sme.sk/c/6478665/strelcov-v-londyne-sleduju-slovenski-kameramani-su-svetovou-spickou.html}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1=zoznam |first1=Hudba |title=Zoznam.sk |url=https://hudba.zoznam.sk/spravy/18-...p-zivotne-cesty/}}</ref> and Peter Cmorik which gained him success and got an offer to direct live television shows at STV at the age of 24. He is best known for his first feature film Excursion (2018)<ref>{{cite web |last1=tude |first1=y |title=youtube |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j949lGps4i4}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1=etrend |first1=mid |title=medialne |url=https://medialne.etrend.sk/}}</ref> which was written and produced within only 7 months and immediately won the Grand Jury & Audience award at the film festival in PA, USA at the day of its world premiere. Beside that Grof gained for the thriller many other awards and nominations including best director, best picture and best producer.<ref>{{cite web |last1=den |first1=ty |title=tyden |url=https://www.tyden.cz/errorpage.php}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1=stranka |first1=k |title=musicsever |url=https://musicserver.cz/clanek/4582...k-zivotne-cesty/}}</ref> He is big in his country. He made many music videos for big musicians there. See the links below.

@Md arman aziz: Your draft was declined because the subject doesn’t show WP:Notability. For a subject to be notable, there must be multipleWP:Reliable sources about the subject. For information about the criteria for a person to be notable, see WP:NBIO. LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 03:37, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is very very unfriendly in its ways to anyone new, attempting to contribute anything what so ever to Wikipedia

Dearest Wikipedia,

The barrier of entry for newcomers, even professionals as myself, is too high. I am giving up. I have at various points tried to contribute to this otherwise great forum of knowledge with absolutely credible information.

Was it not supposed to be a forum, where one can contribute within areas where one possess knowledge? Was it not meant to be in such a way so that when someone shares something which is factual and proper - then it will become a part of Wikipedia's knowledge base?

Every time I have just been hit in the head with rejection of anything what so ever. There is no friendly guideline. No hint as to concrete examples taken from what ever one wanted to contribute.

The language you are using, seem to be deliberately hostile to any newcomer. I am not stupid in terms of English, however, any response and attempt to "Guide" us newcomers is filled with jargon, and even ways of using the language which is very uncommon. It may be normal for people who work with encyclopedia and written knowledge administration, but it is very very hostile to newcomers.

I have at times tried to sit with a dictionary to understand the words being used - and while I understand these words as in the words themselves - there is a thick layer of connotation and "business-usage" of the same words, and this too, is not friendly at all.

So, you can shove it. I have a certified and verified IQ - by the way - of 146 - measured by Mensa, who is one of the leaders in such measurements - and I have worked within plenty of areas where I would likely be able to share some 200 to maybe 300 expert articles on various topics. But my few, innocent attempts to start by sharing a few things I know a little about has been met with the "hammer method" - or the "mushroom harvesting method".

Wikipedia has therefore moved away from being a place where professionals can share their knowledge - to become an elitist group who largely sits and polish their own helios/glory by making the very entry of any content so complex so that the ones which this was meant for - have been left out.

Frankly - I am a busy person - and I guess many with me are. I would love to share with everyone here on Wikipedia, the way it was - but I do not have the time for this learning curve, nor the patience, nor the stamina to be mistreated - by administrative, almost Kafka'-like behaviours.

So. You good people - live long and prosper - I will instead post things elsewhere, where everything is more in touch with reality.

And if you want me and other experts in plenty of fields which you have not even started to cover, to write, then you who sit and guard your territory of gibbedigook self-inflated, with arrogant barriers, need to change. David Svarrer

Sincerely David T. Svarrer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidsvarrer (talk • contribs) 04:53, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidsvarrer: Sorry you feel that way, but I'm not seeing what led to it. Can you give us examples where you have "been hit in the head with rejection of anything what so ever"? Your edit history shows that you posted to Talk:Nucleosynthesis in 2017 (no response) and to Talk:Jumia ‎ in 2018 (no response). You have made edits to Lead–acid battery and Solar azimuth angle this year, and all of those edits are still in the articles. You tried to create an article in 2016 and it was rejected as not showing notability with reliable sources. The only posts to your talk page are the notice of the rejection with suggestions and links, and a follow up post. The draft was deleted more than 6 months later as an abandoned draft, so it appears that you never went back to it. Meters (talk) 05:25, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And, as the notice at Draft:Unboss says, WP:REFUND applies, soyou have only to ask to have the draft restore if you wish to work on it. Meters (talk) 05:28, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Davidsvarrer. Some of the things you posted above about Wikipedia being a forum, a place to share information that is factual and proper, or a place where professionals can share their knowledge sort of indicate that you might slightly be misunderstanding the role Wikipedia is trying to play. Perhaps this will be clearer if you take a look at the following pages: Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth, and Wikipedia:Expert editors. Or course, Wikipedia wants people with expert knowledge about specific subjects to help improve the overall quality of articles, but all editors have to work within Wikipedia's various policies and guidelines when doing so. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:13, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Davidsvarrer. Because Wikipedia is crowdsourced, and editors are, in principle, anonymous, the encyclopedia is based only on material found in reliable, published sources. For that reason, anyone interested in 'sharing a few things they know a little about' has come to the wrong place, unless they have a citation to a reliable source to back up what they know. Wikipedia has evolved as a project and a community starting from a blank and empty file, through much trial and error, battles and discussion. It may sound harsh, but in all practicality, there is no way to make a usable encyclopedia via crowdsourcing without such a constraint.--Quisqualis (talk) 07:23, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Davidsvarrer I think you have some misconceptions about what Wikipedia is; Wikipedia is not and has never claimed to be "a place where professionals can share their knowledge". Wikipedia is not for posting our personal knowledge, whether one is an expert or not- nor is it merely for sharing knowledge. It is, as noted above, based on materials found in independent reliable sources. Experts in fields are welcome, but they must work with everyone else here in a collaborative manner. As noted by Meters, your participation has been asked for over the years but you have not responded and it's also not clear where you have experienced this poor treatment- which would be wrong if you did- please provide examples of this poor treatment. I do find it interesting that an expert professional is accusing us of being elitist. We're not elitist and are willing to work with you to help you, but you need to meet us halfway. 331dot (talk) 10:45, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidsvarrer: You didn't mention a single page, editor, quote, time, or anything else which can be used to guess what you refer to. Are you by any chance referring to your edit [3] to the article wikisource:Landmark Education suffers humiliating legal defeat in New Jersey Federal Court? The edit was not to Wikipedia but to Wikisource. Your complaint at wikisource:User talk:EncycloPetey#Flavoured and non-factual article about Landmark Education is more recent than your Wikipedia edits. wikisource:Wikisource:About says: "Wikisource is a Free Library of source texts which are in the public domain or legally available for free redistribution. Wikisource is an official project of the Wikimedia Foundation and a sister project of Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia." Wikisource republishes existing source texts and Wikisource editors should not change them. The top of the article gives the original author and publication. Rick Ross published it in Cult News in 2005. He probably isn't a Wikisource editor. Inserting your own writing in the Wikisource republication is like going to a library, pulling out a book, changing the text to something the author would disapprove, and putting it back on the shelf. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:08, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, missed the wikisource stuff. That may well explain this, although the issue was well explained at the time by User:Billinghurst. Meters (talk) 23:47, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Probably also worth explaining that to a standard Wikimedia Foundation user login that one can access all the sister wikis: Wikipedia, Wikisource, Commons, Wikiquote, Wikibooks, Wiktionary, Wikiversity, Wikivoyages, Meta, WikiSpecies, Wikidata, Wikinews; then add in all the language wikis, now total about 800 wikis. Each of these wikis share resources, and the Wikimedia scope, though each has its own community, its own scope and purpose. If you have questions about Wikisource, then please come to our general help for users at s:en:Wikisource:Scriptorium/Help. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:10, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

i need an advice for Draft:Martin Fayomi

I would be glad if someone guide me through my article Draft:Martin Fayomi This article is about Notability People

--Goldie19 (talk) 06:18, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Goldie19, you were asked to clarify exactly what makes the subject notable. You need to provide at least three WP:Reliable sources with WP:Significant coverage on the subject to claim that the subject meets the general notability criteria for people. Failing that, you need to show, supported by reliable sources, the subject meets one of the criteria of the relevant subject-specific notability guideline. For example: winning a national level music competition or a national level music award would be sufficient proof of notability for a singer. Currently, it's not clear to me what exactly the person does, and so exactly which specific criteria the person might meet. The reviewer linked WP:NMUSIC, one of the criteria of which the person might need to meet, in order to deserve an article on Wikipedia. Regards! Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 14:44, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RULES help

I've been looking at some of the articles that are a part of Template:University debating, and I noticed that some of the debate society page infoboxes include basically the entire leadership of these organizations. This means president, treasurer, vice president, secretary, outreach chair, historian, etc. This can be seen in Harvard Speech and Parliamentary Debate Society, Jefferson Society, and Washington Society. I feel like this is a violation of #7 of WP:YELLOW, but I'm not sure. Is it? It definitely feels wrong to include that information in the article. Not even big companies such as ExxonMobil include ALL of their leadership positions like CFO, COO, CTO, etc. Also, next time I see something that I feel is most likely a violation of WP:! but I'm not sure, should I still remove it? Or should I try to get clarification from somewhere like here first? Bait30 ^Talk? 08:47, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bait30, Wikipedia advises WP:BOLD editing. You can boldly make changes that you think are an improvement provided you provide a good edit summary, and in case of substantial changes, leave a talk page message with your thoughts. You just have to be very open to being reverted by others. When that happens, ask them why they reverted you. Sometimes, it's a personal disagreement which you'll have to settle between yourselves to arrive at the best option for the article. Other times, it will be that there are some policies/guidelines which your edits might violate or that the issue would have been discussed extensively at the talk page already. In case of the latter, it would have been best had you read the applicable editing policies/guidelines, searched the article's talk page archives for previous discussions on the issue or asked at the talk page before making your edits, but no harm done if you are okay with getting reverted. Bold editing without precautionary steps (those steps being, asking at the article's talk page, talk page of one of the WikiProjects of the article (for example: WT: WikiProject Medicine is the best place to ask about things you think are wrong but aren't sure about, in case of health-related articles) or talk page of related policy/editing guideline page), I would not advise for templates which are used by many articles, articles currently featured on the mainpage, high-traffic high-quality articles or highly-controversial articles which see active discussions at the article's talk page every day. Please read WP:BLP and WP:COPYRIGHT for policies that are taken very seriously, and you should not be breaking in your bold edits. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 14:26, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

page not getting approved

Hi, My query is about the page Ritam Banerjee that i had created with the citations as mentioned in your guidelines but the page is still not approved it says:

"his submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia."

please let me know why is the page not approved the photographer has many accomplishments which adhere to Articles for creation and Biographies of living persons guidelines.

Other than passing mentions some of the published articles citations are also there which clearly show significant coverage of the subject.

Thankyou. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swapnil021994 (talk • contribs) 09:13, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the references in Draft:Ritam Banerjee do you believe are to independent sources with in-depth discussion of Banerjee, as needed to attest to his notability? I've checked the first five, and none of them discusses him at all. Maproom (talk) 09:44, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have reduced the length of the draft by half. Naming magazines his work has appeared, naming celebrities and movie stars he has photographed, naming companies he has done photography work for - none of that adds to has notability. David notMD (talk) 14:38, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Biographies

I would like to create a biography page about a poet. How do I do that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Houranik (talk • contribs) 10:55, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Houranik Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Thanks for wanting to help out and contribute to this project. I will caution you that successfully creating a new article- not just "page"; a subtle but important distinction- is the hardest task on Wikipedia. It takes much time and practice. New users are much more successful when they first get some experience editing existing articles in areas that interest them under their belt, to get a feel for how Wikipedia operates and what is being looked for in article content. Users that dive right in to creating an article without doing so often end up disappointed and with hurt feelings- which I do not want to happen to you at all. Because of that I would suggest that you first edit existing articles, perhaps about other poets if you are interested in poetry, before attempting to write an article.

If you still want to try, however, I can recommend some things. You should first use the new user tutorial(a good idea either way, really) and then read Your First Article. You can then use Articles for Creation to create and submit a draft for review before it is formally placed in the encyclopedia. This way you get feedback on it while it is a draft, instead of when it is an article at which point it would be treated more critically. You may also want to review the Wikipedia definition of a notable poet to see if the person you want to write about meets that definition, and then gather as many independent reliable sources with significant coverage of this poet that you can find(not just press releases, book listings, interviews, etc.) 331dot (talk) 11:22, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image policy

Please guys I got an image from Facebook and uploaded it on Wikipedia. How do I put a copyright tag Which type of tag would I put? Taymeedeeray (talk) 12:43, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Taymeedeeray, How do you know the image can be used on Wikipedia? You can't just upload any image on the web to Wikipedia. Please read our image use policy so you know which images are allowed on Wikipedia. Interstellarity (talk) 13:05, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The image is allowed . My question is which copyright tag does a Facebook sourced image require ..... Taymeedeeray (talk) 13:08, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Taymeedeeray, Can you please link to the source where you got the image from so that I can verify the image can be used on Wikipedia? Interstellarity (talk) 13:34, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Taymeedeeray, 99% of the images you will find on Facebook do not have a compatible, free license - you therefore cannot upload them here unless they qualify as one of the limited exceptions at WP:NFC for non-free use. There are a few exceptions such as photographs provably first published before 1924, photographs created by an employee of the US federal government in the course of their duties, personal photographs explicitly released under a Creative Commons license without restrictions such as NC (but you would need to be able to link to that release). In short, the answer is probably no, you can't use it, unless it meets one of those criteria. The best place to ask, to be certain, is WP:MCQ. -- Begoon 13:54, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Contesting speedy deletion of Nathan Yau page I created and requesting your review

Hello everyone, as a young editor I would appreciate your help. ZaaraTE who is hardly more experienced as a Wikipedia editor than I am has put a speedy deletion nomination for A7 on the Nathan Yau page I recently created. I contested it immediately on the Talk:Nathan_Yau page since this person indeed looks important and notable among data science and visualization pros, and I informed ZaaraTE about that on their user talk page as well as on my user talk page. Can somebody of experienced Wikipedia editors or administrators help me understand if I have done everything correctly and if I am right that the article does not fall under deletion criteria? I am trying to progress and will be happy to know if I am doing everything right or how I can improve my contribution to Wikipedia. Thank you. Avbgok (talk) 13:34, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Avbgok and welcome to the Teahouse. I have removed the A7 tag because I believe the article does not meet A7. I also believe you did the right thing by contacting the editor on their talk page and I will leave a note that I declined the speedy deletion. Interstellarity (talk) 13:39, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Avbgok, I also recommending reading our guidance on young editors as well since you state you are a young editor. Interstellarity (talk) 13:41, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interstellarity, thank you very much for your involvement, helping me figure it all out, and the link to this guide which I did not see before - I have just read it all and some points in it indeed are very helpful. All the best. Avbgok (talk) 14:45, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Avbgok I would recommend that you take a look at this information – having twelve references for the fact that the person authors a blog is overkill. A very quick look through the first twelve sources suggests that all except the first two of those should be removed, as they are primary sources, trivial mentions of the person's name in articles about some other subject, or listings of various blogs on the same subject, including this person's blog. --bonadea contributions talk 19:12, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am getting messages in my talk box I don't under stand

They are about this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randi_Matushevitz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Empress-of-angels (talk • contribs) 13:58, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing it was a mistake, since the sender reverted it two minutes later. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 14:10, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

notability publishers

hi, dear people, i stumbled across a "Karrie Ross" which is a Do-it-yourself publisher and she also designs books and makes art... i have some urls of her, but i just cannot figure out whether she would be relevant in the terms of wikipedia.

http: //www.karrieross.com
http: //www.karrierossart.com
http: //www.bookcoverdesigner.com
http: //www.bebuddies.com
http: //www.artistartandstory.com

I found some articles on her as

http: //lapostexaminer.com/karrie-ross-balances-energy-flow-through-experiental-art-residency/2017/03/03
https: //ocweekly.com/coastline-art-gallerys-awkwardly-titled-kitsch-in-sync-art-and-its-opposite-is-all-over-the-place
http: //diversionsla.com/magical-pairing-at-fred-tieken-gallery-karrie-ross-and-sabine-meyer-zu-reckendorf/

She also received some awards on her books:

2008 The American Book Fest: Finalist: Engaging the Textured Parent! Within: Becoming a Consciously Connected Parent by Kareen Ross (she changed her name twice, which doesn't make it easier to find relevant articles on her!) Be It Now! Books 978-09723366-6-6

The most interesting subject for me seems to be the books she published, but i don't know if this makes her relevant enough, as she is a Do-it-yourself-book-publisher:

https: //www.amazon.de/s?k=Karrie+Ross&link_code=qs&sourceid=Mozilla-search&tag=firefox-de-21

I would very much appreciate your opinion, as for me this is not so obvious to decide. Thank you in advance, Gyanda. PS. I would really love if there was a general wikipedia-forum, where one could put questions on the notability of what so ever person, institution etc. - it helps so much to get the opinions of others! Kind regards, --Gyanda (talk) 14:04, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gyanda. The relevant Wikipedia notability guideline here is Wikipedia:Notability (people), more specifically Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Creative professionals. Generally, anyone can self-publish a book so simply doing that is not (I believe) going to be considered in and of itself sufficient to establish Wikipedia notability. Same goes for selling books on Amazon or having your own websites. If you can establish, however, that she or her books have received WP:SIGCOV in multiple WP:SECONDARY sources or has some of the major awards given to writers, then there's a good chance that an article can be written about her. You might want to ask about this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women writers because if an article can be written about Ross, then someone there would probably be willing to do so or at least help do so. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:14, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Marchjuly, i will have a look at all your links at once. I can understand the issue with the Do-it-yourself-publishing. I will try to find out, whether there have been mentionings on her books! And also thank you for the link on Women writers. Kind regards, --Gyanda (talk) 16:08, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please help me understand the Advert tag or maybe it was added by mistake

Hi, a user tagged the Segment article with the Advert tag, but I do not really understand exactly what is missing or wrong. The notice says: "Please help improve it by removing promotional content and inappropriate external links, and by adding encyclopedic content written from a neutral point of view." First, I do not see what content might be considered promotional. Second, there are no external links at all (and references are all notable sources). Third, I do not see where this article is written not from a neutral point of view. I asked the user on their talk page about what is meant precisely as I would like to make it look appropriate, but the user is not responding and according to their contribution history is unlikely to be a frequent visitor to Wikipedia. Actually, I assume this template might have been added by mistake and then I guess it should be removed. As a young editor I would be glad to know the opinion of more experienced editors to understand what it means and keep progressing as an editor. Thank you. Avbgok (talk) 15:40, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Avbgok Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The article was likely tagged as promotional because it does little more than state that the company exists. Wikipedia is not just for telling about a subject; Wikipedia articles must do more. They must show with significant coverage in independent reliable sources how the subject meets Wikipedia's special definition of notability(in this case, the definition of a notable company). Briefly looking at the references you have, that might be the case for this company- though sources that are just press releases, routine announcements, staff interviews, or other similar sources would not be acceptable for establishing notability. I'd suggest reading Your First Article and some of the other pages I have linked to here for more information.

I'll add that if you work for this company in any way, you will need to read and comply with the conflict of interest and paid editing policies. 331dot (talk) 15:50, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

331dot So thankful that you responded. No, I do not work for this company and am not paid for this work by any means. I have learned that this company exists only today. My sole purpose is to become a good contributor to Wikipedia and I am trying to be helpful. Can you help me make this short article look better then or understand exactly what is bad, please? Because then I do not know how to work on such subjects on Wikipedia... Honestly, I see this article not like stating the fact of existence only (also keeping in mind that somebody will help extend this article in the future or I will do it and getting a huge article from the very beginning is not necessary as I understand), but also that it is valued at over $1 billion which is not a simple startup but a rarely big, notable company, and then it has a lot of clients worldwide. There are sources that are independent, reliable, and secondary, there are multiple of them, and coverage in them is significant. For example, there are article from VentureBeat, ZDnet, Bloomberg (those are all articles about that company, not like listing profiles), and so on. Can you please take a look and help me understand? How would you change it? Really interested and need to know although I read those articles, and notability criteria, and some other guides here. The company is obviously notable and I believe the references already used in the article prove it at least they show it to me, so the problem is only with proper wording, citations, maybe adding or removing something specifically... I do not care about this particular company, only from the point of view that since it is likely to be notable then it should be present on Wikipedia, but especially I want to see how it works on this example so I can do it right in next articles. Avbgok (talk) 16:16, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you asked the editor who placed the tag about it, that's a good first step. I think expanding on the text would help. You have one line cited to seven sources; that should either be expanded or unneeded sources removed. I'm not certain you need to list investors in the company unless the sources go into detail about the investment. Those are just some initial things I saw; I'm sure others here will have excellent advice and I always feel that it is good to get other opinions. 331dot (talk) 16:26, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, well I expanded the text a bit to provide a brief understanding of what the company's solution does so it can hint at why it is valued at 1.5 billion US dollars. On investors - I added that these are notable investors (I guess this information should stay as meaningful exactly because the names of those who valued the company and gave it financing are notable). On the number of sources, well, they are required to be multiple, that's why I kept them multiple, but honestly don't know... Thanks anyway for your attention. If you have something else to say, also in view of my new edits, please tell me. And yes, that will be great to hear other opinions and maybe someone else can be also kind to help me understand how this works when it comes to companies. Thank you. Avbgok (talk) 17:02, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One suggestion: look at articles from similar companies for ideas on language, layout, etc. They can be found listed in Category:Data management software. To me, the 'Advert' tag is unwarranted; there is some "buzzword" language, however (e.g. "The core solution of Segment is..."}. 107.15.157.44 (talk) 20:35, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, your comments are very helpful. I checked some articles from there, read about buzzwords, then edited the article, and I agree it looks better now. Will work on a layout later though this should hardly relate to the 'Advert' tag which I also do not see needed. If you come up with more ideas, please tell me. Thanks again.Avbgok (talk) 21:28, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My apology to Wikipedia.com

I am SO SORRY for the mistake i made with the list of Dora episodes! (season 8) I had NO intentions of messing it up or vandalizing it in any way, shape, or form! I was only trying to fix a typo, and it got out of hand. I tried to restore it back to the way it is now, but nothing worked. I am very sorry, and I will only make simple edits to fix a typo or add to a plot. That's all I edit for anyway. I'll make you a deal: If I "vandalize" a page again, you can delete my account and ban me from EVER logging into the site again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vincentmacefe (talk • contribs) 18:07, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Vincentmacefe: thank you for the apology but there’s really no need. If it was an honest mistake then that’s fine - it looks as if the change has been reverted so you don’t need to do anything further, and hopefully you’ll be a little more careful in future. Don’t forget you can preview edits before you submit them. You’re most unlikely to get blocked immediately for a single piece of vandalism or a mistake, though of course I urge you not to vandalise and, so far as anyone can, not to make mistakes. If you edit in good faith, listen to advice, and ask for help when you need it, I’m sure you’ll do fine. Hug^syrup 18:25, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, it looks to me as if this was your first warning for any editing issues, so I am not sure why Magitroopa gave you such an abrupt warning. Normally the first warning is a lot more friendly. Sorry about that. Hug^syrup 18:29, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Child's Play (2019 remake)

Can you please check the Child's Play remake and see if there aren't too many characters? I've checked twice, and I think i miscounted. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vincentmacefe (talk • contribs) 19:17, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy: Child's Play (2019 film) David notMD (talk) 20:49, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Vincentmacef: The suggested maximum prose size is 100 kilobytes of text, and your article right now is at 11 kb, so it is not over the limit. (The limit also is not strict policy, many articles are over the limit). Best, Taewangkorea (talk) 23:47, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Help Please

Where do I go wrong with this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:John_De%27Mathew — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wangaih (talk • contribs) 22:21, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you've gone far wrong. I'm not a reviewer myself, but if I were, I'd have accepted your draft. I suggest you discuss the decision with the editor who declined it, Taewangkorea. (Often, on this page, I try to explain why a draft has been declined as failing to establish the notability of its subject. It's rare for me to take the side of the submitter.) Maproom (talk) 22:36, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Washgaih Sorry for that. I should have elaborated more on the decline rationale. I think that the subject is notable, but the draft contained a list of references, but no inline citations. In accordance with WP:V, inline citations are required for material likely to be challenged. If you could add the inline citations and resubmit it, I will review it again (and probably accept it as it is notable). Best, Taewangkorea (talk) 23:44, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Create Wikipeadia Page

Hello, I was wondering what roles or permissions I need to create a page without the process of staff having to look over it. Thanks, Owen — Preceding unsigned comment added by AwesomeJedi (talk • contribs) 23:34, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@AwesomeJedi: You do not need a user right to make a page. You can do it! I recommend using the WP:Article wizard. Before making one though, read the advice at WP:Your first article. --LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 23:45, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@AwesomeJedi: When you become auto confirmed (your account is 4 days old with 10 edits) you can directly create articles on the main space. However, I strongly recommend you use the article wizard as the reviewers there will make sure your article is ready for the main space and give you help. Best, Taewangkorea (talk) 23:51, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Taewangkorea: Thanks for the help, AwesomeJedi (talk 23:59, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing Tweets by People in "Key People" List who aren't Verified on Twitter

I'm trying to edit the TSLAQ page to include evidence for a twitter block list multiple prominent members of the twitter group use. However, these members (which are listed in the key people list in the article) do not have the verified check on twitter. Another member in the Talk page has claimed that unless the person being referenced has the verified check on twitter, their tweets cannot be used as evidence of anything on Wikipedia, even if the tweet is being used to cite information about the person sending the tweet. I think that it should be OK to use a tweet in this scenario as it is a reference to a key person's statements about their activities. Either that, or they should not be on the key person list.